Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (168215)	4/21/2003 7:18:06 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1577380

Some estimates where that high. They included all indirect expenses not just the direct cost of the war. They also included supposed negative economic effects and anticipated a war that dragged on for many months with thousands of US casualties. "Estimate" is too strong a term. It was a propaganda figure made up by the anti-war crowd to try and sway public opinion. But you're right, that is what I was referring to in the original post.

To: TimF who wrote (168215)	4/21/2003 7:47:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577380

The figure, thus far, has more in the range of $25B. Bush has put in a request for an initial funding of $75 billion for this war. Are you saying the president is lying? The request was developed before Saddam's regime was toppled. The impression I got is that this request was a first step, minimal allocation. Trillion Dollar? Huh? Some estimates where that high. They included all indirect expenses not just the direct cost of the war. They also included supposed negative economic effects and anticipated a war that dragged on for many months with thousands of US casualties. Ray acted as if I made the claim of one trillion. That's what I was reacting to. ted Tim