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 (287495)	5/10/2006 3:25:03 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573852

"If they where destroyed or heavily damaged in Iraq you could count the cost of the replacement or repair." That's the point. The original plan was all that equipment would be pulled out after a few months. I suppose most of the tanks have, but everything else is still there and being heavily used. Has been for going on 3 years now. Most, if not all of it will have to be replaced much sooner than expected.

To: TimF who wrote (287495)	5/10/2006 3:29:34 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573852

The bullets, gasoline, used up bombs and cruise missles etc. would already be counted under the direct expenses. They have only counted the emergency appropriations. All the bombs and bullets and doctors that used to be in places like Germany or Kuwait or in ammo bunkers in Nevada have all been used up and not replaced. The tanks and Humvees that haven't met with IEDs are worn out from continuous use in a harsh environment. When you consider that a "fringe benefit" of WW2 was a rebuilding and modernization of the industrial infrastructure the country came out in good shape.