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: Elroy who wrote (327567)	2/27/2007 8:38:22 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1573850

re: I'm not even sure if the military salaries are included in the cost of the Iraq situation. It shouldn't be - even if the US weren't in Iraq those 150k soldiers would still be getting paid. Don't know if they are counted. Some are soldiers but some are food service, transportation, security guards... whatever. I think I read there are about 110K of them. And no, the "support contractors" probably wouldn't be required if those troops were stateside.

To: Elroy who wrote (327567)	2/27/2007 4:59:11 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573850

I'm not even sure if the military salaries are included in the cost of the Iraq situation. It shouldn't be - even if the US weren't in Iraq those 150k soldiers would still be getting paid. They would get paid either way, but without conflict most of them wouldn't be getting hazardous duty pay, or as large of resigning bonuses. Also to the extent that they are reserves who have been called up, you go from paying them for 39 days a year, to perhaps paying them for the whole year. So some of the personnel costs are additional costs related to Iraq, and some aren't.