| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/20/2005 8:18:28 AM | http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2703
Has anyone read anything regarding the distortion of casualties reported in Iraq?
This link is to an interesting article regarding DOD policy regarding the inaccurate and
often misleading tactics used when reporting war casualties. Anybody still think it's
proper to have a 40 million dollar inaugural during "a time of war". | |
|
| |
| |
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/20/2005 3:19:46 PM | coati, I must admit I fear for America and Americans at the moment. I have been lucky enough to visit a load of times and spoken to lots of people from various parts of the country and whilst I have found all Americans I have ever dealt with to be decent and highly friendly people the country seems split and becoming increasingly polarised.
Here in the UK the majority of people were/are against the war in Iraq but the split doesn't seem nearly as pronounced as it is in the US, so what else is causing it ?
In the UK I would say that the majority of the press is right wing owned but our saving grace is the dear old British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC can generally be relied on to tell it like it is and not how the government or big business want it told.
Also we do not have the responsibility America has as the only super power in the world and I'm afraid de facto has found herself in the role of world Police Force. And surprise surprise like any other police force always gets caught in the middle.
When I was in DC last June I was amazed at the number and age of the US troops who seemed to be everywhere, it can't be right to put these young people into the pressure cooker that is Iraq etc. They are the ones who come home in the body bags not the politicians, the same goes for the UK troops as well. Where is the exit plan ?
Blair and Bush got it wrong over WMD, now they have to get out of a war they can never win but even then I fear it is only going to be a case of where next. | |
|
| |
| $40 million . . try $127 million. . . see below
Posted: 1/20/2005 6:32:06 PM | Folks,
$40 million won't even touch it. See CNN article below.
:begin quote:
Private money to pay for $40 million inauguration
Security costs to be funded by governments
Thursday, January 13, 2005 Posted: 9:10 AM EST (1410 GMT)
It will take President Bush less than a minute to take the oath of office next Thursday, but before the inaugural events are over some $40 million may be spent on parades, parties and pyrotechnics.
That doesn't include the costs of the most intense security operation in inaugural history.
The amount spent on this year's festivities will rival the $40 million raised to celebrate Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and will exceed the $33 million spent by President Clinton in 1993 when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.
While the partying is being paid for privately, there have been some mutterings about the scale of the celebrations at a time of war and natural disaster.
Money for the celebratory activities is being raised by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which as of the end of last week had received $18 million, much in six-figure donations from wealthy supporters and corporate sponsors.
Bleacher seats for the parade cost $15, $60 and $125 apiece, while a ticket to a ball -- with the exception of one ball for military personnel, which is free -- runs $150.
The office of the first lady said Laura Bush will personally pay for her outfits to inaugural events, which include gowns designed by Oscar de la Renta, Carolina Herrera and Peggy Jennings.
"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted if not canceled -- in wartime," Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York wrote Bush on Tuesday.
Eight congressional Democrats from the Washington area on Wednesday wrote another letter to the president complaining of what they said was the unfair financial burden being imposed on the District of Columbia.
D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams has estimated it will cost the district $17.3 million to help pay for security at the first post-September 11 inauguration, which includes 6,000 law officers and 2,500 military personnel to guard the 250,000 people at the swearing-in and the half-million expected to line the parade route.
Williams, in a letter last month to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, said he can use $5.4 million from a fund for special events in the capital, but the other $11.9 million will have to come from the city's federal homeland security budget.
The expenses, Williams said, include $5.3 million in overtime costs for police officers and $2.9 million to cover logistics costs, such as transportation, lodging, box lunches, water and granola bars.
The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, which is responsible for the swearing-in ceremony, has $1.25 million to handle various production costs, such as staffing and printing, as well as catering and flowers for the luncheon in the Capitol following the oath of office.
The Architect of the Capitol also has a budget of $2.8 million as part of a construction project to spruce up the West Front of the Capitol, where the ceremonies will take place.
Inauguration day, with its street closings and heightened security, will also be a holiday for federal workers in the Washington area. That, according to the Office of Personnel Management, costs taxpayers an estimated $66 million.
:end quote: I edited portions not refering to numbers.
Seems to me that adds up to over $127 Million, and becomes the new government standard for boondoggle. Even with the estimated $40M in privately raised funds, the net cost to the republic is over $87M. I am sure the numbers above for Clinton's were higher too, if all the parts were added like I did here, but two wrongs don't make a right.
As a retired military guy, my thought was that we could buy a sh*tload of armored humvees for that kind of green.
 | |
|
| $40 million . . try $127 million. . . see below
Posted: 1/21/2005 7:50:48 AM | I love it. No money to supply the occupation forces in Iraq but 40 million to party is no problem.
Whose side are these guys on.
P.S. The Iraqi resistance thanks you. | |
|
| $40 million . . try $127 million. . . see below
Posted: 1/21/2005 8:14:09 AM | | Although most of the inaugural money came from corporate "donations", much of the toal expense related to security and protection came at the taxpayers expense. | |
|
| |
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/21/2005 9:57:57 AM | coati,
As you can see from my other post I am as appalled by the cost of this event as anybody. However, I have found many articles which address the costs, such as the one I quoted from. I say this because of your reference to the neo-cons controlling the media.
To me the mainstream media seems just as left-leaning as ever, anti-gun, anti-religion, etc. That's just my perception though. I can see your point, though I attribute it more to the current administrations attempts to control how information is given to the media. Just like Slick Willy's spin doctors (and every administration before him, most likely), Dubya wants to put the best face on everything related to his presidency. Pretty much human nature.
There is also a trend within the media to move away from (supposed) neutrality on the issues, to trying to help promote whichever issues are near and dear to their hearts (or whichever one will sell more papers/get more awards).
I hope that our media will return to the neutral observer status they have claimed for so long, because true freedom of the press (and fair/equitable reporting on the issues) is essential to the continued freedom of our nation.
My $0.02. | |
|
ousu
|
Joined: 8/28/2004
Msg: 11 | |
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/23/2005 3:15:22 AM | As a reply to the original title...
The estimation about woundeds in Iraq is somewhere between 20-30 000 coalition soldiers. Pentagon says 15 OOO? - The problem is that Pentagon does not count soldiers who are unable to continue in Iraq because of mental problems (I would count that as war casulty as well since we are not just "bodies"... the mind is vulnerable as well). As well they do not count those who have got injures outside real battles.
Out of this official number 15 000 only about 20% has been able to return to their units - and still they are talking about "minor injuries"... Do not know...
Only that it seems some soldiers are really disappointed their effort has not been noticed - they might not be able to work as soldiers anymore but still they are not accepted on official lists as wounded in the war. | |
|
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/23/2005 3:46:45 AM | Well the Iraqi civilian death count is min 15365 and max 17582 this according to a site called:
www.iraqbodycount.net
According to the introduction it's purpose is :
"This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies in 2003."
Just all so sad !! | |
|
ousu
|
Joined: 8/28/2004
Msg: 13 | |
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/23/2005 3:52:29 AM | Elysium, ur right: just sad! Horrible numbers...
And anyway the coalition is there free willingly so I do not feel that much pity for them - though I feel sad for those young men who did not know exactly what they were going to face in reality. The war was advertised a bit like "piece of cake". Hopefully this is lesson not to attach Iran, for example. They have suffered enough, as well, and for sure would fight back harder. | |
|
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/23/2005 4:02:59 AM | Ousu,
I agree with you - I feel for the innocent iraqi civilians (who had no choice) and the poor young men in the war zone who are in the thick of a war that was sold to them as walk in and out really.. I really do hope that the Iran is not the next target ... but ... somehow I get the feeling that thought is in vain. | |
|
ousu
|
Joined: 8/28/2004
Msg: 15 | |
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/23/2005 4:09:05 AM | | Elysium, u think Iran really could be the next one? - On the other hand the US is in trouble already in Iraq and Afghanistan is not over yet though it is said to be. Iranian have a bit different situation than Iraqi had. Even though many do not agree with the current regime they still talk about themselves as Iranian, not according their real nationality (like Asari people - do not know the English term.) And Iran is not in that bad shape as Iraq was. | |
|
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 1/23/2005 8:08:19 AM | I think that Iran is next on the list of nations who harbor terrorists (or tied with N Korea), but I think it will be diplomatic/economic pressures as opposed to military. Simply put, our military doesn't have the resources to maintain the missions we are on and add more.
You have heard the phrase 'lean and mean'? Well our military is now 'skinny and pissed', there is no slack left to engage another country in conflict with the present resources.
Not to mention how the cost of the Iraqi conflict (in $ and lives) has changed the way our nation sees such efforts. I think we are finally beginning to see how complex such things are. That doesn't mean we should never undertake such actions, many things worth doing are difficult, but now I think our eyes are much more open to the costs involved.
And lastly, I pray we can resolve future conflicts without force, as our soldiers will pay the blood price for diplomatic failure.
MHW, Major(R), USAF
100% DAV | |
|
Kesiah
|
Joined: 5/11/2007
Msg: 17 | |
| 1361 Killed and a little over 10,000 wounded...
Posted: 6/5/2007 5:35:52 AM | In the UK I would say that the majority of the press is right wing owned but our saving grace is the dear old British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC can generally be relied on to tell it like it is and not how the government or big business want it told.
The media is as diverse as the market-place that we consumers are in.
Then there is the agenda of governments... different countries and different conspiracies... read some CHOMSKY.
The BBC is answerable to the British Government, so it is also bias.
We, the British public, think it could be un-bias, but nothing is. All media is controlled by someone, and it is all subjective.
Having done a lot of studies/reading on different media theories, I recommend that the only thing that we - as citizens - can ever do, is to read a wide range of newspapers, watch a wide range of tv, and never truly believe everything! Take it in... consume it... digest it... but take it all with a pinch of salt.... keep it there in our heads... but question things!
As for all the points on USA / war / cost of war / lives lost...
Well as a woman, who likes to drive my car... I know which world I would prefer to live in. One run by USA. I know that lives are lost, money spent when it would be better spent on health, kids and poverty... but we would have no society if it wasnt down to the institutions, governments which protect us. If it wasnt Bush and Blair... it would be the same civil servants pulling the strings.. things would only be slightly different.
It is about time that we all admitted to the fact that we are consumers and live in a predominantly capitalist world... and if we wish to maintain that... then it is good that our Governments defend it.
Have you questioned the reason why the media highlights the fact that there are many anti-war campaigners... look to conspiracy theories... maybe the net result is that we don't look like the badies... let the leaders look that way... maybe it sends out a signal that the people of our countries are ok... maybe it is a pawn in the terror game??
Who knows.. but it is good to look at things from all angles... please don't respond personally to me... I am ONLY putting across some ideas here... I have an ever changing stand point.
I am anti-war. But not to the point that I want my world to change. I want my kids to go to a nice school, wear nice clothes and have a great life. I know people get killed in the forces overseas... but they do sign up for that job. It is the down-side to it. It is a shame that many members of our armed forces are from poor backgrounds and sometimes take work on in this field... because there is nothing else for them to do. That is wrong I know.
But look at some of these forums... people get so rattled... it is easy for things to get out of hand.. so maybe there is something in all the stuff about deterants.. the cold war was scarry.. but the result is that there has never been a WW3!
Ok .. time for me to go and carry on with normal mumsie stuff... good luck everyone! | |
|
Home
login 
