I know. I wasn't implying that. I was just trying to add some
numbers to what shouldn't be that murky of a situation.

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:00 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Well, let's do the numbers... 600 per year X 10 years (according to the
long term commitment Rummy's been talking about = 6000 American
Soldier deaths + 3 x 6000 injured = 18,000 people dead or injured,
18,000 x 3 (people in each family) = 54,000 American lives screwed
up + x number of Iraq civilians + x number of foreign troop casualties.

Not a great number.

I wasn't suggesting that any number is a good number. Currently I
think the heat is on to do something prior to the election because
those WMDs didn't show up and all we seem to have managed to do is get
our hands firmly on the tar baby. It may be too early to say how this
area will be stabilized, but looking around in that part of the world
I would have to say that a Western style democracy friendly to the USA
seems an unlikley outcome. This whole thing has been a mystery to me.


"felton" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Feb 2004 05:01:37 GMT, (SAIL LOCO) wrote:

It is more than a bit amusing that the right wind whackos have
chosen
to make Viet Nam an issue,.

Try to keep up with current events Bub. Kerry's people started
this
thing.
Funny thing is however Kerry's handelers arn't talking about what
Kerry
did
after he got out.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"No shirt, no skirt, full service"

Yes, it was the Democratic Party Chairman who seems to have started
that "deserter" business. That whole issue does seem like a waste of
time and energy. I well remember the days of the draft lottery, and I
don't remember anyone hoping for a low number I was referring to
this goofy Kerry/Jane Fonda balloon that Rush is floating. The only
real connection I can see to the Viet Nam days is that I question the
thinking that has gotten us involved in Iraq. The good news is that I
don't think we will be there for 10 years at a cost of over 50,000
Americans, but for me, 600 is too many if we didn't have a justifiable
reason to go. Not to mention the huge expenditure of our tax dollars.

I wonder how the American sentiment would view this war and our
elected leadership if we still had a draft and it *might* affect all
the young folks, instead of the few?