Re: Re: Iran bans 2 UN nuclear inspectors from entering

[Guest guest]

The other difference is the US has a foot in Iraq, and a foot in Afghanistan. Putting the arm in Iran might be troublesome, especially if North Korea sees a chance to take advantage of the situation. Also, an attack on North Korea may make the PRC a bit testy, as would neighbors of Iran (except Iraq perhaps).

[Guest guest]

The foot in Afghanistan is the most troubling. These troops are in position to be easily isolated and chopped up. Keep in mind that everything they use from food to most of their water is shipped in from the US at vast expense, maybe a million dollars per month per soldier. If the air routes are closed it will be because they are surrounded by enemies, naturally. However, they are a long way from any place they could run to for safety if Pakistan turned on them, though maybe Russia would take them in though maybe to inter them for a while rather than give them back to us. Anyway, cut off from supplies the troops would be in trouble within a week or two just as far as staples go.

In Iraq something like that could happen as well. At least there is the Persian Gulf were cut and air routes endangered, we might be able to send a really long road convoy up to Turkey, if they'd let us through, or fight our way through Syria or Jordan to Israel. That would be quite an epic move and you can bet the world press would make much of it, in a negative way. I think there was a novel written about just that in the early 1990's. I had a copy but never read more than a little of it. Might have to order a new copy or see if the library has it.

The other difference is the US has a foot in Iraq, and a foot in Afghanistan. Putting the arm in Iran might be troublesome, especially if North Korea sees a chance to take advantage of the situation. Also, an attack on North Korea may make the PRC a bit testy, as would neighbors of Iran (except Iraq perhaps).

[Guest guest]

Actually you were right. I did a little digging and its $1 million per year, not per month. Here's one source:

http://thefastertimes.com/defensespending/2009/12/11/afghan-war-costs-will-rise-but-by-how-much/

Normally I don't make mistakes like that. I heard the number on a National Geographic special about the troops in Afghanistan about a year ago. Either the presenter on the show misspoke or I heard him wrong.

At any rate, the logistics of it all are very expensive because so much is flown in and because the fuel is expensive and so much is used. Consider that everything from the soldiers need is brought in. Not just bullets and bombs but food, water, cloths, boots, toothpaste, soap, everything. All those shipping costs add up.

This one mentions the Obama administration planning to spend $1 billion for every 1,000 soldiers in Afghanistan.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63121-crs-calculates-cost-of-us-troop-presence-in-afghanistan

In a message dated 6/24/2010 3:24:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

And for the commentary about people being not concerned enough about the political situation and world situation, well, I for one only have so many hours per day to do various things, such as work (I'm employed right now, working a contract at Amazon) and creating other things (many games) and life in general, besides teaching myself new things that are viable for employment/fun, so I can't always spend time commenting everywhere. But... to utter such a friggin' HUGE number per soldier per month without justifying it, just screams BS all over the place, and I had to call you out on it, as a matter of principle