Anti war project at brown headed by informant
This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of shit u. Despite the
anti-war platitudes dr slutz here spews she only got her job by
informing on those in thye anti-war movement who supported real change
and action, including making false police reports on activists, myself
included. Remember, always judge people by their actions, not their
words.
Peter Z
Brown University study examines cost of War on Terror
01:00 AM EDT on Friday, October 7, 2011
By Bryan Rourke
Journal Staff Writer
Catherine Lutz, of Brown University, is co-director of the Eisenhower
Project at Brown’s Watson Institute for International Studies, which
prepared the “Costs of War” study.
The Providence Journal / Sandor Bodo
PROVIDENCE — The war on terror continues; so does the cost and the
chronicling.
“You can’t make informed decisions without this information,” said Catherine Lutz of Brown University.
Lutz is co-director of the Eisenhower Project at Brown’s Watson
Institute for International Studies. The organization’s “Costs of War”
study has been reported worldwide with its website receiving 50,000 hits
from 169 countries since its June release. Visit costsofwar.org.
Hits rose in August during federal debt negotiations, Lutz said; and in
September during the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Now we’ve reached another
notable prompt.
Friday is the 10th anniversary of U.S. military operations in
Afghanistan. Thursday, “Costs of War” was presented in Washington to a
congressional panel on the war in Afghanistan.
The report’s cost calculations aren’t finished because the war isn’t
finished.
“We’re still following the numbers,” Lutz said.
The numbers, Lutz said, are “stunning”: 225,000 killed, and up to $4
trillion spent, factoring in future medical care for disabled veterans.
The 22 report researchers, will offer another report next fall, Lutz
said, offering bigger costs for the United States, and for its allies,
including Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, Lutz said, the follow-up will
chronicle the profits of war.
In 2008, Lutz said, the Pentagon paid military contractor Lockheed
Martin $30 billion.
“Lockheed received nearly more money from the government than the EPA, the Department of Labor and the Department of Transportation combined,” Lutz said.
Now, months after the release of “Costs of War,” Lutz reflects on the
response to it.
“Some people say, ‘Wow, those are huge numbers — the dollar figure, people killed and refugees. This means the war has been misbegotten.’ Some people say, ‘You can’t put a price on what the war has accomplished.’ People’s political view tends to inoculate them against the information changing their point of view.”
The “Costs of War” was reported in media in North America, South
America, Europe and Asia.
“The foreign reporters tend to ask questions about whether this has been a burden on us and if it is putting gasoline on the fire of America’s decline. The American reporters have been very interested in the veterans’ stories.”
Lutz is also interested in the veterans’ stories. She wonders how many
stories involve post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury
and suicide.
“The U.S. government should be more forthcoming with data,” Lutz said.
The number of disability claims from the war, Lutz said, exceeds
600,000. Much of the information veterans organizations have from the
government, Lutz said, is a result of Freedom of Information Act
requests.
“The craft of governance has become the craft of public relations and information control,” Lutz said. “That is not the way a democratic government should operate.”
A goal of the report, Lutz said, is to look at the complete cost of the
war.
“People have done the body counts for a variety of wars. But the financial, social and political costs, I’m not sure.”
Another goal of the report, Lutz said, is to look at war as a means to
tame terrorism.
“Were there other ways this could have been done with less loss of life? The historical record suggests there are.”
“Costs of War” cites a Rand study of 268 terrorist groups, 1968 to 2006. In 83 percent of cases, Lutz said, resolution was reached through political accommodation, intelligence and policing. Military might succeeded in 7 percent of cases.
The ultimate goal of “Costs of War,” Lutz said, is to learn the complete
costs of war: on soldiers and civilians, on budgets and taxpayers. And,
she said, we must remember what we learn.
“This says let’s not engage in a kind of historical amnesia.”
anti-war platitudes dr slutz here spews she only got her job by
informing on those in thye anti-war movement who supported real change
and action, including making false police reports on activists, myself
included. Remember, always judge people by their actions, not their
words.
Peter Z
Brown University study examines cost of War on Terror
01:00 AM EDT on Friday, October 7, 2011
By Bryan Rourke
Journal Staff Writer
Catherine Lutz, of Brown University, is co-director of the Eisenhower
Project at Brown’s Watson Institute for International Studies, which
prepared the “Costs of War” study.
The Providence Journal / Sandor Bodo
PROVIDENCE — The war on terror continues; so does the cost and the
chronicling.
“You can’t make informed decisions without this information,” said Catherine Lutz of Brown University.
Lutz is co-director of the Eisenhower Project at Brown’s Watson
Institute for International Studies. The organization’s “Costs of War”
study has been reported worldwide with its website receiving 50,000 hits
from 169 countries since its June release. Visit costsofwar.org.
Hits rose in August during federal debt negotiations, Lutz said; and in
September during the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Now we’ve reached another
notable prompt.
Friday is the 10th anniversary of U.S. military operations in
Afghanistan. Thursday, “Costs of War” was presented in Washington to a
congressional panel on the war in Afghanistan.
The report’s cost calculations aren’t finished because the war isn’t
finished.
“We’re still following the numbers,” Lutz said.
The numbers, Lutz said, are “stunning”: 225,000 killed, and up to $4
trillion spent, factoring in future medical care for disabled veterans.
The 22 report researchers, will offer another report next fall, Lutz
said, offering bigger costs for the United States, and for its allies,
including Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, Lutz said, the follow-up will
chronicle the profits of war.
In 2008, Lutz said, the Pentagon paid military contractor Lockheed
Martin $30 billion.
“Lockheed received nearly more money from the government than the EPA, the Department of Labor and the Department of Transportation combined,” Lutz said.
Now, months after the release of “Costs of War,” Lutz reflects on the
response to it.
“Some people say, ‘Wow, those are huge numbers — the dollar figure, people killed and refugees. This means the war has been misbegotten.’ Some people say, ‘You can’t put a price on what the war has accomplished.’ People’s political view tends to inoculate them against the information changing their point of view.”
The “Costs of War” was reported in media in North America, South
America, Europe and Asia.
“The foreign reporters tend to ask questions about whether this has been a burden on us and if it is putting gasoline on the fire of America’s decline. The American reporters have been very interested in the veterans’ stories.”
Lutz is also interested in the veterans’ stories. She wonders how many
stories involve post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury
and suicide.
“The U.S. government should be more forthcoming with data,” Lutz said.
The number of disability claims from the war, Lutz said, exceeds
600,000. Much of the information veterans organizations have from the
government, Lutz said, is a result of Freedom of Information Act
requests.
“The craft of governance has become the craft of public relations and information control,” Lutz said. “That is not the way a democratic government should operate.”
A goal of the report, Lutz said, is to look at the complete cost of the
war.
“People have done the body counts for a variety of wars. But the financial, social and political costs, I’m not sure.”
Another goal of the report, Lutz said, is to look at war as a means to
tame terrorism.
“Were there other ways this could have been done with less loss of life? The historical record suggests there are.”
“Costs of War” cites a Rand study of 268 terrorist groups, 1968 to 2006. In 83 percent of cases, Lutz said, resolution was reached through political accommodation, intelligence and policing. Military might succeeded in 7 percent of cases.
The ultimate goal of “Costs of War,” Lutz said, is to learn the complete
costs of war: on soldiers and civilians, on budgets and taxpayers. And,
she said, we must remember what we learn.
“This says let’s not engage in a kind of historical amnesia.”
posted by Peter Khan Zendran at 2:19 PM
1 Comments:
Many Americans behave in a manner that makes it easy for terrorists to sleep at night.
Have some Chicken Soup for the Terrorist Soul.
Post a Comment
<< Home