Christ on a bike! Imagine the good that could be gettin done around the place with that lot....
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182]
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- money well spent...?
money well spent...?Follow
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Military Spending allows the following to exist:
Pre-Schools
Childrens Health
Public Education
College Scholarships
Public Housing
Fight against World Hunger(Which isn't a US problem IMO, but again I am a socialist.)
AIDS Vaccine Research
World Immunization(see world hunger)
Point is without it's military, the United States would not exist much less be the worlds sole superpower(Which I've dubbed 'Hyperpower'). Like it or not, that's just how it is. The United States is going to get back 10 fold what it has spent into this operation. Directly or indirectly via taxes on major businesses conducting business there. Unless ofcourse you believe the Bush administration ACTUALLY started this because they wanted a safer America
. With this administration and the republican party in general this war represents one thing. Cold, fresh, piles of cash, and lots of it.
Pre-Schools
Childrens Health
Public Education
College Scholarships
Public Housing
Fight against World Hunger(Which isn't a US problem IMO, but again I am a socialist.)
AIDS Vaccine Research
World Immunization(see world hunger)
Point is without it's military, the United States would not exist much less be the worlds sole superpower(Which I've dubbed 'Hyperpower'). Like it or not, that's just how it is. The United States is going to get back 10 fold what it has spent into this operation. Directly or indirectly via taxes on major businesses conducting business there. Unless ofcourse you believe the Bush administration ACTUALLY started this because they wanted a safer America
. With this administration and the republican party in general this war represents one thing. Cold, fresh, piles of cash, and lots of it.I agree wholeheartedly Rhime, We can't have any of the freedoms or institutions in this country without the military to protect it.
When we succeed it will be money well spent, though I know some people are frustrated with the slow progress and the cost. Our children will have it much better for the efforts we are spending today. It will make the world a more stable and safer place.
When we succeed it will be money well spent, though I know some people are frustrated with the slow progress and the cost. Our children will have it much better for the efforts we are spending today. It will make the world a more stable and safer place.
And we might invent some cool new things that go bang.
We will definitely blow up lots of ****. We already have, but we'll continue to do so, because that's what it's there for.
That's what I'm about.
We will definitely blow up lots of ****. We already have, but we'll continue to do so, because that's what it's there for.
That's what I'm about.
fhrugby wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly Rhime, We can't have any of the freedoms or institutions in this country without the military to protect it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Pre-schools are too easy of a hit. I mean, bust through the door, get in the 'zone' (aka bullet time) and then just unload your dual magnums into the precious little targets. I don't give a fu[b][/b]ck what Mythbusters says, if I shoot a body, the limbs will flop around and I will quench my thirst for ragdoll physics.
If I'm going to shoot little children, they better damn well become airborn and fly into the white-board.
If you're listening, FBI, this is stale humor mixed with Diphenhydramine HCI. Please wait until 2 PM before busting down my door.
If I'm going to shoot little children, they better damn well become airborn and fly into the white-board.
If you're listening, FBI, this is stale humor mixed with Diphenhydramine HCI. Please wait until 2 PM before busting down my door.
Quote:
Yeah, we just barely stopped Saddam from attacking our nation's pre-schools!
Oh, of course not, we all know muslim terrorists would never target and kill hundreds of little school children.
So we only missed invading the right country by around five or six thousand miles 
Tremble in fear, Chechnyan terrorists, at our seizure of Baghdad!
Edit: Yes, I know Chechnya isn't a country per se. In fact, that seems to be the entire problem.
Edited, Wed Nov 16 10:03:26 2005 by Jophiel
Tremble in fear, Chechnyan terrorists, at our seizure of Baghdad!
Edit: Yes, I know Chechnya isn't a country per se. In fact, that seems to be the entire problem.
Edited, Wed Nov 16 10:03:26 2005 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Luckily for us most of the Muslim fanatics from the Balkans to Chechnya to Libya, have made their way to Iraq for the USA to kill, instead of us having to travel to them. It means the Iraqi theatre will take longer, but we won’t have to do an “island hopping†campaign in the war against terror.
At least San Francisco is safe then from their movement to become independant from Russia. Because that was probably their next target, if we weren't drawing all them far east Russians down to Tikrit.
Which isn't to say that what Chechnyan rebels did wasn't horrific. Indeed it was. However, it had little to do with faith and even less to do with America. The US could sink into the brine tomorrow and the Chechnyans in question would still want independence and still be using terror tactics to get Russia to withdraw from the region.
Which isn't to say that what Chechnyan rebels did wasn't horrific. Indeed it was. However, it had little to do with faith and even less to do with America. The US could sink into the brine tomorrow and the Chechnyans in question would still want independence and still be using terror tactics to get Russia to withdraw from the region.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Frme rhimes post.
My point was that this money could have been spent on things useful to the world as a whole and the ctizens of the USA in particular. You reckon any of the money being spent on Iraq is coming back to the 'people'? Or perhaps, given bush's record, it will end up in the offshore accounts of relatively few of his cronies?
Looked at in economic terms, the Iraq war, or the GWOT could be seen as a fairly efficient redistribution of wealth. ie. we (the war party) will take your hard earned cash, give it in huge piles to the military industrial sector, who will then trash a defenseless country, or two. In the meantime, other large corps. ( KBR, Halliburton et. al.) will appropriate giant piles of cash for "reconstruction", all the while promising the american tax-payer that tho' they maybe poorer, struggling to pay for an education, and indeed maimed from said war, that at least you are "safe".
looked at another way, for a lot less than the money spent so far, sadaam could have been paid to leave, or be a well behaved dictator, as he had been in the past
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
and you guys could have bought the rights to the oil. everyone happy, and a lotless people dead.
But I s'pose, that way of doing things would've not allowed for the coming invasion of Syriaand Iran.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=1802_0_1_0_C
Or to qoute an old song from the 80's, "the futures so bright, i gotta wear shades".
Quote:
The United States is going to get back 10 fold what it has spent into this operation. Directly or indirectly via taxes on major businesses conducting business there.
My point was that this money could have been spent on things useful to the world as a whole and the ctizens of the USA in particular. You reckon any of the money being spent on Iraq is coming back to the 'people'? Or perhaps, given bush's record, it will end up in the offshore accounts of relatively few of his cronies?
Looked at in economic terms, the Iraq war, or the GWOT could be seen as a fairly efficient redistribution of wealth. ie. we (the war party) will take your hard earned cash, give it in huge piles to the military industrial sector, who will then trash a defenseless country, or two. In the meantime, other large corps. ( KBR, Halliburton et. al.) will appropriate giant piles of cash for "reconstruction", all the while promising the american tax-payer that tho' they maybe poorer, struggling to pay for an education, and indeed maimed from said war, that at least you are "safe".
looked at another way, for a lot less than the money spent so far, sadaam could have been paid to leave, or be a well behaved dictator, as he had been in the past
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
and you guys could have bought the rights to the oil. everyone happy, and a lotless people dead.
But I s'pose, that way of doing things would've not allowed for the coming invasion of Syriaand Iran.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=1802_0_1_0_C
Or to qoute an old song from the 80's, "the futures so bright, i gotta wear shades".
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
From rhimes post.
My point was that this money could have been spent on things useful to the world as a whole and the ctizens of the USA in particular. You reckon any of the money being spent on Iraq is coming back to the 'people'? Or perhaps, given bush's record, it will end up in the offshore accounts of relatively few of his cronies who run these aforementioned "major businesses"?
Looked at in economic terms, the Iraq war, or the GWOT could be seen as a fairly efficient redistribution of wealth. ie. we (the war party) will take your hard earned cash, give it in huge piles to the military industrial sector, who will then trash a defenseless country, or two. In the meantime, other large corps. ( KBR, Halliburton et. al.) will appropriate giant piles of cash for "reconstruction", all the while promising the american tax-payer that tho' they maybe poorer, struggling to pay for an education, and indeed maimed from said war, that at least you are "safe".
looked at another way, for a lot less than the money spent so far, sadaam could have been paid to leave, or be a well behaved dictator, as he had been in the past
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
and you guys could have bought the rights to the oil. everyone happy, and a lot less people dead.
But I s'pose, that way of doing things would've not allowed for the coming invasion of Syria and Iran.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=1802_0_1_0_C
Or to qoute an old song from the 80's, "the futures so bright, i gotta wear shades".
Quote:
The United States is going to get back 10 fold what it has spent into this operation. Directly or indirectly via taxes on major businesses conducting business there.
My point was that this money could have been spent on things useful to the world as a whole and the ctizens of the USA in particular. You reckon any of the money being spent on Iraq is coming back to the 'people'? Or perhaps, given bush's record, it will end up in the offshore accounts of relatively few of his cronies who run these aforementioned "major businesses"?
Looked at in economic terms, the Iraq war, or the GWOT could be seen as a fairly efficient redistribution of wealth. ie. we (the war party) will take your hard earned cash, give it in huge piles to the military industrial sector, who will then trash a defenseless country, or two. In the meantime, other large corps. ( KBR, Halliburton et. al.) will appropriate giant piles of cash for "reconstruction", all the while promising the american tax-payer that tho' they maybe poorer, struggling to pay for an education, and indeed maimed from said war, that at least you are "safe".
looked at another way, for a lot less than the money spent so far, sadaam could have been paid to leave, or be a well behaved dictator, as he had been in the past
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
and you guys could have bought the rights to the oil. everyone happy, and a lot less people dead.
But I s'pose, that way of doing things would've not allowed for the coming invasion of Syria and Iran.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=1802_0_1_0_C
Or to qoute an old song from the 80's, "the futures so bright, i gotta wear shades".
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Yeah, we could use all that money to pay the bad peoples not to hurt us, but what says they dont take that money, and put it into their military and come here and kill of us? I say its money well spent (of course I'm in the Air Force, so I might be a little bias). Still, if someone has to die, better them than us.
Quote:
looked at another way, for a lot less than the money spent so far, sadaam could have been paid to leave, or be a well behaved dictator, as he had been in the past
Is it too early to cry appeasement?
Ah, ***** it. It's always 5 o'clock somewhere.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
paulsol wrote:
My point was that this money could have been spent on things useful to the world as a whole and the ctizens of the USA in particular.
This money being spent on the war would not be available to the citizens of the US for useful things if the war were not being fought (and some will argue that the war is a useful thing).
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Given that the war's been fought with borrowed money, one could argue that not sinking us deeper into debt would have been "useful" in of itself.
Just for giggles, a classic Straight Dope from the early 80's: Would the money spent in Vietnam been better used as bribes?
Just for giggles, a classic Straight Dope from the early 80's: Would the money spent in Vietnam been better used as bribes?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
looked at another way, for a lot less than the money spent so far, sadaam could have been paid to leave, or be a well behaved dictator, as he had been in the past
Is it too early to cry appeasement?
Ah, ***** it. It's always 5 o'clock somewhere.
Quote:
Appeasement is a strategic maneuver, based on either pragmatism, fear of war, or moral conviction, that leads to acceptance of imposed conditions in lieu of armed resistance. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation, in politics and in general, of weakness and cowardice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
So if thats what ya mean....yup! You got me. would've avoided a lot of death and destruction tho.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Would Vietnam war money have been better spent bribing the enemy to stop fighting?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Follow up....
[link=link] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html[/link]
I wonder if rimesumes statement is gonna be accurate.......Doubt it somehow.
Edited, Tue Jan 10 18:27:24 2006 by paulsol
Quote:
The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
[link=link] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html[/link]
I wonder if rimesumes statement
Quote:
The United States is going to get back 10 fold what it has spent into this operation. Directly or indirectly via taxes on major businesses conducting business there.
Edited, Tue Jan 10 18:27:24 2006 by paulsol
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Sure. Mind you, we might need to wait until 3077 but, sooner or later, we'll make $10tril out of this operation.
In 3077, ten trillion will be half the price of a Playstation DXIIV
In 3077, ten trillion will be half the price of a Playstation DXIIV
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Sure. Mind you, we might need to wait until 3077 but, sooner or later, we'll make $10tril out of this operation.
In 3077, ten trillion will be half the price of a Playstation DXIIV
In 3077, ten trillion will be half the price of a Playstation DXIIV
[nerd]XBox Bajillion > Nintendo GameDoDecahedron > Playstation DXIIV[/nerd]
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Funny how they express those numbers in different terms depending on what they're talking about. Some represented not in terms of the actual cost of those things over time, but in some small part of that (like how many teachers could be hired for one year).
How about this one?
The total cost of three years of the War in Iraq is still not equal to what we spend each year on Medicare.
Oddly, I didn't see that comparison on their page. Hmmm... Wonder why that is?
How about this one?
The total cost of three years of the War in Iraq is still not equal to what we spend each year on Medicare.
Oddly, I didn't see that comparison on their page. Hmmm... Wonder why that is?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Because you've discovered the dark secret that the people making that site are more opposed to the war spending than Medicare spending? And that it's about what could be spent in lieu of the war instead of in lieu of Medicare?
OMG you single-handedly uncovered the Liberal Conspiracy!!!
Congratulations!
Edited, Thu Jan 12 16:46:27 2006 by Jophiel
OMG you single-handedly uncovered the Liberal Conspiracy!!!
Congratulations!
Edited, Thu Jan 12 16:46:27 2006 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
We could just send all the old people to war. Two birds, one stone, no t-shirt controversy.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Old people are tough. They'd end the war in a matter of weeks. Then what would we do with them?
Recent Visitors: 222
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (222)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- money well spent...?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC