|
Title: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 07, 2005, 08:16:50 PM The cost so far of the war in Iraq:
200 BILLION DOLLARS. We are facing an upcoming energy crisis, no matter how you look at it. By switching to nuclear power generated electricity at roughly 2.5 billion per plant we could build how many power plants to keep life as we know it going? What else we could do with 200 Billion dollars: We could have provided 9,661,052 students four-year scholarships at public universities . We could have insured 119,334,289 children for one year. We could have hired 3,453,690 additional public school teachers for one year. We could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 8 years. We could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 66 years. http://costofwar.com/index Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Surfrider on October 07, 2005, 08:21:28 PM Another thing that pisses me off is that Bush is going to have to spend far more than we should to rebuild New Orleans. What did he say 100 billion? If he would have been on top of things from the start he wouldn't have to try and convince people that he cares and that he is not a racist by spending billions of dollars on pork.
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Walk on October 07, 2005, 08:27:11 PM That's the expenses. You forgot to mention the profits.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html Energy crisis solved. : ok: Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: BigCombo on October 07, 2005, 09:27:38 PM If only the US gov't would privitize all the domestic oil companies...so long deficits.
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 07, 2005, 10:15:20 PM Protect our borders, and put that money into new energy for the future.
Wonder why France didn't want to go into Iraq? They live off 80 percent Nuclear energy that is why. They aren't as dependent on oil as we are. Billions wasted and nothing but body bags to show for it. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Walk on October 08, 2005, 12:17:56 AM Oil is more than just energy. We need it to make medicine, fertilizer, and plastics, as well.
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 08, 2005, 12:31:38 AM Oil is more than just energy. We need it to make medicine, fertilizer, and plastics, as well. I think this has been covered. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Izzy on October 08, 2005, 02:12:23 PM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving.
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: gilld1 on October 08, 2005, 02:45:07 PM Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc.
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Izzy on October 08, 2005, 03:39:17 PM Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for.? The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. Indeed - or maybe just a giant tax break for everyone who isn't on Paris Hilton wages. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 09, 2005, 04:49:34 AM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Surfrider on October 09, 2005, 10:44:54 AM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 09, 2005, 11:50:30 AM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Surfrider on October 09, 2005, 03:11:53 PM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. If some one is down on luck, we should help them out.? If someone has been abused or the victim of a crime, we should help them out.? If someone doesn't have the same opportunities, we should help them out.? But people that spend their money stupidly, we should not.? People that were sitting around smoking pot and doing drugs while I was busting my ass to get an education and get a good job should not get any of my money. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Dr. Blutarsky on October 09, 2005, 04:28:50 PM Protect our borders, and put that money into new energy for the future. Wonder why France didn't want to go into Iraq? They live off 80 percent Nuclear energy that is why. They aren't as dependent on oil as we are. Billions wasted and nothing but body bags to show for it. France also sold a lot of millitary hardware to Saddam. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 12:02:21 AM Protect our borders, and put that money into new energy for the future. Wonder why France didn't want to go into Iraq? They live off 80 percent Nuclear energy that is why. They aren't as dependent on oil as we are. Billions wasted and nothing but body bags to show for it. France also sold a lot of millitary hardware to Saddam. So did we..... Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 12:03:48 AM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. . Again I am very well aware of what they were saying. But they were only saying it so they could open the door to finger pointing and "pull your bootstraps up" line of talk. No other reason. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Guns N RockMusic on October 10, 2005, 01:07:12 AM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. . Again I am very well aware of what they were saying. But they were only saying it so they could open the door to finger pointing and "pull your bootstraps up" line of talk. No other reason. Real good SLC. Ignore the argument at hand and just assume that it's going in a direction you dislike. My argument is the same as it always has been; people should be able to choose what their tax dollars goto save national defense, national bank and congress (only the stuff listed in the constitution, not the communist manifesto). Good ideas and efficient systems always win out. The fact that people have this "sterotype" says something. Like it or not, people who are fiscally unable to have children should not have them. If they make poor decisions and continually do so, the government (my tax dollars) should not help them - ecspecially when it's ultimately about tehir need for material wealth and not survival. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 02:04:55 AM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. . Again I am very well aware of what they were saying. But they were only saying it so they could open the door to finger pointing and "pull your bootstraps up" line of talk. No other reason. Good ideas and efficient systems always win out. Since when? Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Guns N RockMusic on October 10, 2005, 10:00:41 AM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. . Again I am very well aware of what they were saying. But they were only saying it so they could open the door to finger pointing and "pull your bootstraps up" line of talk. No other reason. Good ideas and efficient systems always win out.? Since when? Oh since every militarily imperialist and communist/socialist nation has fallen off the charts. Under the free market, freedom and choice determine good ideas from the bad - not some ideology that stems from reactionaries and emotion. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 12:58:21 PM "Oh since every militarily imperialist and communist/socialist nation has fallen off the charts."
Like China and N Korea huh? China owns our ass in case you don't know. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: pilferk on October 10, 2005, 01:20:11 PM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. . Again I am very well aware of what they were saying. But they were only saying it so they could open the door to finger pointing and "pull your bootstraps up" line of talk. No other reason. Good ideas and efficient systems always win out.? Since when? Well, I mean...just look at the Katrina response. It was littered with good ideas and efficient systems, right? ::) Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 04:09:59 PM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. . Again I am very well aware of what they were saying. But they were only saying it so they could open the door to finger pointing and "pull your bootstraps up" line of talk. No other reason. Good ideas and efficient systems always win out. Since when? Well, I mean...just look at the Katrina response. It was littered with good ideas and efficient systems, right? ::) whooops! How quickly we forget..... Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Carlos_f_Rose on October 10, 2005, 04:25:52 PM Certainly Gringoland -- USA -- has spent a lot of money in the IRAQ WAR, that could have perfectly been used in other porpuses, but I will my friends say that the greatest cost they pay are the death of the soldiers, and even worse the death of Innocent Iraq civilians, that will certainly be in the minds, for the rest of some people's lives, but of course, there are some people that dont even care... For those who support the dirty, filthy "War on terror, just watch, the documentary, Farentheit 9/11 and after that, If you still support the war, I wont be able to call you humans...
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Dr. Blutarsky on October 10, 2005, 05:25:33 PM Certainly Gringoland -- USA --? has spent a lot of money in the IRAQ WAR, that could have perfectly been used in other porpuses, but I will my friends say that the greatest cost they pay are the death of the soldiers, and even worse the death of Innocent Iraq civilians, that will certainly be in the minds, for the rest of some people's lives, but of course, there are some people that dont even care...? For those who support the dirty, filthy "War on terror, just watch, the documentary,? Farentheit 9/11 and after that, If you still support the war, I wont be able to call you humans... Farenheit 9/11 is a piece of shit. It is all taken out of context & manipulated to suit the vision of Michael Moore. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 05:33:57 PM Certainly Gringoland -- USA -- has spent a lot of money in the IRAQ WAR, that could have perfectly been used in other porpuses, but I will my friends say that the greatest cost they pay are the death of the soldiers, and even worse the death of Innocent Iraq civilians, that will certainly be in the minds, for the rest of some people's lives, but of course, there are some people that dont even care... For those who support the dirty, filthy "War on terror, just watch, the documentary, Farentheit 9/11 and after that, If you still support the war, I wont be able to call you humans... Farenheit 9/11 is a piece of shit. It is all taken out of context & manipulated to suit the vision of Michael Moore. Moore has all the sources on his site which can not be disputed. It was all common knowledge before the movie came out anyway. USA and Saddam were friends, same with Osama etc etc. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: POPmetal on October 10, 2005, 07:39:06 PM Fahrenheit 911 is full of lies
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Surfrider on October 10, 2005, 08:02:18 PM Fahrenheit 911 is full of lies People who cite to that movie aren't even worth discussing this stuff with.http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Guns N RockMusic on October 10, 2005, 08:39:47 PM Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving. Forget around the world, the US has plenty of in house problems that this money could have been used for. The inner cities, education, roads, housing, etc. It makes sense to me. But you've read the other thread right? Poor people are lazy and....lazy! They deserve to starve. ::) Not really, no it isn't. The first thing those guys did was change it around to make poor people look lazy. And base that as their argument, instead of addressing how we could help poor people. . Again I am very well aware of what they were saying. But they were only saying it so they could open the door to finger pointing and "pull your bootstraps up" line of talk. No other reason. Good ideas and efficient systems always win out.? Since when? Well, I mean...just look at the Katrina response. It was littered with good ideas and efficient systems, right? ::) Who ever said that was a free market response. [/conspiracy on] I believe it was an attempt by dems and leftist to purposely neglect poor blacks so they could blame it all on Bush to further their agenda. [/consipracy off] In all seriousness, that was the epitome of a bureaucratic fiasco and neglect from the local leaders clear to the top. That was anything but free market, however all the donations and people helping are an example of the free market. Ooops, how quickly they leave out parts that destoy their ideas. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Guns N RockMusic on October 10, 2005, 08:42:49 PM Fahrenheit 911 is full of lies People who cite to that movie aren't even worth discussing this stuff with.http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf Exactly. That movie is hardly a documentary becuase it distorts the facts to fit Moore's agenda which was to get Bush out of office - he failed. Moore is a worthless piece of shit and a stain on humanity and America. Anyone who touts that movie as truth or anything other than leftist propaganda are seriously ignorant and stupid. Moore is a college droup out who weighs over 300 pounds and touts American excess and has made his living distorting reality for his extremist agenda. SLC, why aren't you calling this ton of shit a hypocrite? Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Carlos_f_Rose on October 10, 2005, 08:52:47 PM Forget Farenheit 9/11, just recall the dead american soldiers, and the old people, young people, and babies from iraq, that certainly is beyong any lie.... 1 is more than enough.... now how many have died?
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 10:27:39 PM Funny how none of them are addressing the original post. I mean...now we are talking about MM's 9-11.
Fahrenheit 911 is full of lies People who cite to that movie aren't even worth discussing this stuff with.http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf SLC, why aren't you calling this ton of shit a hypocrite? Both sides have people that show lies. Whadda you want? MM's site shows his references, and sources to back up his movie. That is enough for me. And like I said, most of the stuff he said was well known for years to begin with. I thought you were keeping your mouth shut? :hihi: Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 10:31:00 PM Forget Farenheit 9/11, just recall the dead american soldiers, and the old people, young people, and babies from iraq, that certainly is beyong any lie.... 1 is more than enough.... now how many have died? These people don't care about deaths. Iraqi civilians mean nothing to them, soldiers lives mean nothing to them. Arms and legs getting blown off mean nothing to them. It's not their loved ones and (even though it is) it is not their (direct) money. Being right is the only thing that matters to them. Even if it means lying through their teeth to themselves and the rest of the world. They will lie to the end and could care less about the human loss and suffering that goes with it. As long as they can be right, that is all that matters. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: MCT on October 10, 2005, 10:33:12 PM To what end though?
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Guns N RockMusic on October 10, 2005, 10:43:53 PM I thought you were keeping your mouth shut?? :hihi: Upset that I'm exposing some of your bullshit? I said I was keeping quiet until I found out if I was on the "ban list" that many of you advocated for holding beliefs different than your own. After I spoke to Jarmo, i realized I wasn't and am back to expose you and your agenda for the hald truths and distortions that they are. You don't have a problem with that do you? I know it's hard because your support base are the same people that can only get information from movies. ::) Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: MCT on October 10, 2005, 10:53:26 PM What is brown sugar?
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 10:59:01 PM I thought you were keeping your mouth shut? :hihi: After I spoke to Jarmo, i realized I wasn't and am back to expose you and your agenda for the hald truths and distortions that they are. haha, what agenda? I only state the facts: No wmd Iraq a mess Bush polls at 28% Rove getting looked into (Exposing a CIA agent is treason btw) Charges against Delay have been brought Billions of dollars in debt now. Oil prices higher than ever, people hurt at the pump. Economy on the edge. Civil war in Iraq. **** So what agenda? All those above are happening. Are they not? What is your problem with that? Or just that I tell it like it is? Am I anti war? Yes. Do I care if two dudes get married? Nope. Am I a racist, or sympathize with bigots? Nope. Do I care if my president takes this country to war based on a lie (with my tax money)? Yes. Do I have a problem with posters who lie about what I say, do , think post? Yes. What else do you need to know? What agenda do you speak of? What lies am I trying to convince people of? Go ahead. Wanna expose my lies? Start a thread about how I'm wrong about the war? I'd slice and dice you to bits. I asked the same thing of Charity Case and he ran away like with excuses proclaiming how "stupid" it was. Now he is still here (with name number 3?) bashing me everyday. He has the time to post right wing blogs (or whatever) without links, but not the time to debate me on the war with actual facts. So wanna expose my lies about the war in Iraq? Take your best fuckin shot. ;D Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 10:59:44 PM What is brown sugar? I'll tell you what it's not..... Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: MCT on October 10, 2005, 11:04:58 PM Tel mee.
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Surfrider on October 10, 2005, 11:06:53 PM Forget Farenheit 9/11, just recall the dead american soldiers, and the old people, young people, and babies from iraq, that certainly is beyong any lie....? 1 is more than enough.... now how many have died? These people don't care about deaths. Iraqi civilians mean nothing to them, soldiers lives mean nothing to them. Arms and legs getting blown off mean nothing to them.? It's not their loved ones and (even though it is) it is not their (direct) money. Being right is the only thing that matters to them. Even if it means lying through their teeth to themselves and the rest of the world. They will lie to the end and could care less about the human loss and suffering that goes with it. As long as they can be right, that is all that matters. I think both sides honestly think they are right. ?I think both sides honestly think that their point of view is best for our country and Iraq. ?Lets get out of the extreme insults. ?Saying that they don't care if soldiers die? ?Come on. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 10, 2005, 11:25:41 PM Forget Farenheit 9/11, just recall the dead american soldiers, and the old people, young people, and babies from iraq, that certainly is beyong any lie.... 1 is more than enough.... now how many have died? These people don't care about deaths. Iraqi civilians mean nothing to them, soldiers lives mean nothing to them. Arms and legs getting blown off mean nothing to them. It's not their loved ones and (even though it is) it is not their (direct) money. Being right is the only thing that matters to them. Even if it means lying through their teeth to themselves and the rest of the world. They will lie to the end and could care less about the human loss and suffering that goes with it. As long as they can be right, that is all that matters. I think both sides honestly think they are right. I think both sides honestly think that their point of view is best for our country and Iraq. Lets get out of the extreme insults. Saying that they don't care if soldiers die? Come on. Anybody who refers to children as "collateral damage" does not care about human life. Same goes for when they say it about soldiers. Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: SLCPUNK on October 11, 2005, 03:47:05 AM Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: pilferk on October 11, 2005, 08:56:32 AM Who ever said that was a free market response.? [/conspiracy on] I believe it was an attempt by dems and leftist to purposely neglect poor blacks so they could blame it all on Bush to further their agenda. [/consipracy off]? In all seriousness, that was the epitome of a bureaucratic fiasco and neglect from the local leaders clear to the top.? That was anything but free market, however all the donations and people helping are an example of the free market. Ooops, how quickly they leave out parts that destoy their ideas. Quote Real good SLC.? Ignore the argument at hand and just assume that it's going in a direction you dislike.? My argument is the same as it always has been; people should be able to choose what their tax dollars goto save national defense, national bank and congress (only the stuff listed in the constitution, not the communist manifesto).? Good ideas and efficient systems always win out.? The fact that people have this "sterotype" says something.? Like it or not, people who are fiscally unable to have children should not have them.? If they make poor decisions and continually do so, the government (my tax dollars) should not help them - ecspecially when it's ultimately about tehir need for material wealth and not survival. The Katrina relief effort goes directly to National Defense (FEMA is a part of Homeland Security, remember?). Your statement, to me, implied that good ideas and efficient systems MUST be already part of national defense, national bank, and congress because we should have no "choice" about what tax dollars go there. Is that more clear? Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: jarmo on October 11, 2005, 10:17:39 AM One simple request: Could you guys trim the quotes a bit? I mean, if you only reply to one paragraph of a post, why quote the whole post? Or if you only reply to the last post of ten posts, why quote the other nine?
Example: Wrong way: Quote Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..... Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah! But then you said that he said that I said that they had said.... No, I didn't say that! Right way: Quote But then you said that he said that I said that they had said.... No, I didn't say that! /jarmo Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: gilld1 on October 11, 2005, 02:22:36 PM Thanks, Jarmo, some of those quotes are getting rediculously long and pointless.
Title: Re: The cost of war Post by: Carlos_f_Rose on October 11, 2005, 05:13:16 PM mmm, I only consider that the only cost of the War, is dead people, now I dont care what side is the correct, even when USA has attacked iRAQ without any sustainable reason...
|