The cost of war

[SLCPUNK]

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

[Surfrider]

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.

[Walk]

That's the expenses. You forgot to mention the profits.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

Energy crisis solved. 

[BigCombo]

If only the US gov't would privitize all the domestic oil companies...so long deficits.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[Walk]

Oil is more than just energy. We need it to make medicine, fertilizer, and plastics, as well.

[SLCPUNK]

Oil is more than just energy. We need it to make medicine, fertilizer, and plastics, as well.

I think this has been covered.

[Izzy]

Its is shocking how much has been spent - when people around the world are starving.

[gilld1]

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.

[Izzy]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

[Surfrider]

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.

That is such an unfair mischaracterization of the other thread.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

That is such an unfair mischaracterization of the other thread.

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.

[Surfrider]

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.

That is such an unfair mischaracterization of the other thread.

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.

No, the article was discussing the "poor" in America.? They were arguing that "poor" doesn't have the same meaning in the U.S. that it does other places.? Something that is quite true.? People do not starve to death in the United States.? They were also not calling them all lazy, but simply saying that we shouldn't subsidize stupid choices.? I agree with that 100%.?

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.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.....

[SLCPUNK]

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.

That is such an unfair mischaracterization of the other thread.

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.

No, the article was discussing the "poor" in America.  They were arguing that "poor" doesn't have the same meaning in the U.S. that it does other places.
.

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.

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

That is such an unfair mischaracterization of the other thread.

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.

No, the article was discussing the "poor" in America.? They were arguing that "poor" doesn't have the same meaning in the U.S. that it does other places.
.

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.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

That is such an unfair mischaracterization of the other thread.

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.

No, the article was discussing the "poor" in America.  They were arguing that "poor" doesn't have the same meaning in the U.S. that it does other places.
.

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?

[Guns N RockMusic]

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.

That is such an unfair mischaracterization of the other thread.

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.

No, the article was discussing the "poor" in America.? They were arguing that "poor" doesn't have the same meaning in the U.S. that it does other places.
.

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.