$220

[GRUNHERZ]

Frogman I think it was the French who did their best to unravel "50 years of internatinonal relations" when they unilaterally declared they would never allow any military action in support of UN 1441 under ANY circumstances. And please remember the French helped shape and voted for UN 1441 just months before with full knowledge that there was a mailtary force consequence to Iraqi non compliance.

[Puke]

I'd actually like to see the breakdown of how that cost was calculated.  A lot of times, things like the cost of cruise missiles are included...which are already paid for.  Most of the cost is just in transporting everything over there.  A good majority of the salaries would have been paid for no matter what anyway as well.  But cruise missiles aren't paid for only when used.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Mini D
Oh.. I get your comment arfann... Perhaps its just that you don't really understand what it is you are commenting on.

Well.. at least you have pfunk on your side.

MiniD

You say you "get it" so you "get it". Nothing more needs be said.






























You don't really get it, do you?

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Eagler
that's what the Iraq conflict cost each American. My wife, 17 year old son and myself = $660.

Was it worth it, money well spent? (Heck - AH cost $180 a year:))

Would you pay that to free a country? Making the US more secure in doing so. Say Iran, N Korea??

I would, in a second...

Free a Country?? I thought it was about the vast quantities of weapons of mass distruction that don't seem to exist. Plus N.Korea would cost alot more then $220 each and a whole lot more lives (which you can't put a price on) so the US can so called "free it".

Be interesting to ask Iraq's on the street how they feel about being free.

And what makes you think your more secure now then before Iraq was invaded? That's an interesting statement. Unless you happily believe what ever your government tells you.

There was a study published from a terroism lecturer in UK recently in a paper here. His opinion was that if anything invading Iraq has only worsen the global situation and only supplied the terrorist groups with more resources.

A war with N Korea would be (military wise) a worst case  scenario and one that would cost many lives. I hope the US administration thinks long and hard before doing anything there. As they won't be a push over like Iraq.

If you think I'm wrong check out http://www.globalsecurity.org



...-Gixer

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
I could afford the $1100 if we where still in the Clinton economy.
not this year.

Captain Apathy, no offense, but we are in the midst of a Clinton induced economy.  Ever wonder why the Clinton administration started to decline and stagnate towards it's end?  It takes roughly 3-6 years for policies to change the econmoy, unless they are drastic.  Thats ok, vote democrat next election, be a minorit, maybe you will get a financial reward!

[capt. apathy]

A lot of times, things like the cost of cruise missiles are included...which are already paid for.

so now they are re-usable?  we can use them again next time we need to blow something up?

no?  then they cost.  when you lose an asset that is cost.  even if you pay nothing out of pocket at the moment it is still something that you had before and now you don't.

it's like saying a man who's house has burned down has lost nothing because he already owned it.

[Hangtime]

it's a bargain.

and i'd have gladly gone.. currently, i need the work, and it would have meant one less allied kid with his life in front of him at risk.

[SOB]

LOL...the funny thing, Arfann, is that you apparently don't get it.


SOB

[lord dolf vader]

like the guy said they arent free and we arent done paying the long term price for it.

is that the i get it part ?

[Puke]

so now they are re-usable? we can use them again next time we need to blow something up?

Apathy, but they were paid for under the preceeding administrations.  There is no cost in the sense that some are lead to believe by reading this.  Just because a few missiles were lobbed into Iraq doesn't mean way have to *pay* for them all over again.  Yes, on a ledger there is a loss, but it's not the same as a cost (unless you get into opportunity cost and all that and the value they bring by holding them.)  My suspicion is that this type of thing is included in the above "$220 cost" which was paid for in taxes many years ago and isn't correct.  That's why I asked and wondered about it.  It's time we are out with the old models and in with the new.  But they are paid for.  Plain and simple.

Don't twist my words.  Reusable?  WTH?  If you purchase a model airplane and build it over a year's time and then blow it up, do you have to pay for it again?  Nope.  If that's how you think it works, I have some items I want to sell to you.

it's like saying a man who's house has burned down has lost nothing because he already owned it.

Ahh, there you go.  Just saw this line.  This is correct.  He's lost the house and the value it holds.  But did he have to pay $220 because it burned down?  NOPE.  You are double dipping.  This is why that number at the start of this thread sounds funny, it's presented in a way that we all have to shell out this amount to cover things.  Maybe we get new model cruise missiles now, that's not a bad thing.

[capt. apathy]

so you put miles on your car for free, right?
I mean the gas is already in the tank, right?

I sure hope my kid isn't dumb enough to use your logic. I mean no he saw no need to pay for the miles he put on the car.  hell, I had filled the tank before he got in.  he just drove off the free miles I had stored up in the tank.  maybe I'll get newer fresher gas when I refill, thats not a bad thing, right?

when you use something that you already own you no longer have it in reserve.  so if you need it later you have to replace it.

if you can't seem to grasp this fact then maybe the only way we can have an acurate accounting is we maintain no military, and we can build every gun, design every weapons system and train every soldier as situations arise and we need them.

[Arfann]

Originally posted by SOB
LOL...the funny thing, Arfann, is that you apparently don't get it.


SOB

OK (he writes, typing real slow so everyone can keep up), my original comment regarding Dubya paying us back for war expenses via a tax break was a little thing called sarcasm. Now I know that you only expect to see this used by conservative common taters, but it is available for one and all to use, conservative or not. The purpose of this comment was to point out that Dubya is running up a humongous bill with his little war while lowering taxes. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is a really stupid fiscal policy. Why, you might ask, would he do such a thing? Easy, it's so when reality based folks (liberals) take power again (1 or 5 years from now, depending on how long the American voters keep accepting Dubya's baloney) they will have to raise taxes to prevent a complete melt down of the American economic system, thereby allowing the conservatives the excuse to moan and groan about liberals raising taxes.

I've got blisters on my fingers!!!

GronK

[midnight Target]

is that the i get it part ?

LOL...the funny thing, Arfann, is that you apparently don't get it.

it's a bargain.

You say you "get it" so you "get it". Nothing more needs be said.

You don't really get it, do you?

Perhaps its just that you don't really understand what it is

It is not free yet, and we're not done spending money on it either.

AMEN brother amen

In future if you don't get it, just ignore it.

[Mini D]

LOL!

If you were just being sarcastic... why the hell did you just take a paragraph to explain how correct you were?

Dude.. you really need to stop being such a walking contradiction.

MiniD

[Arfann]

Originally posted by Mini D
LOL!

If you were just being sarcastic... why the hell did you just take a paragraph to explain how correct you were?

Dude.. you really need to stop being such a walking contradiction.

MiniD

It's called explaining 'em for the slow on the uptake. Some seem to be too slow for the explanation. I can only dumb it down so much before it totally loses it's effect. If it's still over your head, please feel free to use the ingore function. If you can figure out how.