$220

[funkedup]

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...

I dunno $220 would pay for a set of Eibachs.  I think it will be worth it only if gasoline prices go down enough that I save $220 this year.  

[capt. apathy]

I think it will be worth it only if gasoline prices go down enough that I save $220 this year.

good luck so far we are going farther in the hole with gas prices paying us back.
 (if you count from when we started deploying not when we actually started the action,  I know that after the action started the prices came down some, but not to where they where before this crap started)

[Frogm4n]

im not to worried about another war though. it would be politcal suicide for Bush to go into iran N korea or syria(notice how the saber rattleing on this country has already died down as well as iran). We will have our hands full with afghanistan and iraq for the next 10 years anyways.

[osage]

How much would Thailand cost?

Maybe we should get the "Southern Cone Valu-Pak"

Bolivia, Uruguay and Argentina for only $199.99 per family plus a free alpaca!

[Puke]

I mean the gas is already in the tank, right?

Correct.  You paid $20 for the gas at the time of purchase.  You can let the auto sit in your garage for years, but when you take that car and drive it around you do NOT pay for that gas again.  I can say that the cost is then $20, but that's misleading because the cost was paid two-years ago.  You do not run back to the service station and fork over the cash again.  It's a form of double-dipping, let's not count that cost of purchase twice.  That's the point of this whole thread and my statement, that it is probably misleading to state it'll cost us each $220 to pay for the war if some of the items are already paid for or typical costs that would be paid anyway (some salaries) would be paid for as well no matter what.  Statistics can be painted in many ways.  I don't know why you are ranting about this.  You appear to me to be looking at this from a ledger point of view but if that's the case, I wonder if the govt can depreciate weapons.  Heck, I know they'll one day be functionally obsolete and probably not worth what they were when originally purchased.  But to not use something meant for blowing things up, you then have carrying costs, training and maintenance, and that's a cost too...so I guess with some of your twisted logic, I can say we are now saving money.  But that's kinda silly.  To be to the point, the cost was already paid at the time of purchase.  And thanks for your concern about my children, I'm sure they'll do fine.  I guess I angered you enough to reach into a bag of personal attacks.  I guess by your logic, if we never use the cruise missiles, they cost us nothing.

If we do not see eye-to-eye by now, we never will...so I'll stop.  Enjoy.

[capt. apathy]

I get it now,  it's all so simple.

it's not the driving that runs up the cost of operating my car it's the filling of the tank.  so if I just avoid all gas stations I can drive forever, for free.  why didn't this occur to me before?  wait, maybe it did when I was 3 and unable to comprehend that things can still be costly even if you don't pay the bill at the time you incur the cost.

It reminds me of the story my parents told me about when I was a small child  and wanted to know "how come they make us pay to leave the restaurant?"

[kesolei]

Originally posted by GScholz
This is just stupid.

If the Navy/Army/Air Force spend munitions, especially advanced munitions, they will need them to be replaced. If the TO&E of a unit says it should have X number of missiles then it will have that number of missiles after they are resupplied.

If the US spent X number of missiles in the Iraq war you will have to pay for them, because the US Armed Forces will need them replaced.

I think he's trying to say that when they use the missiles, whether they're going to use more right away or not, the military is going to replace them. We don't pay for the missiles already used, we pay for the missiles being made to replace them so that we have a constant supply on hand.

That right, Scholz?

[kesolei]

Originally posted by GScholz
cc Kesolei. How come you could explain that so easily? Explains why I'm not a teacher I suppose.

*laughs* Prolly because one of my career choices at the moment is a teacher.

[Puke]

it's not the driving that runs up the cost of operating my car it's the filling of the tank. so if I just avoid all gas stations I can drive forever, for free. why didn't this occur to me before? wait, maybe it did when I was 3 and unable to comprehend that things can still be costly even if you don't pay the bill at the time you incur the cost.

Apathy, I'm sorry, you are a complete moron and your sarcasm has run its course with me.  We do NOT pay for those missiles again, plain and simple.  I guess you are looking at the ledger side of things like some corporation, but trust me, you do not have have to write a check or pay cash out of your pocket for those missiles again because you did that X-years ago.  Yes, by exploding them it *cost* us a cruise missile, but we do NOT have to pay for it again.  Maybe that cruise missile can be exchanged for something and we lose that potential, but we do NOT have to pay cash for it again...which is the context of this thread.  Just like buying a toy for your son at $5 and when he breaks it in 2-months, you do not pay $5 and include it in some new cost.
And yes, to someone else, they may need to be replaced, but that's really getting into an opportunity cost and really a new cost, it's not the cost of those old weapons.  When they are used (exploded), you are NOT paying for them again or being billed for them one more time.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Arfann
they will have to raise taxes to prevent a complete melt down of the American economic system

Taxes are paid by the economy they are not its foundation.

It is possible to have an economy with no taxes, but you cannot have tax collected with no economy.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
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.

Well... at least those guys at Boeing still have jobs.

[bounder]

Who do I pay my $220 to get the vicious miltary Junta ousted from Myanmar (Burma)?

Or get the Indonesian Miltary out of Aceh?

Is this, like, a new value added service to NATO I wasn't aware of?

FFS $220 Value for money  phhhhhhhhhhhhhh not much of a show, bit of a foregone conclusion really. Opponent was lacklustre and impotent - more of an ego boosting match to raise the stakes forth next bout, not really a fight so much as a PANTOMIME.

Overall maybe 4/10 for achieving objectives, 1/10 for media management, 9/10 for preemptive triumphalism, 7/10 for liberating Iraq from 'vicious gangs of Keep Left signs'.

I understand (from friends who were in Basra on day 2) that not only did they have snipers and RPG positions to deal with, but hundreds of very offensive road signs that were dutifully riddled with bullets.

But $220 is not much to pay to send a hated leader into hiding, kill a whole load of folks, not find any WMD and fan the flames of fundamentalist freedom fighters in every far flung facility.

And now Tony Blair and George Bush have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by a Norwegian Member of Parliament...

Well, I guess Henry Kissinger was also a recipient, so anything goes.