Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on June 13, 2003, 03:07:04 PM
-
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...
-
Watching Walter Rodgers giving his video reports from the desert was money well spent!
-
I could afford the $1100 if we where still in the Clinton economy.
not this year.
-
Hey, it's just money. It's not like it's costing any lives. Besides, George is paying us back with a tax break, so it ain't costing us nothing! Gotta love Dubya-nomics.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Hey, it's just money. It's not like it's costing any lives. Besides, George is paying us back with a tax break, so it ain't costing us nothing! Gotta love Dubya-nomics.
Strange... you say something incredibly stupid then blame the statement on Bush when its not anything he's said before. Actually, its not really that strange... more in the realm of expected these days.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Strange... you say something incredibly stupid then blame the statement on Bush when its not anything he's said before. Actually, its not really that strange... more in the realm of expected these days.
MiniD
If Mini D (D for Dick I assume?) says that my comment is incredibly stupid, then incredibly stupid it is. I feel so ashamed. I'll try to do better. Really. No, I mean it! Really!
In future if you don't get it, just ignore it. It won't make you look quite so much the fool.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
If Mini D (D for Dick I assume?) says that my comment is incredibly stupid, then incredibly stupid it is. I feel so ashamed. I'll try to do better. Really. No, I mean it! Really!
In future if you don't get it, just ignore it. It won't make you look quite so much the fool.
AMEN brother amen
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that's what the Iraq conflict cost each American.
It is not free yet, and we're not done spending money on it either.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
... Making the US more secure in doing so. Say Iran, N Korea??
I would, in a second...
U really believe that the US is more secure now?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
U really believe that the US is more secure now?
You got a point there - we must do nothing. Peace In Our Times!!!
-
The families of some 200+ good men and women lost much more than $220 in this "conflict".
-
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
-
"no money for oil"...whatever.
-
50 years of international relations going down the drain wasnt worth it. we could have waited till we sold our allies a bit more on it. plus anyone that puts a dollar tag on peoples lives is a sick ****
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
50 years of international relations going down the drain wasnt worth it. we could have waited till we sold our allies a bit more on it. plus anyone that puts a dollar tag on peoples lives is a sick ****
taxpayer cost .. not lives
within the budget approved by congress
strange how the antiwar crowd comes out on this issue and the warhawks seat on their hands
i say lets hit the next one, be cheaper as we have half the military already in the hood...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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!
:rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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.
-
LOL...the funny thing, Arfann, is that you apparently don't get it.
SOB
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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
-
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.
:cool:
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?"
-
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?
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.