It costs HOW much?!?!
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
unclehobart
New Member
I believe that Bush signed an executive order exempting military payroll taxes on salaries earned within a warzone. The base pay didn't rise .. but money in pocket did ...and therefore it is a real cost to government.
That's my point too, the extra fuel, sure. Ordinance replacement, yeah, bombs aren't cheap, bullets aren't too bad, but need replacing as well. Chemical gear and Camo suits, I'd think we've been buying those over the last 12 years, surely the Army knew this one was coming again. Food and water variances, I'm sure water costs a little more, with the filtration and all, but these boys were going to eat anyway.
unclehobart
New Member
I'm thinking in terms of the extra meals for the long term quartering of national guard troops that would otherwise be feeding themselves most of the time outside of the two weekends a month deal they normally have. The cost, storage, and transportation of water purification out in the middle of asscratchistan has to be something. Theres tons of wire and sandbags and building materials in making fortified bases and runways in the middle of nowhere that I'm sure can't be recouped.
Most of the small arms bullets may be cheap... but think of the .50cal + ranges and the oceans of 40mm grenades and howitzer rounds. 30mm depleted uranium rouds aren't a dime a dozen.
Most of the small arms bullets may be cheap... but think of the .50cal + ranges and the oceans of 40mm grenades and howitzer rounds. 30mm depleted uranium rouds aren't a dime a dozen.
madrin
New Member
...sorry Flavio...when the "estimates are based on figures like forgiven interest made on loans AFTER the war is over, or gems like "lost productivity in the pursuit of non violent protest" ....
I'm sorry...that''s the definition of liberal socialist propaganda...
also, the whole "ultra conservative fascist" thing would be exponentially more clever if facists weren't generally socialists....
....anyway, the study gets more ridiculous, but I trust you'll dig up the contents of it and educate yourself further....
meanwhile..I'll be holding my breath...
MADrin
I'm sorry...that''s the definition of liberal socialist propaganda...
also, the whole "ultra conservative fascist" thing would be exponentially more clever if facists weren't generally socialists....
....anyway, the study gets more ridiculous, but I trust you'll dig up the contents of it and educate yourself further....
meanwhile..I'll be holding my breath...
MADrin
flavio
Banned
unclehobart said:
Isn't Turkey alone getting 26 billion?
madrin said:
Well your definitions suck. First of all the definition of "liberal" has nothing to do with "socialist"...and neither word has anything to do with war cost estimates.
Why don't you look some of these words up instead of making up your own definitions and educate yourself just a little bit?
....and then come back with some cost estimates that you like the looks of.
madrin
New Member
...uh huh....I think I'll let that one just stand on it's own.
...educate myself...LOL...
nice work. If I were a mean person I'd point you to a dictionary... but I feel warm and fuzzy tonite
In the future you might make a better point by actually KNOWING what was contained in your evidentiary documentation....in this way you can avoid the appearance of simply parroting sound bites.
....on second thought, I won't hold my breath.
MADrin
...educate myself...LOL...
nice work. If I were a mean person I'd point you to a dictionary... but I feel warm and fuzzy tonite
In the future you might make a better point by actually KNOWING what was contained in your evidentiary documentation....in this way you can avoid the appearance of simply parroting sound bites.
....on second thought, I won't hold my breath.
MADrin
unclehobart
New Member
Entirely possible, Flav. I haven't seen the current government level payout plans in regards to Turkey.
I do remember that in the first war the Germans, Japanese, Saudis ... bla bla... all coughed up large amounts of money to defray the costs of the war. I think we supposedly ended up with like 3 billion profit after all was said and done.
I do remember that in the first war the Germans, Japanese, Saudis ... bla bla... all coughed up large amounts of money to defray the costs of the war. I think we supposedly ended up with like 3 billion profit after all was said and done.
flavio
Banned
madrin said:
I'll be a nice person and point you to a dictionary-> liberal .
Now where does it mention socialism?
And how does it relate to war cost estimates?
Now it would be nice if you would look up any other words that you don't understand before making ridiculous unfounded generalizations without even the slightest bit of supporting information.
madrin
New Member
Jesus Pete Flavio...do you actually breathe on your own or do you have help?
You MAY want to go back to the internet dictionary definition and have another peek at it. Breathe in the meanings...view 'em all...
and then come back and edit your post...
Just in case you find yourself incapable of doing that, and since you find yourself in the incredibly advantageous position of having a functional internet connection, just run a quick and drity search on liberal socialist...or liberal socialism...
....as for what any of that has to do with "estimates"....gee , I dunno....
I take it all back....no one EVER lies with statistics....
finally, if you intend to talk out your ass all nite then fart...it'll make a bigger statement...
MADrin
You MAY want to go back to the internet dictionary definition and have another peek at it. Breathe in the meanings...view 'em all...
and then come back and edit your post...
Just in case you find yourself incapable of doing that, and since you find yourself in the incredibly advantageous position of having a functional internet connection, just run a quick and drity search on liberal socialist...or liberal socialism...
....as for what any of that has to do with "estimates"....gee , I dunno....
I take it all back....no one EVER lies with statistics....
finally, if you intend to talk out your ass all nite then fart...it'll make a bigger statement...
MADrin
unclehobart
New Member
This thread is about healthcare. I was the one that got it too far afield onto the military cost side. *sorry* The intent was to draw it back to healthcare.
flavio
Banned
I have asked you to explain what you say but you only seem capable of more unfounded insults. I even took the initiative to point you to a dictionary so we could make sure we were talking about the same thing.
Maybe you could take this opportunity to quit screwing around and making random insults and actually say something worth reading.
How do war cost estimates relate to "liberals" and "socialism"?
Go ahead, just back up what you said. It makes for far more interesting conversation.
Then since you seem to indicate you have an inside line on accurate war cost estimates, just go ahead and post a link to them so we can have a look.
I'd be far more interested in seeing accurate numbers than listening to your generalizations and insults that seem to have no basis in reality.
Maybe you could take this opportunity to quit screwing around and making random insults and actually say something worth reading.
How do war cost estimates relate to "liberals" and "socialism"?
Go ahead, just back up what you said. It makes for far more interesting conversation.
Then since you seem to indicate you have an inside line on accurate war cost estimates, just go ahead and post a link to them so we can have a look.
I'd be far more interested in seeing accurate numbers than listening to your generalizations and insults that seem to have no basis in reality.
unclehobart
New Member
I always saw liberalism as a thought and attitude rather than legislation. I always saw socialism as the eventual extreme end result methodology to enforce liberal dogma as a matter of punitive law rather than as any kind of extention of the self... a curtailing of freedom in the name of supposedly eforcing freedoms. Of course it plays about the same on the right ... its just a different approach.
flavio
Banned
unclehobart said:
That's about how I see it. Liberalism is mostly thought and attitude which can be part of any number of methodologies.
A generalization like "all liberals are socialists" is about as accurate as saying "all conservatives are Klan members".
The twisted definition of "liberal" used by Limbaugh and the like is something like "anyone who doesn't agree with me". Which I think is then extended to address different answers to math problems, telemarketers, and any number of things that come up in daily life.
EDIT:
But what any of this has to do with the war or the cost of the war I have no idea.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Am I the only one beating my head into a wall after reading this thread? I think it was clear that the reason for calling the war cost estimates liberal socialist whatever propaganda was because the numbers are OBVIOUSLY ludicrous. The only people who would go to such voodoo accounting extremes are people who don't agree with the war. This is likely liberals, and the publication of these figures is certainly propaganda. Or, didn't they come from some Europeans, in which case they probably were socialist to a degree as well as liberal?
Still beating my head into the wall...
Still beating my head into the wall...
flavio
Banned
outside looking in said:
What is clear is that you must also prescribe to the notion that "liberal" means "anything I don't agree with". Then continue to jump through incredibly illogical reasoning.
First of all, you present nothing to dispute the numbers besides your own claim that they are ludicous.
I can't say how accurate they as it's just what I heard on the radio. They supposedly were based on involvement over the next ten years.
But suppose they were extremely high. You then assume that they must stem from an "anti-war" source. I don't see this as a necessary conclusion but we'll go with it for a second.
Anyone that is "anti-war" must also be liberal or socialist then right? I find this an incredible leap in logic. Pro-war or anti-war is not a liberal/conservative issue. A Republican that doesn't see Iraq as an immediate threat does not immediately turn into a "liberal". "Socilaist" is just as ridiculous as socilaism has absolutely nothing to do with war on Iraq.
All in all this is quite a bit of assumptions that you make.
Now instead of making ludicrous generalizations and large leaps in logic why don't you present some numbers that seem accurate to you?
madrin
New Member
Outside looking in , you got it....and I really didn't think it was that difficult until the exchange with Flavio...who obviously still DOESN'T get it....
Flavio, repeatedly turnong away from the point, overlooking whats RIGHT in front of your face, and then making asinine assertions about what you're "really interested in" , don't accomplish your goal of slinking away with a modicum of "face...
.....the message I put out there was clear and valid....
but since you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept, let me just take you right back to the beginning....
You said this:
which was in response to Gonz's post about Democrats blasting George Bush for whatever it is that day they chose to bash him for...in that case it was war costs...
then I said:
which it is. The point is that when studies use dubious statistics to bolster a claim, as is done here in this example, then there's an obvious agenda behind it. I then asked you to go and find the study and educate yourself on the contents, which you apparently didn't bother to do, else you'd have seen the authors of it, and you'd have tracedit back to it's roots which begin in Australia and move to Europe.
THEN you would have seen the fact that NION had it up on their website for about 24 hours....and here's where things go awry.....and YOU help it......
YOU "heard" something, apparently, and it fit your idea, however laughable on its face, of what a war in Iraq would cost...the 3 trillion dolalrs sounds like some GREAT figure to back up your claim of social injustice and waste...especially when applied to each person in the US.....
...so that's what you "heard"..and you repeated it.....
...and it's WRONG....ass backwards incorrect, and if you'd deigned to even cursorily look up the documentation behind the sound bite before parroting it you'd know why...but since you refuse, which is what ALL people who are soundly trounced in their arguments do, I'll simply put up the klieg lights which illuminate your parade of buffoonery evident here...
A. The study you "heard" about applies to the WORLD...NOT a country...the WORLD..will I need to repeat that yet again? It has nothing whatsoever to do with costs on the order of "20,000" bucks to anyONE or any houshold in the US....
B. The study does include ridiculous financial assertions that are so far out of the realm of reality that they not only point out the agenda, which you'd be able to see even if you didnt bother looking up the author groups, but also add up to work that should be shown utter disdain by anyone with even 8 functioning brain cells.
C. YOU go on, even AFTER being informed about the nature of the "study" and apply it further to your assertions incorrectly, vis a vis the cost to us "here at home" of a 3 trillion dollar war...and then further dismiss the obvious with this bright shiny diamond in the crown jewels of the land of Moronica
...which is so patently stupid I won't even comment on it further since there are no fewer than three posts above which illustrate that...
..so that's what it's about Flavio. It's not about what the final estimate will be to US...which is what YOU brought up by repeating the statistic, it's about the fact that you repeated something that had as it's basis false information...
FALSE INFORMATION.....
and YOU repeated it...that's all.
I'm not even saying you did it on purpose, only that you did, indeed, repeat it...and in doing so without bothering to check the facts, opened yourself up to other posts which dispute the incorrect assertions...
that you took offense to the "liberal socialist" thing may indicate your leanings, but it doesn't change the fact that to get to YOUR ears in the form you posted, that study , which is flawed in and of itself, was further spun by groups such as Not In Our Name as representatvie of a real and quantifiable cost to you and I and everyone else who lives here in the US...
which, again, is abjectly stupid and blatantly false...
yet you repeated it....
when you're wrong you're wrong..just accept it and move on. Consider it the new thing you learned that day or something...but don't pretend to know what you're talking about, especially after nonsense like this:
...boo hoo hoo...someone disagreed with you and pointed out why...get over it...
MADrin
Flavio, repeatedly turnong away from the point, overlooking whats RIGHT in front of your face, and then making asinine assertions about what you're "really interested in" , don't accomplish your goal of slinking away with a modicum of "face...
.....the message I put out there was clear and valid....
but since you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept, let me just take you right back to the beginning....
You said this:
which was in response to Gonz's post about Democrats blasting George Bush for whatever it is that day they chose to bash him for...in that case it was war costs...
then I said:
which it is. The point is that when studies use dubious statistics to bolster a claim, as is done here in this example, then there's an obvious agenda behind it. I then asked you to go and find the study and educate yourself on the contents, which you apparently didn't bother to do, else you'd have seen the authors of it, and you'd have tracedit back to it's roots which begin in Australia and move to Europe.
THEN you would have seen the fact that NION had it up on their website for about 24 hours....and here's where things go awry.....and YOU help it......
YOU "heard" something, apparently, and it fit your idea, however laughable on its face, of what a war in Iraq would cost...the 3 trillion dolalrs sounds like some GREAT figure to back up your claim of social injustice and waste...especially when applied to each person in the US.....
...so that's what you "heard"..and you repeated it.....
...and it's WRONG....ass backwards incorrect, and if you'd deigned to even cursorily look up the documentation behind the sound bite before parroting it you'd know why...but since you refuse, which is what ALL people who are soundly trounced in their arguments do, I'll simply put up the klieg lights which illuminate your parade of buffoonery evident here...
A. The study you "heard" about applies to the WORLD...NOT a country...the WORLD..will I need to repeat that yet again? It has nothing whatsoever to do with costs on the order of "20,000" bucks to anyONE or any houshold in the US....
B. The study does include ridiculous financial assertions that are so far out of the realm of reality that they not only point out the agenda, which you'd be able to see even if you didnt bother looking up the author groups, but also add up to work that should be shown utter disdain by anyone with even 8 functioning brain cells.
C. YOU go on, even AFTER being informed about the nature of the "study" and apply it further to your assertions incorrectly, vis a vis the cost to us "here at home" of a 3 trillion dollar war...and then further dismiss the obvious with this bright shiny diamond in the crown jewels of the land of Moronica
...which is so patently stupid I won't even comment on it further since there are no fewer than three posts above which illustrate that...
..so that's what it's about Flavio. It's not about what the final estimate will be to US...which is what YOU brought up by repeating the statistic, it's about the fact that you repeated something that had as it's basis false information...
FALSE INFORMATION.....
and YOU repeated it...that's all.
I'm not even saying you did it on purpose, only that you did, indeed, repeat it...and in doing so without bothering to check the facts, opened yourself up to other posts which dispute the incorrect assertions...
that you took offense to the "liberal socialist" thing may indicate your leanings, but it doesn't change the fact that to get to YOUR ears in the form you posted, that study , which is flawed in and of itself, was further spun by groups such as Not In Our Name as representatvie of a real and quantifiable cost to you and I and everyone else who lives here in the US...
which, again, is abjectly stupid and blatantly false...
yet you repeated it....
when you're wrong you're wrong..just accept it and move on. Consider it the new thing you learned that day or something...but don't pretend to know what you're talking about, especially after nonsense like this:
...boo hoo hoo...someone disagreed with you and pointed out why...get over it...
MADrin
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
flavio said:
Flav, you're not helping yourself any here. Your argument might have some small semblance of logic if it weren't for the fact that the statistics DID come from liberals with an agenda to push.
And no, liberal doesn't mean "anything I don't agree with." That you would accuse me of such a thing makes you look foolish.