News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: 87 billion? wtf?  (Read 3284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Halberd-Blue

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2688
  • Long Live C'Nesha
    • Lord of the Universe's Website
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #20 on: September 9, 2003, 08:44:49 PM »
Think of it this way...  The average income per week of a working Iraqi pre-war war $3, so they would make about $156 a year.  So 87 billion dollars should help out a lot, its 557,692 times the amount Bob the Iraqi made in a year...
"The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal."

Offline Travman of Alyeska

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2003, 12:03:46 AM »


Quote
Yes, US Senators are paid by US taxpayers (currently about 50% of working Americans).

Unemployment is only about 6.2%.  It will never be at zero.  Are we to assume then that your example was satire?

No.  It is referring to the fact that 50% of US taxpayers pay 94.09% of the tax revenue the US government receives, which in turn is what is used to pay US senetors sallaries among other things.

Travman

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2003, 12:05:07 PM »

Quote
Have you ever thought of WHY most of them are on welfare? Sure there are those who are just being lazy, but the majority are those without work.

Totally untrue.  A lot of people that work still receive welfare because the job they have doesn't pay enough.

I have to laugh because I can distinctly remember that liberals used to say that things were so great during the Clinton years because unemployment was only about 2%.  Nevermind that a lot of those so called 'jobs' were working at places like Mickey D's.   ::)  I even remember a jab used at the time, "The economy is so good, that I got TWO jobs to make ends meet!"  ;D

There is a big difference between a 'job' and a 'high paying career'.  I submit to you that if people took pride in their community, graduated high school and applied for college, then they would in fact have better opportunities available.  If they do not, then it is, in fact, laziness or lack of desire - you choose which.  

It is therefore, not the responsibility of the government to provide you with a high paying career - simply the opportunity to be able to achieve this goal if you wish.  The ultimate responsibility lies with the individual's desire to change their circumstance either fortunate or unfortunate.  

So, if you want a high paying career, don't get pregnant at 13, stay in school, stay the hell away from drugs and gangs, and you'll improve your chances dramatically to go to college, where you can certainly learn a valuable career path.


I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline Mr.Peanut (Turtleproof)

  • Ride Like Lightning, Crash Like Thunder | Infinity Circuit | Pork Sword of Mod-Justice | Took the basket, nuts and lol | Good grief, ye hennie pennies
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13225
  • Country: 00
  • Turtleposting At The Speed Of SHift
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Sigmarines, Chaos, Demons
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2003, 12:26:35 PM »
Much like the Red Scare decades before, our government has convinced the populace that there's a Commu- erm, a terrorist behind every Bush.  

Ladies and gentlemen, security in this nation is still lax.  Despite this, there have been no successful attacks on our soil.  Does that mean our "security measures" are working?  No.  Out of thousands and thousands of arrests, only a handful turn out to be possible terrorists.  While it is good that those few people are off the streets, it clearly means that we have no idea what to look for.  

Maybe we've just been lucky.  However, I would have expected to see at least a dozen successful, small-scale terrorist attacks in this country if the threat were real.   If the Bush Admin's tales were true, there would be a story about a lone terrorist with a US-bought rifle gunning down several people in a mall, grocery store, etc, every week.  It's very easy to get guns here, and supposedly there are hundreds of terrorists here.  

At any rate, if he wants that much money for security, he has other plans on how he's going to use it.  We've already speant millions on "security measures," but have seen close to nothing actually DONE to fight terrorism; merely guys in sunglasses and longer check-ins at the airport.  Millions of dollars ahve already been speant on something other than our safety.
You are
What you do
When it counts
     -The Masao
"Getting what you want can be dangerous.

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2003, 12:55:37 PM »
Well clearly this method of terrorism would be very ineffective in the U.S.  It's been done in DC and WV and the number of casualities was very small (I'm not belittling the deaths by any means).

Terrorists need large scale attacks with large casualties to even get headlines here.  This of course will mean a larger scale covert operation.  A nut with a gun simply won't qualify.  We see those everyday.  Ho hum. Anyways it was done a couple of times.  The crazy at the Empire State Building observation deck - the El Al counter at LAX.  

Peanut, did you ever stop and think that perhaps you haven't seen terrorist attacks recently because the bad guys have been getting nailed?

A lot of stuff in this war has to be clandestine.  Clearly if you nail one bad guy, you may not want the others to know it so that they disperse further.  I see no need to tip our hand needlessly and give any terrorist a reprisal.

I heard that when Abu Zubayda was captured they took him to an area where he thought was Saudi Arabia and he began spilling the beans since he thought he was safe.  It was apparently quite the elaborate hoax.  By all accounts his capture hurt Al Queda pretty bad.  I'm sure this took considerable time and effort to reproduce.

Just what do you think the money's been spent on?  I'm just itching to hear your latest conspiracy theory.  Salaries cost a lot.  And while it may not look like much, the hiring of people is a big part of where the money goes.  More people do make things safer regardless of what you may think.  
I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline xyclos

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • CHAOS!! CHAOS!!! uhhh whoops, I meant uhh Eldar!
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2003, 01:08:52 PM »
"Iraq is a good opportunity to show the muslim world that we don't hate their religion or them and that if they are willing to root out the radicals that infest their countries that all can have a better life. "


 ::)

Offline Camo

  • Scribe to Scars
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1049
  • Pray they don't take you alive
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2003, 01:59:15 PM »
Quote
Between 70% and 87% of Iraqis polled like the way things are going are are looking forward to having a free nation.  

       Yes, however free mation means the theocracy they want, the northern Kurds WANT independance. If the turks don't like it then what are they gonna do invade and even further lessen their chances of getting into the E.U as they severely want.
         And so why don't they have a country wide refferendum and ask them what they want, besides voting won't last long at all, the first one will go forward if they press it and then it'll collapse, it simply won't work.
         Give the Iraqis aid by all means but then let them run their country as they want, who are we to say what's fair?
     
 
If I had but a thousand men who were crazy enough to want to conquer hell then we would do it - Warmaster Solon

Offline TheHiveMind

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 719
  • The Giant Jelly Sandwich
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2003, 02:11:50 PM »
Its not that the Iraqi's want a theocracy- its that they want rid of the Americans... If a load of Iraqi's invaded your country wouldn't you want rid of them...

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2003, 03:20:13 PM »
I totally agree.  The sooner the Iraqis can govern themselves the better for us.  However, now is too soon.  If we left now, there would be anarchy or civil war in a week.  The country would slip into a mode conducive for a dictator to take power, and we'd be no better off than we were before it started.

Everyone needs to quit complaining that the change isn't happening instantenously.  Rebuilding a country isn't like ordering a Big Mac and fries ya know.  It took 3 years after WW2 to get a central German Bank - in Iraq the same feat has been accomplished in a few months.  Clearly that's some sort of timetable improvement is it not?  Instead of focusing on whether the glass is half empty, why not look at it like it's half full?

If we left tomorrow, there would be nothing but influences from radical Iranian shiites that would divide the country, probably drag Turkey into a war, create an environment conducive to the creation of more Bin Ladens and God knows what else.

That is not an acceptable outcome.  So instead the critics must be ignored, the course must be stayed, and in the end it will have an overall positive impact.

Um.  Camo, by its very definition a theocracy is not a free nation.

I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline xyclos

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • CHAOS!! CHAOS!!! uhhh whoops, I meant uhh Eldar!
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2003, 03:59:49 PM »
This is much more than rebuilding Germany or rebuilding Japan.


Offline Travman of Alyeska

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2003, 05:09:58 PM »
This is much more than rebuilding Germany or rebuilding Japan.



What??

The Marshal Plan cost $2.2 trillion dollars (that is Y1948 dollars converted to Y2003 dollars)!  This is only $87 billion (Y2003 dollars), or about 3.9% of the relative cost of the Marshal Plan.

Travman

Offline xyclos

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • CHAOS!! CHAOS!!! uhhh whoops, I meant uhh Eldar!
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2003, 06:01:06 PM »
I wasn't talking about moneywise.



Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #32 on: September 11, 2003, 10:18:49 AM »
Just what were you talking about then?  The cost of life?

Again - WW2 cost just a tad more.
I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline The Bladesinger

  • Foul-mouthed Monkeigh - BANNED
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • Real eyes realize real lies
    • Project Starfall
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2003, 10:27:30 AM »
I think the U.S should be paying their membership to the U.N before they spend more money on the military.

BANNED for excessive use of foul language.




Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2003, 10:36:21 AM »
I think the U.S should be paying their membership to the U.N before they spend more money on the military.

I think the U.N. should stop playing partisan politics and follow through for the better good of the world then the interests of a minority of member nations like France.  

It should be pressing nations worldwide for human rights, freedom and better living conditions for their own people instead of giving politcal clout to those like Arafat.

After all, that is what it was created for.  And just who had the idea for the U.N. anyway?

When the U.N. starts doing it's job, I'll gladly pay my share.
I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline Larandil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 560
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2003, 10:49:57 AM »
I see that it buys us:

1.  The ability to fight the enemy in Iraq instead of in the USA.
I don't intend to give any credit to the fat man Saddam. But if the war against terror is aimed at al-Qaeda and its potential supporters ... well, now they rush in where Saddam kept them out. If only because they were a threat to his rule.

Quote
2.  A new ally in a region where they are lacking.
So far I see no new ally. Be nice to the Kurds and upset the Turks. Be nice to the Sunnites and upset the Shi'ites. Be nice to the Shi'ites and see them joining the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Quote
3.  A squeeze play of 2 democratic nations that will pop Iran like a festering pimple, all without firing a shot in Iran.
Provided Iraq turns into a democratic nation - western style, something that has not been seen in this region since ... well, never, actually - who'd be democratic squeezer nation #2? Pakistan? You're kidding. Where do you think all those Taliban guys hid out that now pop up again all over southern Afghanistan?

Quote
4.  Two examples of free and successful Islamic nations, which will change the face of the middle east.
"Islam" means "obedience". Obedience to God/Allah. And His word is laid out for the Faithful by the mullahs.
"Freedom" does not enter this picture - you're "free" to obey or receive harsh punishment.

But I must admit it's an elegant solution to have Halliburton and their fellows gain juicy contracts to rebuild a country with the U.S. Taxpayers paying the bill ...  
« Last Edit: September 11, 2003, 12:43:31 PM by Larandil »
Too much Mon-Keigh business
for me to be involved in!

Offline Larandil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 560
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2003, 01:04:08 PM »
I think the U.S should be paying their membership to the U.N before they spend more money on the military.

I think the U.N. should stop playing partisan politics and follow through for the better good of the world then the interests of a minority of member nations like France.  

It should be pressing nations worldwide for human rights, freedom and better living conditions for their own people instead of giving politcal clout to those like Arafat.

After all, that is what it was created for.  And just who had the idea for the U.N. anyway?

When the U.N. starts doing it's job, I'll gladly pay my share.

This is going to be fun.

"So the U.N. should be pressing nations worldwide for human rights, freedom and better living conditions ..."

That's not what it was founded for. The United Nations were intended to be a forum where the sovereign nations of this planet should peacefully resolve their conflicts. Period.

It was not meant to be the front for any one nation to draw up the master plan of what the world ought to be like and break the news to the others.

The spirit of democracy in the U.N. died a quiet death with the right to block any decision reserved for the Big Five with the Nukes - the U.S.A., Russia, France, the U.K. and the People's Republic of China.
But there's quite a number of islamic nations in Northern Africa and Asia that could easily out-vote the U.S. if the U.N. decided by a simple (and democratic) count of "one nation - one vote".
If the weight of votes were to be decided by the sheer number of inhabitants a nation can field, U.N. politics would be a game between India and China with all others on the sideline.

Just how would the U.N. press the U.S. of A. into granting some amount of legal counsil to the prisoners of Guantanamo? Like seeing their ambassadors, speaking with lawyers and such? All those basic rights that you expect to get from even the most remote banana republic on this planet ...
Too much Mon-Keigh business
for me to be involved in!

Offline xyclos

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • CHAOS!! CHAOS!!! uhhh whoops, I meant uhh Eldar!
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2003, 01:34:56 PM »
What I meant was, there was no problems rebuilding Germany or Japan.


THere's too much BS involved as far as Iraq goes.
If people remember history or that area, rebuilding Iraq as a stable and democratic nation is going to fail.

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2003, 03:38:30 PM »


This is going to be fun.

"So the U.N. should be pressing nations worldwide for human rights, freedom and better living conditions ..."

That's not what it was founded for. The United Nations were intended to be a forum where the sovereign nations of this planet should peacefully resolve their conflicts. Period.

Ahem.  From the U.N.'s own website:

Most of us have heard about United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. But the many other ways the UN affects all our lives are not always so well known. This booklet takes a look at the United Nations — how it is set up and what it does — to illustrate how it works to make the world a better place for all people.

The United Nations is central to global efforts to solve problems that challenge humanity. Cooperating in this effort are more than 30 affiliated organizations, known together as the UN system. Day in and day out, the UN and its family of organizations work to promote respect for human rights, protect the environment, fight disease and reduce poverty. UN agencies define the standards for safe and efficient air travel and  help improve telecommunications and enhance consumer protection. The United Nations leads the international campaigns against drug trafficking and terrorism. Throughout the world, the UN and its agencies assist refugees, set up programmes to clear landmines, help expand food production and lead the fight against AIDS.

Hell, sorry I got that one wrong guys.   ::)

Quote
It was not meant to be the front for any one nation to draw up the master plan of what the world ought to be like and break the news to the others.

I see.  So you think France should be removed from the security council for violating this mandate?

Quote
The spirit of democracy in the U.N. died a quiet death with the right to block any decision reserved for the Big Five with the Nukes - the U.S.A., Russia, France, the U.K. and the People's Republic of China.
But there's quite a number of islamic nations in Northern Africa and Asia that could easily out-vote the U.S. if the U.N. decided by a simple (and democratic) count of "one nation - one vote".

Yes and some of those "nations" are no bigger than Rhode Island and change governments on a monthly basis.  I'm glad there's such a wealth of valuable political experience in the U.N.  Jesus, it's like having a blind guy be a driving instructor.

Quote
If the weight of votes were to be decided by the sheer number of inhabitants a nation can field, U.N. politics would be a game between India and China with all others on the sideline.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumped either.  

The fact is, it's not decided that way so let's throw out the hypotheticals and stick to the fact that the U.N. is not doing what it supposed to do because countries like France abuse it as leverage for their own foreign policies.  Instead of using their security council power for the greater good, they instead wield it in attempts to improve their own position in the world.  They make no distinction between the U.N. as an organization and an instrument of their own foreign policy.

Quote
Just how would the U.N. press the U.S. of A. into granting some amount of legal counsil to the prisoners of Guantanamo? Like seeing their ambassadors, speaking with lawyers and such? All those basic rights that you expect to get from even the most remote banana republic on this planet ...


Beats me.  Personally, I blame it on the Lybians for being in charge of the Human Rights Committee.  Damn slackers!!!!

The facts are that the Taliban have no ambassador and  POW's do not get the right to speak with attourneys unless tried in a military court of law.  So when the war is declared "over" they'll get released.  If the Red Cross would like to arrange a visit from one of their loved ones, that would be okay with me as long as the visitor was searched and any conversation recorded.  It might just uncover some more terrorists.  

I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

Offline spleenman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 721
  • Yeah ... right.
Re:87 billion? wtf?
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2003, 03:49:47 PM »
What I meant was, there was no problems rebuilding Germany or Japan.

Oh reeeeaallllly?  I love to see some facts on that.  Yeah it was simple.  I mean we only blew the hell outta both countries' infrastructures ... I'm sure it was a complete cakewalk. ::)


Quote
THere's too much BS involved as far as Iraq goes.
If people remember history or that area, rebuilding Iraq as a stable and democratic nation is going to fail.


Nice attitude.  Life's hard, so let's give up and crawl back into our shell.  Maybe if we don't say anything they'll just go away.

In the future, please don't run for political office.  We have enough people with this defeatest attitude there now.
I once destroyed an entire Dwarven Army with Anzripal's Black Horror on turn two.

Liberals and socialists? ... We don't need no stinkin' liberals and socialists.

 


Powered by EzPortal