the cost of war.......
- Thread starter biggins
- Start date
On the one hand, the cost of four days in Iraq could significantly improve rural schools for years to come.
On the other hand, without a fighting force that's got some actual experience, we leave ourselves open to trouble.
I'm not saying I agree with the war, but the kids who are there now are the future military leaders in 10-20 years and they do need experience to defend our country.
On the other hand, without a fighting force that's got some actual experience, we leave ourselves open to trouble.
I'm not saying I agree with the war, but the kids who are there now are the future military leaders in 10-20 years and they do need experience to defend our country.
these numbers do not include the military standby pay. these numbers are all from this war. if you read the number sources you will see that it only includes active duty pay.do we need to be in war to make sure people are trained to defend the country?LordOpie said:
"The numbers include military and non-military spending, such as reconstruction. Spending only includes "incremental" costs, additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers' regular pay is not included, but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future health care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. It is also not clear whether the current funding will cover all military wear and tear. It also does not account for the Iraq War being deficit-financed and that taxpayers will need to make additional interest payments on the national debt due to those deficits."
or they'll end up in a library tower with a sniper rifle... 
LordOpie said:
I'm saying while the whole thing is FUBAR, there is some good that will come from it. And no, war is a lot different than training.Toshi said:
I train extensively in the martials arts, but I wouldn't want to fight some phucknut crazy guy on the street who gets into real street fights on a daily basis... he'd kick my ass, then eat my liver.
Big difference between training and the real thing.
I think we need a little more practice in not going to war.
EXACTLY my point of view. You cant have all green troops if a serious(er) situation comes up down the road. That'd be irresponsible.LordOpie said:
We don't seem to have any problems fighting wars. We suck as nation building police force. Military doesn't seem to be doing much to change that. If all we need to do is go and kill people we do a great job and probably didn't need the 3 day exercise in Iraq to do so. Seems the military is still in go kill mode. It is almost like we need another branch to form just as a MP/anti geurrilla force. Maybe leave all the killing to the Marines and leave the army with the crappy mop up work. Seems like the Army tries to do too much.BurlyShirley said:
the problem is that strategically, statistically and historically, you cannot do "surgical" strikes on foreign soil and then attempt to occupy the land w/out fierce resistance. these new wars where we try and spare everyone just don't work. the only way to truly occupy another country is to completely anihilate the opponent. trying to pick out the good from the bad has always proven to be a failure. if you're going to do it...do it right or not at all.
of all the wars in the past 100 years that this country has been involved.....which ones did we truly win and how did we do that?
Japan - big effin bomb, Germany - killed anything and everything
vietnam - we lost that one because no one really knew who was a bad guy
korea - draw...not prepared for that one
iraq v.1 - win....but it was setup as a traditional ground war and they fled
iraq v.2 - not winning..."surgical" strikes leave too many to fight back.
of all the wars in the past 100 years that this country has been involved.....which ones did we truly win and how did we do that?
Japan - big effin bomb, Germany - killed anything and everything
vietnam - we lost that one because no one really knew who was a bad guy
korea - draw...not prepared for that one
iraq v.1 - win....but it was setup as a traditional ground war and they fled
iraq v.2 - not winning..."surgical" strikes leave too many to fight back.
i agree that attempting to occupy a foreign nation as their "liberators" is a task ultimately (and inevitably) doomed to failure. but annihilating the people of the country we supposedly were freeing from bondage is possibly even more atrocious than what we're doing now
Westy said:
ya reckon ???
seriously... its one extreme or the other with the US... you are either building schools and hospitals or bombing the sh1t outta them...
find some middle ground for christs sake...
went out to dinner the other week... the wife and i and my mate nic and his wife... nics girl has just returned from 'down range'... ie the desert... she told us an interesting story... so most of you know the deal at the cinema / theater etc... stand before the movie and the national anthem plays... normal right... well down there they stood, the anthem played and on the movie screen then play footage of planes / tanks bombing the cr@p outta the enemy... all the while you stand there with your hand on your heart or saluting the screen... i couldn t believe my ears... that sh1t is bordering on mind control... scary stuff...