Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So the Admin should call it a war but no one else should? Interesting view.
This war is hardly cheap, in terms of either lives or money. In terms of money, the cost is approaching $400 billion -- more, in present dollars, than the Vietnam war (we can call that one a "war", right?)
|
First off all cite you source for the cost of the Vietnam war in present dollar terms. Second - Did you see my prior post? The money has to be viewed in context . It only makes sense if you look at Governmental income at the time of the war. Training one pilot (two million dollars) looks incredibly expensive when compared to how much money we spent on the war of 1812.
Our annual defense budget before the war was like 380 billion dollars. So we have only spent one year’s peace time annual outlay on this war. In order to fight this war we only had to slightly increase military spending. To fight Vietnam (whose cost has also been greatly exaggerated) we had to increase our governmental spending significantly.
As I said, today our government spends 7 billion dollars a day. This war has cost less than two months allowance. And considering how important the outcome is to the future of our nation that is a trifle.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch Nor is the war cheap in terms of lives. To begin with, the suggestion that 3000 dead US soldiers (and 22,000 wounded) is "cheap" is offensive.
|
Offensive? There is a rational argument coming from a lawyer. You respond twice to my post and you use the word offended but you have the temerity to accuse other posters of become overly dramatic or emotional. If you are so easily offended you have no business posting to this board, nor even being a lawyer. Tell my why my reasoning is faulty but save your "being offended" for the next time you have tea with the old ladies and are discussing hem lines. You may find it offensive but it is the truth. If you are so offended by those deaths why aren't you offended by all the traffic deaths that occur every year in the US. Or all the murders? Where is your outrage and demand that something should be done about all that senseless and preventable killings? If you were a parent or relative of a casulty your irrational position might be forgiveable, but as an armchair spectator your claiming to be offended is offensive.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch But the relatively low casualty toll is due largely to the nature of the warfare. "Asymmetric" warfare always involves relatively low casualties on the side of the technologically advanced army. And the US power and manner of fighting limits casualties even more.
|
So I refer to the deaths as low, that is offensive, but you refer to them as low it is OK. Spare me your mock outrage.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sidd Finch The Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan (we call that one a "war", right?) that left the nation mortally (and thankfully) wounded. How many soldiers do you think died there -- 100,000? It was only 15,000, about .1% of what the USSR lost in World War II. By your analysis, that wasn't just a minor skirmish, it was a Sunday drive with a flat tire.
|
The death rate in Afghanistan left the Soviet Union mortally wounded? They lose that many youth to alcohol abuse probably every month. Are you sure you weren’t trying to say the cost and the damage to their image left them weakened? Since 15,000 Soviets died and only three thousand US soldiers have died that would make the war in Afghanistan a minor skirmish and the war in Iraq a Sunday drive with a flat tire.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch Finally, the notion that a war that ties down 1/3 of the US Army is merely a "minor skirmish" ... well, let's just say that if anyone discussing this issue has an IQ of less than six, it's the person who made that claim.
The article Less cited was silly. Hank's response to that -- saying that comparing the deaths on 9/11 to the deaths in Iraq is silly -- was a sensible response. Your efforts to minimize the catastrophe in Iraq by pointing to traffic deaths, etc. is just continuing the silliness.
|
No - I pointed out facts to put the "war" in perspective. And then drew conclusions. Maybe you can question my conclusions from the facts (although they were pretty self evident), but to question the relevance of the facts is beyond silly.
