Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
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.
|
Vietnam war cost $111 billion from 1964-72. Here's a random cite pulled from Google.
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
By 1972, our government was spending about .75 billion per day. So, Vietnam cost what we were spending in about 5 months. Do you really think that the difference between 5 months' spending in Vietnam and 2 months' (and counting) spending in Iraq is so enormous that one is a "war" and the other is a "minor skirmish"?
Here's another cite discussing present value. The numbers on this vary wildly, but the conclusion is pretty uniform.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042601601.html
Quote:
|
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.
|
Who says I am not offended by murders, traffic deaths, etc? If the government adopted policies that increased murders or traffic deaths by 3000 people, I would oppose those policies.
Tell ya' what: Let's go to a meeting of families of soldiers who died in Iraq. You tell 10 people your "it's just a minor skirmish" theory, I'll tell 10 people my "it's a war, and should be called a war, and the cost is very high" theory. Let's see which of us offends more people.
And please -- when you volunteer for the military, you and your neo-con friends can call me an armchair spectator.
Quote:
|
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.
|
"relatively low," not "low." As in, relative to other wars, to which you were making comparisons. Not as in "so low that this is just a walk in the park," as you seem to think.
Quote:
|
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.
|
No, the war in Afghanistan itself did that to the Soviets, not the number of dead. The body count idiocy is your own invention.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If your conclusions are so self-evident, then others should have reached them. Please identify some publications that refer to the Iraq war as a "minor skirmish." Surely your neo-con buddies have reached the same conclusion as you.
