The cost of the war

[3point14]

Reading in another thread I found someone stating that the cost of the war is now $10 billion a month.

I have no idea if this is corect, and for the purposes of this thread, it doesn't really matter.


How is the 'cost of the war' (in monetary terms) calculated? Does it include the wages of troops who would have to be paid even if they werent in combat? or are they factored out? What other factors are considered?

Just wondering. I also frequently wonder where this money goes. If the war costs the US taxpayer (a fine upstanding group of individuals, but one I am not a member of) $10bn a month, where does that go? That sort of money is going to make a ripple in the economic landscape, surely? Is any of this $10bn recovered in tax (corporate gains tax and the like.)

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

How is the 'cost of the war' (in monetary terms) calculated? Does it include the wages of troops who would have to be paid even if they werent in combat? or are they factored out? What other factors are considered?

I think it doesn't include their base pay for regular military personel. But deployed soldiers get paid extra (sometimes quite a bit extra - and that's the right thing to do), and I think that does get counted. And of course, most of the pay for reservists who get called up would also count. Other costs include munitions used, repairs and replacements to weapons and vehicles, food, services (it's not free to run mail to Iraq), construction, and fuel. Fuel is a BIG cost. It takes a lot of fuel to run an army. Tanks, for example, measure mileage in gallons per mile, not miles per gallon.

[Bikewer]

The figures used by most of the pundits on the news shows I listen to are about 12 billions per month. Fully half of this figure (or perhaps a bit more) goes to "private contractors" for everything from food and laundry service to security protection and transport. Note that these contractors make far more money than do the GIs who fight the war, a sore point for many.

In addition, we must figure the attrition of equipment, which is according to most becoming critical. The Iraq environment is particularly hard on machinery quite aside from the effects of explosives....

Then there's the long term costs of health-care, both physical and mental, for the thousands of returning veterans.

[Michael Redman]

I assume they don't include the cost incurred by non-DOD agencies, like CIA and the State Department.

[Cain]

Small beer. A significant part of the cost of the war, as mentioned above but disregarded in most mainstream accounting figures, will go to the men and women who survive serious injury. The life-time medical and disability bills will be enormous, pushing the total cost up to between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. Or at least those were the figures cited by Joseph Stiglitz and a former government accountant a year ago. Now the cost might very well be at the hand.

Quote:

Note that these contractors make far more money than do the GIs who fight the war, a sore point for many.

I have spoken to some veterans back from Afghanistan and Iraq, and they say regular often significantly underestimate their compensation. Not to get too far side-tracked, but isn't the argument that being a soldiers are supposed to be fighting for love of country instead of money? Patriots or mercenaries?

[MilwaukeeMike]

Don't fail to forget this money is not lost. It is fueling the U.S. economy for the most part. So while I think the war in Iraq is horrible and should have never happened, when people say, "Oh my god, this war cost $12 billion a month." I just don't see that as a huge problem because much or most of that money is being recycled throughout the U.S.; either through military suppliers, health care, or simply wives of soldiers spending the money. So just think of where the money is also going. It would be interesting to see the amount of jobs created here in the mainland USA due to the war in Iraq; government and private industry alike.

[Cain]

Great- military Keynesianism. Thousands of young people dying, and tens of thousands more suffering debilitating injury (many for life), is not money well spent. Virtually all of the top defense contractors have either been found guilty or plead guilty to defrauding the federal government. (And look at Halliburton relocating for tax purposes.)

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Cain

Great- military Keynesianism. Thousands of young people dying, and tens of thousands more suffering debilitating injury (many for life), is not money well spent. Virtually all of the top defense contractors have either been found guilty or plead guilty to defrauding the federal government. (And look at Halliburton relocating for tax purposes.)

I said I found the war disgusting..... The money does diffuse back into the U.S. economy however....

Do you have any examples of defense contractors being found guilty? Besides the whole Halliburton fiasco.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

I said I found the war disgusting..... The money does diffuse back into the U.S. economy however....

Do you have any examples of defense contractors being found guilty? Besides the whole Halliburton fiasco.

Halliburton is or has already moved its corporate headquarters to Dubai so any of the billions in profits it earns every month will or already does not filter back into the US economy save for the bank accounts of a few fat cats who still call the US their tax home, at least for now. You can argue that Halliburton and other contractors buy goods made in the US for resale to the Penatgon but we don't know that. There was a time when the military wore
garments ...uniforms made in the good ole USA, but I am willing to bet these products come from China and/or third world sweat shops now.

Guilty of what? Making a lot of money off this war for its stockholders? This is no crime. They are found to be cheating all the time and if caught they just pay up the difference. It is nothing to them and their excesses are
comitted outside the US so are not liable to prosecution here. More so now that the number one contractor is moving to Dubai.

[NobbyNobbs]

According to Barbara Boxer, a Congresswoman (Senator?) from California, the figure is $12 billion a month.

Also according to her, the cost for after-school programs to be at the level they are supposed to be according to NCLB is $3 billion a year. Currently, however, they are underfunded, as only $1 billion a year is slated for that program.

$1 billion a year to keep our kids out of trouble.

$12 billion a month to put them in harm's way.

[Nobby steps off his soapbox]

[Michael Redman]

According to the CIA World Factbook, global per capita GDP is $10,200 per year. This war expenditure represents the economic output of over 14 million average humans. In fact, it's almost 1.5 times the total economic output of Iraq.

It's hard to imagine that this is not about the worst possible way we could be spending this money, even for the specific purposes for which we are spending it.

[Cain]

Quote:

Do you have any examples of defense contractors being found guilty?

It does get reported from time to time, and the title of the book I first read it in escapes me. For that reason I Googled:

Quote:

According to a survey by the Center for Public Integrity, from 1990-2002, 30 of the US government’s top contractors were found guilty of fraud in 400 cases, leading to settlements and fines amounting to at least $3.4 billion.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=16

Here's criticism of CPI, though I have never seen anyone dispute the fact military contractors regularly defraud the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_...rity#Criticism

Quote:

I said I found the war disgusting..... The money does diffuse back into the U.S. economy however....

Well, sure; it does not simply evaporate. Even corporations outright defrauding the government will cycle money through the economy. Governments used to spend money building pyramids and cathedrals. The question really boils down to opportunity costs. The cost is not simply 10-12 billion dollars a month, but forgoing funding other things that could be done with that money (such as after school programs).

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cain

I have spoken to some veterans back from Afghanistan and Iraq, and they say regular often significantly underestimate their compensation. Not to get too far side-tracked, but isn't the argument that being a soldiers are supposed to be fighting for love of country instead of money? Patriots or mercenaries?

That would be a strawman argument, and a false dilemma, so maybe you ought not to go there.

DR

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Cain

It does get reported from time to time, and the title of the book I first read it in escapes me. For that reason I Googled:



http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=16

Here's criticism of CPI, though I have never seen anyone dispute the fact military contractors regularly defraud the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_...rity#Criticism



Well, sure; it does not simply evaporate. Even corporations outright defrauding the government will cycle money through the economy. Governments used to spend money building pyramids and cathedrals. The question really boils down to opportunity costs. The cost is not simply 10-12 billion dollars a month, but forgoing funding other things that could be done with that money (such as after school programs).

You offer good points. I just wanted to point out we are not jettisoning (not sure if that’s a word) this money into space... It does make its way back to the U.S... I fully agree there are better ways to spend it. I for one would love to see the hundreds of billions being spent in Iraq given to NASA. The benefits to our country and economy from technologies invented at NASA are beyond monetary value. Plus it would be cool to watch a man land on Mars!!!

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

That would be a strawman argument, and a false dilemma, so maybe you ought not to go there.

Holy Christ, another person who has apparently spent so much time on the Internet he wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it came down and bit him on the nose. This is the sort of simple nonsense that drives me mad. It's very poorly worded, but hardly a straw man. Apart from the possible sub-argument that a competent soldier leads an austere life-style, it is reasonable to question motives where a lot of money gets involved. Granted, there are people who will enlist virtually regardless compensation. However, if we raised a soldier's salary to 200,000 dollars a year, then I'll bet you a lot of people will be signing up for the money. Supply and demand, right? Your country isn't worth "defending" for thirty-thousand dollars a year, but it is for $130,000? I know people from high school who signed up to get money to pay for college. I had a student who enlisted because he knocked up his high school girlfriend and needed the health benefits. They all say they love their country, but they're not operating under any illusions. Though perhaps mistaken, it is a reasonable criticism.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cain

Holy Christ, another person who has apparently spent so much time on the Internet he wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it came down and bit him on the nose. This is the sort of simple nonsense that drives me mad. It's very poorly worded, but hardly a straw man. Apart from the possible sub-argument that a competent soldier leads an austere life-style, it is reasonable to question motives where a lot of money gets involved. Granted, there are people who will enlist virtually regardless compensation. However, if we raised a soldier's salary to 200,000 dollars a year, then I'll bet you a lot of people will be signing up for the money. Supply and demand, right? Your country isn't worth "defending" for thirty-thousand dollars a year, but it is for $130,000? I know people from high school who signed up to get money to pay for college. I had a student who enlisted because he knocked up his high school girlfriend and needed the health benefits. They all say they love their country, but they're not operating under any illusions. Though perhaps mistaken, it is a reasonable criticism.

1. You created a false choice between patriot and merc, not me.

2. You presumed a motivation, or lack of a "noble" one, as your premise, a strawman for you to then apply to the entire body of soldiers/servicemen, the false choice.

Funnily enough, your own experience tells you that the reasons vary, which they do, widely, yet you play the old game anyway.

There are indeed mercs in Iraq, right now, some of them euphamistically called "contractors." I knew two men quite well, both of whom I served with at different times before the war, who worked in that capacity. For certain, Ken is done, not sure about M, but I think he is done as well. As noted in another thread, Ken told me the pay was in the low six figures.

For a mercenary.

I have listened to the tired canard of "American servicemen are mercenaries" since back in the Cold War, from a load of crap slinging c[rule 8]'s, and I am no less contemptuous of any fool, including you, who resorts to that falsehood now than I was then.

The motivations are mixed for joining, as well as for staying in, or getting out (I know plenty of guys who served one term who are dyed in the wool patriots, for example) but "mercenary" doesn't fit the bill.

Ya know, I was trying to be polite, by applying a polite label to your post, rather than just say

"You are full of s[rule 8]." Sorry I bothered.

DR

[Cain]

Oh, I see, you'd rather pile on the ********.

Quote:

1. You created a false choice between patriot and merc, not me.

This is an uncharitable reading of what was a passing comment, not a formal argument (which is in part reflected by the garbled language). Where did I say or suggest someone must neatly fall into one of those two categories? It was intended as more of an open-ended question. "Isn't the argument such and such?" As salary increases it is reasonable to ask if people joining are more like mercenaries.

Quote:

2. You presumed a motivation, or lack of a "noble" one, as your premise, a strawman for you to then apply to the entire body of soldiers/servicemen, the false choice.

This is incoherent.

Quote:

Funnily enough, your own experience tells you that the reasons vary, which they do, widely, yet you play the old game anyway.

Gosh, don't you think that is rather odd? Maybe, possibly, perhaps my second post better explained the criticism?

I'm ignoring the rest of this crap as it does not seem relevant.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cain

Gosh, don't you think that is rather odd? Maybe, possibly, perhaps my second post better explained the criticism?

When you carelessly use the tools of a fool, to whit, the tired canard of "American servicemen are mercenaries," you can easily be mistaken for such a fool.

I acknowledged that your second post made a good point. It is one that reflects my own experiences with the reasons why some of the sailors, airmen, soldiers and Marines who worked for me signed up.

I think you'll appreciate some people "grow into the job," and their perspective on their service's purpose changes consdierably (toward that selfless-service-patriot model so often tossed about by pundits) as they immerse themselves in what they are doing.

With others, it is just a job. There are any number of other positions in between, around, and tangential to those positions.

Not every soldier bleeds red, white and blue, but they all bleed red.

DR

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Cain

Great- military Keynesianism. Thousands of young people dying, and tens of thousands more suffering debilitating injury (many for life), is not money well spent. Virtually all of the top defense contractors have either been found guilty or plead guilty to defrauding the federal government. (And look at Halliburton relocating for tax purposes.)

Got any reliable sources on your claim...I believe they are far fewer than in our last wars.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

Don't fail to forget this money is not lost. It is fueling the U.S. economy for the most part. So while I think the war in Iraq is horrible and should have never happened, when people say, "Oh my god, this war cost $12 billion a month." I just don't see that as a huge problem because much or most of that money is being recycled throughout the U.S.; either through military suppliers, health care, or simply wives of soldiers spending the money. So just think of where the money is also going. It would be interesting to see the amount of jobs created here in the mainland USA due to the war in Iraq; government and private industry alike.

I'll remember this point next time somebody complains about the cost of welfare. After all, virtually all that money gets plowed back into the economy.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I'll remember this point next time somebody complains about the cost of welfare. After all, virtually all that money gets plowed back into the economy.

The Military=Welfare....do you also ghost write for John Kerry?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Comrade Ogilvy

Got any reliable sources on your claim...I believe they are far fewer than in our last wars.

Comrade, that is rather irrelevant.

3500+ and counting dead Americans in the Iraq War, and 20,000 plus wounded. Those who have lost bits and pieces are in the thousands.

ETA: A bunch of the links I tried are broken links.

Correction: I may be getting my amputee numbers wrong, as it appears that losing a finger or so may not be considered "an amputation." ???? Need to check the VA.

Quote:

As of January 18, 2007, there were at least 500 American amputees due to the Iraq War. According to a Time magazine article, the 500th victim was a 24-year-old corporal, who lost both legs in a roadside bomb explosion on January 12, 2007.

From Wiki as of January 2007,

Quote:

"The 500 major amputations — toes and fingers aren't counted — represent 2.2% of the 22,700 U.S. troops wounded in action. But the number rises to 5% in the category of soldiers whose wounds prevent them returning to duty. Nearly 2,000 brain-injured soldiers have already received some level of care.

If I can find a better US Army source, I'll get it to you.

DR

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Comrade Ogilvy

The Military=Welfare....do you also ghost write for John Kerry?

I never made this comparison. I just think that if returning tax dollars to the economy is to be considered in the cost of things, then that needs to be applied universally.

Most government programs return some money to the economy, but that doesn't mean that the military is anything like welfare. Welfare spends much less on bullets.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Comrade, that is rather irrelevant.

3500+ and counting dead Americans in the Iraq War, and 20,000 plus wounded. Those who have lost bits and pieces are in the thousands, but it may be more.

If I can find an official US Army source, I'll get it to you.

DR

The only reason I think it is relevant is that the left wildly inflates combat casualties for their own agenda. While being myself a wounded combat vet. I am sadden by any soldiers death or injury. Take your figure of 3500+ dead while most of these are combat death some of them are accidents..suicides..and deaths resulting in disease which could have happened states side. The wounded is the most inflated figure if you look at the site I will provide... nearly half the wounded were not even evacuated to a hospital and returned to duty with in 72 hours...which means cuts bruises and scrapes. Like I said I grieve for everyone of our dead or wounded soldiers..but compared to other wars the casualties are small.

http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I never made this comparison. I just think that if returning tax dollars to the economy is to be considered in the cost of things, then that needs to be applied universally.

Most government programs return some money to the economy, but that doesn't mean that the military is anything like welfare. Welfare spends much less on bullets.

And a hell of a lot less on high tech jobs. Watch what happens in a town when, say, the plant making Allison enginges for tanks, or an aircraft factory, closes.

It isn't pretty.

DR

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I never made this comparison. I just think that if returning tax dollars to the economy is to be considered in the cost of things, then that needs to be applied universally.

Most government programs return some money to the economy, but that doesn't mean that the military is anything like welfare. Welfare spends much less on bullets.

Yes you did!

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

And a hell of a lot less on high tech jobs. Watch what happens in a town when, say, the plant making Allison enginges for tanks, or an aircraft factory, closes.

True. I don't deny that war can be very good for the economy. It was WWII that pulled us out of the Great Depression. Still, I'm not sure it is really such a great investment overall. As with everything though, it depends on the situation. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we shouldn't have fought in WWII.

Comrade, you're a hoot. Did you ever consider stand-up comedy?

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

When you carelessly use the tools of a fool, to whit, the tired canard of "American servicemen are mercenaries," you can easily be mistaken for such a fool.

Now you're quoting this as if I said it when it's pure invention. You're attempting to make connections that do not exist.

Quote:

I think you'll appreciate some people "grow into the job," and their perspective on their service's purpose changes consdierably (toward that selfless-service-patriot model so often tossed about by pundits) as they immerse themselves in what they are doing.

Sure, which is why I'm sure many contractors (who also happen to be ex-military), will obviously claim to love their country and believe the work they're doing in Iraq for over 100k a year is making a positive contribution toward Iraqi prosperity and U.S. security. That's a natural human tendency. I'm also sure that instead of "growing into the the job" many soldiers become disillusioned and feel miserable.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Quote:

Quote:
As of January 18, 2007, there were at least 500 American amputees due to the Iraq War. According to a Time magazine article, the 500th victim was a 24-year-old corporal, who lost both legs in a roadside bomb explosion on January 12, 2007.
From Wiki as of January 2007,
Quote:
"The 500 major amputations — toes and fingers aren't counted — represent 2.2% of the 22,700 U.S. troops wounded in action. But the number rises to 5% in the category of soldiers whose wounds prevent them returning to duty. Nearly 2,000 brain-injured soldiers have already received some level of care.
If I can find a better US Army source, I'll get it to you.

I tend to discount most things from Wiki...as anybody can write anything there (got a link so I can check it out) I believe the site I gave you was connected to DOD.

Quote:

Nearly 2,000 brain-injured soldiers have already received some level of care.
If I can find a better US Army source, I'll get it to you.

The Agent orange of Iraq...very hard to diagnosis.

[3point14]

With regard to the money filtering back into the economy, maybe my prejudices are showing, but is it the case that every time you take money from (all stratas of) the economy and filter it through via any method, then the people at the top get to cream off their percentage of profit again?

I also think that expressing the cost of the war in dollars (or pounds) can be slightly misleading. the actual currency used is not 'lost' it doesn't disappear, as discussed it goes flying around the economy again. Being callous for a moment and disregarding the 'human cost' of lives lost and ruined, is there an economic cost that goes beyond dollars? Regardless of any money 'recycled' the man hours lost to the war will never be recovered, the raw materials will probably not be recovered until we're so desperate for them that we employ extreme recycling methods. Thinking about it this way then any 'filtering through the economy' argument may be invalidated. The dollars are just a way of keeping score, and regardless of any effect they may have after they have been spent, they have still been spent, the time and materials that those dollars represent has gone and cannot be recovered. The fact that those dollars may go on to represent a different set of time and materials doesn't mean that anything already spent can be recovered.

Apologies if I'm rambling, I'm kind of thinking this through while I'm typing, so I reserve the right to be wrong/full of it.

[lula]

Jesus. Think where that money could have gone....

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I'll remember this point next time somebody complains about the cost of welfare. After all, virtually all that money gets plowed back into the economy.

Well as I said I am disgusted with the war, but you can't avoid the fact that the money comes back the U.S.

I also think there are better ways to help the poor than just giving them money, even though they are sending that money back into the economy. You are making the assumption that I am justifying the war is good by saying that the money goes back into the economy. I have said numerous times that I never supported the war from the onset. Assumptions are the mother of all F--k ups. Remember that next time.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I never made this comparison. I just think that if returning tax dollars to the economy is to be considered in the cost of things, then that needs to be applied universally.

No one was arguing that. I was simply pointing it out... A lot of things return money back into the economy.

Originally Posted by Tricky

Most government programs return some money to the economy, but that doesn't mean that the military is anything like welfare. Welfare spends much less on bullets.

And much more on liquor and cigarettes...

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by lula

Jesus. Think where that money could have gone....

NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA!!!!!!!!! Can't say it enough!

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cain

Now you're quoting this as if I said it when it's pure invention. You're attempting to make connections that do not exist.

Methinks the young lady protesteth overly much. I used bold for emphasis, I did not quote you, but pointed out the form that canard has usually taken. You were referring to American troops.

Not to get too far side-tracked, but isn't the argument that being a soldiers are supposed to be fighting for love of country instead of money?

Patriots or mercenaries?

If it looks like a duck . . .

Quote:

Sure, which is why I'm sure many contractors (who also happen to be ex-military), will obviously claim to love their country and believe the work they're doing in Iraq for over 100k a year is making a positive contribution toward Iraqi prosperity and U.S. security. That's a natural human tendency.

No argument, that makes sense. This doesn't address the presumption inherent in supposed to be fighting for love of country instead of money regarding soldiers. That is a false choice. You pay your soldiers. How much is subject to immense discussion. Old saw in the military: "I don't do this to get rich." (True. You won't generally "get rich" in uniform if that is your sole source of income.)

Quote:

I'm also sure that instead of "growing into the the job" many soldiers become disillusioned and feel miserable.

No question. Not sure if it is "some" or "many" or "most" but that's one reaction to life in the service.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA NASA!!!!!!!!! Can't say it enough!

I see, you'd rather run up your credit card debt on hookers and booze rather than on a surfing vacation.

The issue isn't what this immense borrowed pot of money could have been spent on, but on why spending it at all by going into debt is a good, or bad, idea.

We aren't examining the matter of a budget surplus that can be applied, for example, to a war or NASA, it is a matter of taking on a significant debt for a particular purpose.

DR

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I see, you'd rather run up your credit card debt on hookers and booze rather than on a surfing vacation.

The issue isn't what this immense borrowed pot of money could have been spent on, but on why spending it at all by going into debt is a good, or bad, idea.

We aren't examining the matter of a budget surplus that can be applied, for example, to a war or NASA, it is a matter of taking on a significant debt for a particular purpose.

DR

Immense debt worth Iraq War ----- NO

Immense debt worth NASA (Wondrous discoveries and exciting new technologies that can be applied to the country as a whole and benefit the economy while promoting math and science in our education system) HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Methinks the young lady protesteth overly much. I used bold for emphasis, I did not quote you, but pointed out the form that canard has usually taken. You were referring to American troops.

Thank you for clarifying that. I do not like to appeal to authority, but seeing as how I am something of an authority on my own words and their intended meaning, I can confidently say I meant nothing of the kind. The argument applies to soldiers everywhere: it's reasonable to question soldiers -- soldiers, not American soldiers in particular -- who are attracted to the military largely because of high compensation It's a generic argument, and reasonable people can debate where the threshold lies. How much money does a person have to have before you consider her rich? What if we subtract one penny from that figure? How much hair must a man lose before you consider him bald? How many grains of sand does it take to make a pile?

You're just (pathetically) imposing your own misreading in spite of my repeated clarifications. The text, the context, simply does not support your crazy distortions. You're so impossibly dim that you don't see how I could take a poster who mentioned soldiers resenting contractor pay. I pointed out there's a reason other than stinginess for why that's the case. Instead you rushed to judgment with these howlers about a straw man and a false dilemma.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by MilwaukeeMike

Well as I said I am disgusted with the war, but you can't avoid the fact that the money comes back the U.S.

I also think there are better ways to help the poor than just giving them money, even though they are sending that money back into the economy. You are making the assumption that I am justifying the war is good by saying that the money goes back into the economy. I have said numerous times that I never supported the war from the onset. Assumptions are the mother of all F--k ups. Remember that next time.

You mistake me, sir. It was not sarcasm, and I am not making any assumptions about your justification. I am saying that including benefits as well as costs is a valid way of assessing whether government money is spent wisely. Too many people look only at the ledger sheet. I did not mean to divert this thread to a discussion of welfare.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cain

Thank you for clarifying that. I do not like to appeal to authority, but seeing as how I am something of an authority on my own words and their intended meaning, I can confidently say I meant nothing of the kind.

Fine.

Quote:

The argument applies to soldiers everywhere: it's reasonable to question soldiers -- soldiers, not American soldiers in particular -- who are attracted to the military largely because of high compensation

So it applies to conscripts as well?

Quote:

It's a generic argument

Really? See "conscripts" yet again.

This allegedly generic argument has nothing to do with "mercenary or patriot," which is the false choice that induced my response in the first place.

Quote:

Reasonable people can debate where the threshold lies.

When you set up a false choice like that, where did reasonable enter into this?

Quote:

How much money does a person have to have before you consider her rich? What if we subtract one penny from that figure? How much hair must a man lose before you consider him bald? How many grains of sand does it take to make a pile?

Good questions.

Quote:

You're just (pathetically) imposing your own misreading in spite of my repeated clarifications.

Your clarifications have done nothing to change the falsity of the choice you posed. All we have done since then is establish that we agree that there are a variety of motivations for that career path, which I point out can, and frequently do change. We seem to agree on that as well. We might even agree that there is a continuum in there, and you might even accept that one can be both mercenary and patriot at the same time. Want to try to wrap your thinking around that?

Quote:

The text, the context, simply does not support your crazy distortions.

I can't distort a false choice that you posited, but I can easily figure out the brand of nonsense that spawns such tripe.

Quote:

You're so impossibly dim

A mind just shut down. Yours.

Later.

DR