Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, war destroys wealth, but to say that war spending "is wasted because Soldiers/War effort only consume. They do not supply anything into the economy" is wrong. I admit that ARPANET and the like could have been provided by the private sector, but it wasn't--war spending provided it.


For the sake of Contrarianism, I'll take up the plight of tanks.

Tanks don't only destroy things. They provide not only jobs to the industrial sector, but also they also provide the government with the capital to engage in services for maintaining its national security. It's a dangerous world, Lootifer, and the Armed Forces must make it a safer place for business and political interests.

Nothing to argue with here. Lame.

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, war destroys wealth, but to say that war spending "is wasted because Soldiers/War effort only consume. They do not supply anything into the economy" is wrong. I admit that ARPANET and the like could have been provided by the private sector, but it wasn't--war spending provided it.


For the sake of Contrarianism, I'll take up the plight of tanks.

Tanks don't only destroy things. They provide not only jobs to the industrial sector, but also they also provide the government with the capital to engage in services for maintaining its national security. It's a dangerous world, Lootifer, and the Armed Forces must make it a safer place for business and political interests.

Nothing to argue with here. Lame.

Ok, then, I left a few holes in my argument:

Sure, wart war spending "is wastednly consume. They do nointo the economy" is wrong. I admit that ARPANET and therovided by the private sector, but it wasn't--war spending provided it.


For the sakke up the plight of tanks.

Tanks don'de not only jobs to the indus they also provide the government with the capital to engage in serviceg its national security. It's aand the Armed Foe it a safer placess and political interests.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, war destroys wealth, but to say that war spending "is wasted because Soldiers/War effort only consume. They do not supply anything into the economy" is wrong. I admit that ARPANET and the like could have been provided by the private sector, but it wasn't--war spending provided it.


For the sake of Contrarianism, I'll take up the plight of tanks.

Tanks don't only destroy things. They provide not only jobs to the industrial sector, but also they also provide the government with the capital to engage in services for maintaining its national security. It's a dangerous world, Lootifer, and the Armed Forces must make it a safer place for business and political interests.

Nothing to argue with here. Lame.

Ok, then, I left a few holes in my argument:

Sure, wart war spending "is wastednly consume. They do nointo the economy" is wrong. I admit that ARPANET and therovided by the private sector, but it wasn't--war spending provided it.


For the sakke up the plight of tanks.

Tanks don'de not only jobs to the indus they also provide the government with the capital to engage in serviceg its national security. It's aand the Armed Foe it a safer placess and political interests.

Nag hacked your password again, while drunk no less.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Um excuse me, but hand guns, ARPANET (then Internet), satellites, and all other related technologies from war-spending which the private sector uses. Nuff said.

Honestly, my point is that money spent on war isn't only consumed by the military and that it does supply some things into the economy--at the very least, jobs.

Just want to be fair a bit here. It might be that some will take that War spending creates the most awesome things. Imagine if all that money was used to fund research... what might we have now? Maybe we wouldn't need satellites cuz we could send lots of info with no line of sight. Jobs would also be created by using this money on research, lab technicians, scientist, and all those jobs to keep facilities and what not.

It's unfair to fail to recognize that the money spent of war doesn't itself move the economy a bit, but let's realize that research spending would do the same. Without human deaths. And the discovery to dollar ratio would be better I presume.

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Um excuse me, but hand guns, ARPANET (then Internet), satellites, and all other related technologies from war-spending which the private sector uses. Nuff said.

Honestly, my point is that money spent on war isn't only consumed by the military and that it does supply some things into the economy--at the very least, jobs.

Just want to be fair a bit here. It might be that some will take that War spending creates the most awesome things. Imagine if all that money was used to fund research... what might we have now? Maybe we wouldn't need satellites cuz we could send lots of info with no line of sight. Jobs would also be created by using this money on research, lab technicians, scientist, and all those jobs to keep facilities and what not.

It's unfair to fail to recognize that the money spent of war doesn't itself move the economy a bit, but let's realize that research spending would do the same. Without human deaths. And the discovery to dollar ratio would be better I presume.

Imagine as much as you like but it's forever unknowable.

Imagine if all taxes amounted to a net 2% of every person's income. Imagine all the cool shit which people actually demand--instead of having the government decide what is needed and what isn't. But we can't place abstractions into reality because we can't show the counter-factual. It's merely a foregone opportunity in the past, whose results are unknown.

From all I've read. The ballpark figure for Persian Gulf War, Iraq War and Afghanistan would be about $10 trillion. I'd say that number adjusts the Persian Gulf War for inflation. So I don't know. Are we getting $10 trillion back in fuel? I doubt it. A more logical conspiracy theory would simply be corporations and lobbyists greasing each others wheels.

The US hardly footed the bill for the Persian Gulf War.

Being blessed by the UN and supported by many rich Middle Eastern countries really helped out.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US hardly footed the bill for the Persian Gulf War.

Being blessed by the UN and supported by many rich Middle Eastern countries really helped out.

Nah. We paid for all of that shit.

ViperOverLord wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US hardly footed the bill for the Persian Gulf War.

Being blessed by the UN and supported by many rich Middle Eastern countries really helped out.

Nah. We paid for all of that shit.

Cornell University (1992, last modified 1997) disagrees.

-Payments were made in one of two ways: with financial assets ("Cash") and with services such as sealift and airlift ("In-Kind")

-As of March 1992, there was a shortfall in receipts compared with commitments. The total amount committed was $54 billion but only $52.9 billion had been received. The shortfall was $1.1 billion.

-Saudi Arabia provided the US Military with fuel, food, water, local transportation and facilities, accounting for the "In-Kind" assistance. This accounted for 25% of the Saudi commitment to the US Military presence and was 71% of all "In-Kind" contributions.

-The US paid roughly $7 billion, less than 12% of the total US cost and less than half what Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid.

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html


Here's Stephan Dagget, Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets (2010), from the Congressional Research Service:

"Net costs to US taxpayers totaled $4.7 billion in current year dollars" (page 3, section b).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22persian%20gulf%20war%22%20costs&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fnatsec%2FRS22926.pdf&ei=lbDETs-6PJCGsgKWlYnQCw&usg=AFQjCNGt4oGp23WbfkyEGoL0VCs7HORZCA&cad=rja


Is it foolish to presume knowledge over something which you don't know?

^^^

I stand corrected. Props for the sources. I had heard much innuendo about others paying many times before but no real evidence until now.

ViperOverLord wrote:From all I've read. The ballpark figure for Persian Gulf War, Iraq War and Afghanistan would be about $10 trillion. I'd say that number adjusts the Persian Gulf War for inflation. So I don't know. Are we getting $10 trillion back in fuel? I doubt it. A more logical conspiracy theory would simply be corporations and lobbyists greasing each others wheels.

No, but a large portion of that money went to government contractors, suppliers, etc.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US hardly footed the bill for the Persian Gulf War.

Being blessed by the UN and supported by many rich Middle Eastern countries really helped out.

Nah. We paid for all of that shit.

Cornell University (1992, last modified 1997) disagrees.

-Payments were made in one of two ways: with financial assets ("Cash") and with services such as sealift and airlift ("In-Kind")

-As of March 1992, there was a shortfall in receipts compared with commitments. The total amount committed was $54 billion but only $52.9 billion had been received. The shortfall was $1.1 billion.

-Saudi Arabia provided the US Military with fuel, food, water, local transportation and facilities, accounting for the "In-Kind" assistance. This accounted for 25% of the Saudi commitment to the US Military presence and was 71% of all "In-Kind" contributions.

-The US paid roughly $7 billion, less than 12% of the total US cost and less than half what Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid.

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~fhoran/gulf/GW_cost/GW_payments.html


Here's Stephan Dagget, Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets (2010), from the Congressional Research Service:

"Net costs to US taxpayers totaled $4.7 billion in current year dollars" (page 3, section b).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22persian%20gulf%20war%22%20costs&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fnatsec%2FRS22926.pdf&ei=lbDETs-6PJCGsgKWlYnQCw&usg=AFQjCNGt4oGp23WbfkyEGoL0VCs7HORZCA&cad=rja


Is it foolish to presume knowledge over something which you don't know?

Its handy for his worldview to assume America does everything on its own and the rest of the world is just ungrateful.

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Its handy for his worldview to assume America does everything on its own and the rest of the world is just ungrateful.

It's handy for you to not read my follow-up post (two posts before yours).

saxitoxin wrote:Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

that's still less swedish fish than i eat at the average summer camp.

john9blue wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

that's still less swedish fish than i eat at the average summer camp.

NOW I KNOW HOW TO TRAP JOHN9BLUE.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Its handy for his worldview to assume America does everything on its own and the rest of the world is just ungrateful.

It's handy for you to not read my follow-up post (two posts before yours).

I did read it actually. I don't see how that changes my assessment of your worldview.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Its handy for his worldview to assume America does everything on its own and the rest of the world is just ungrateful.

It's handy for you to not read my follow-up post (two posts before yours).

I did read it actually. I don't see how that changes my assessment of your worldview.

Okay. Since you presume to be qualified to assess my world view then. How does the revelation that most additional costs to the USA were offset by the coalition affect my view on the Persian Gulf War?

<Crickets>

That's what I thought. You have no f'ing clue.

Going back to your OS, what in the hell makes you think that I have some sort of intrinsic pride tied into your alleged concept that all of the countries of the world are not grateful for America assuming a world police role?

john9blue wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

that's still less swedish fish than i eat at the average summer camp.

So..........in another 8 years you get to be a counselor?

notyou2 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

that's still less swedish fish than i eat at the average summer camp.

So..........in another 8 years you get to be a counselor?

depends. do counselors get an unlimited supply of swedish fish?

ViperOverLord wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Its handy for his worldview to assume America does everything on its own and the rest of the world is just ungrateful.

It's handy for you to not read my follow-up post (two posts before yours).

I did read it actually. I don't see how that changes my assessment of your worldview.

Okay. Since you presume to be qualified to assess my world view then. How does the revelation that most additional costs to the USA were offset by the coalition affect my view on the Persian Gulf War?

<Crickets>

That's what I thought. You have no f'ing clue.

Going back to your OS, what in the hell makes you think that I have some sort of intrinsic pride tied into your alleged concept that all of the countries of the world are not grateful for America assuming a world police role?

my my testy aren't we. I made my statement based on the views you have expressed here in the forum. Which have been american centric, arrogant and generally ignorant. That's just my opinion though.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Um excuse me, but hand guns, ARPANET (then Internet), satellites, and all other related technologies from war-spending which the private sector uses. Nuff said.

Honestly, my point is that money spent on war isn't only consumed by the military and that it does supply some things into the economy--at the very least, jobs.

Just want to be fair a bit here. It might be that some will take that War spending creates the most awesome things. Imagine if all that money was used to fund research... what might we have now? Maybe we wouldn't need satellites cuz we could send lots of info with no line of sight. Jobs would also be created by using this money on research, lab technicians, scientist, and all those jobs to keep facilities and what not.

It's unfair to fail to recognize that the money spent of war doesn't itself move the economy a bit, but let's realize that research spending would do the same. Without human deaths. And the discovery to dollar ratio would be better I presume.

Imagine as much as you like but it's forever unknowable.

Imagine if all taxes amounted to a net 2% of every person's income. Imagine all the cool shit which people actually demand--instead of having the government decide what is needed and what isn't. But we can't place abstractions into reality because we can't show the counter-factual. It's merely a foregone opportunity in the past, whose results are unknown.

Space reserved for answering BBS. No I'm not doing research or anything I'm well known for posting stuff without actually knowing facts.

Reserved as well.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Its handy for his worldview to assume America does everything on its own and the rest of the world is just ungrateful.

It's handy for you to not read my follow-up post (two posts before yours).

I did read it actually. I don't see how that changes my assessment of your worldview.

Okay. Since you presume to be qualified to assess my world view then. How does the revelation that most additional costs to the USA were offset by the coalition affect my view on the Persian Gulf War?

<Crickets>

That's what I thought. You have no f'ing clue.

Going back to your OS, what in the hell makes you think that I have some sort of intrinsic pride tied into your alleged concept that all of the countries of the world are not grateful for America assuming a world police role?

my my testy aren't we. I made my statement based on the views you have expressed here in the forum. Which have been american centric, arrogant and generally ignorant. That's just my opinion though.

I'm an American and do not feel a strong need to be a self deprecating anti-nationalist. I think it's fair to say that I'm going to generally have a degree of American pride. I wouldn't confuse that with an American-centric attitude though. I constantly criticize US culture and politics and yes international policy. I by no means have a national superiority complex and I am rightfully proud of our accomplishments. Still, I remain skeptical and downright cynical of many American practices. I take every subject matter on a case by case basis. There are areas in which America excels and areas in which we stink. It's that simple.

And how am I being arrogant, when I find myself corrected and I say something to the effect of 'good job thanks for the correction?' I think you are justifying your own personal abuse under the guise of your baggage from other threads. That reflects poorly on you. And that is not 'just my opinion.' That is reality.

nietzsche wrote:Ok, let's work with 3 trillion dollars. Thanks Aradhus.


3 TRILLION DOLLARS 3 000 000 000 000 DOLLARS

Can you imagine how many medical and technological advances could we have if that money was spent on research?

There is this theory for the root of an autoimmune disease, and it there's anecdotical information that the theory is true, but there is no medicine or procedure to take advantage of this theory because pharmaceuticals don't care, they won't profit, on the contrary they'll lose money, so there's no money to fund such research. This is a debilitating disease and a possible favorable solution might give back the vitality to millions.

I bet there a many MANY more cases like this, where research to radically change or lives for the better is waiting for funding. Yet we spend our money to destroy and kill.

I think that it could be said, Nietsche, that war encourages technological advances. Consider, in World Wars I and II, the technological and medical advances that were undergone (other than weapons). In WWII, advances were made in radio, telephones, communications systems, radar, sonar, the first effective sulphonamides that could be used for a variety of infections, penicillin was mass produced for the first time, plastic surgery, burns treatment, blood transfusions, severe wound treatment, malaria preventatives, tetanus prevention, delousing powder (AL63 for the British Army), canned goods, preservatives, SPAM and more!!! All of these have immensely benefited society, and do you think, at all, that without World War II, these breakthroughs, discoveries and improvements would have been implemented in the '40s? Of course not! Penicillin had been discovered in the early '30s, but it was weak and no medical company was interested in a massively industrial scale until the middle of World War II! Ever heard of Archibald McIndoe? The man pioneered plastic surgery during World War II for RAF pilots.

Can you imagine the muddle that society would be in if 3 trillion were absorbed by the government? How much funding has cancer research received? Yet, there's no sure way to cure cancer, even yet.

I agree that it could be said that the money would certainly benefit the nation, but it would only benefit us in the occurrance that all nations and tribal groups suddenly and miraculously became peaceful. And peace oftentimes devastates a country. Consider Germany's method of rebuilding during the 1930s. They invested heavily upon the army, the navy and the air force, and the Third Reich was founded from the ashes of a failed "peaceful regime." Lenin's Russia was a floundering financial wreck before World War II.

Look what Greece and Italy are undergoing. Maybe a little war would stimulate their economies, don't you think?