Page 1 of 2
Bush plans to ask for $10.6 billion for Afghanistan.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:11 pm
by Phlegm
Bush plans to ask Congress for $10.6 billion for Afghanistan, a major increase aimed at rebuilding the country and strengthening government security forces.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:19 pm
by Evermore
how many homeless does the US have? or orphaned children?
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:33 pm
by Arlos
I actually don't mind paying for Afghanistan. Given that I did and DO support us attacking them, since they WERE actually directly connected to the people that, you know, attacked us. I have severe disagreements with HOW we went about the invasion and occupation; I think if we'd sent 3-4x the number of troops, we might have actually caught some of the senior Taliban leadership and maybe even Osama, but nooo... they were saving those troops for Iraq, so....
Also, 10.6 billion is significantly less than 500 billion, yes?
-Arlos
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:42 pm
by Harrison
Evermore wrote:how many homeless does the US have? or orphaned children?
How many clueless idiots does it take to ask inane questions not related to the subject at hand?
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:50 pm
by Narrock
How about pumping that 10 billion into solving our own problems? Wow, what a concept!
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:52 pm
by Xaiveir
Narrock wrote:How about pumping that 10 billion into solving our own problems? Wow, what a concept!
Gonna have to agree with Mindia here. I think its very relavent that we have billions of dollars for war expenses, but not for inner country problems. I think its very relavent.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:27 pm
by Arlos
Well, in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have had us not spend the 500 billion on Iraq rather than not spend 11 billion on Afghanistan....
-Arlos
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:33 pm
by Phlegm
arlos wrote:Well, in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have had us not spend the 500 billion on Iraq rather than not spend 11 billion on Afghanistan....
-Arlos
Actually it's 11 billion more. Afghanistan is closing in on 200 billions or so now.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:23 pm
by Phlegm
Ok, after a bit of research I found that the cost on terror so far is 507 billion dollars with 71% to Iraq, 21% to Afghanistan and 8% to internal/external security measures.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:10 pm
by Eziekial
Interesting #. Does it take into account the cost of fuel prices going up or the service men and women killed/wounded in the conflict? I doubt it. How do you put a price on someone's life?
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:13 pm
by Xaiveir
Eziekial wrote:Interesting #. Does it take into account the cost of fuel prices going up or the service men and women killed/wounded in the conflict? I doubt it. How do you put a price on someone's life?
Whats the going rate of a barrel of oil today? Suppose that would answer your question.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:25 pm
by Eziekial
Well, it's over 50/bbl where at the start of the war was at 30. Some of that is China's increase in use so say $10/bbl? That's about $100 billion each of the last few years (can't remember where I got that $1/bbl=$10billion/year so that's just a guess). Anyway, all those numbers are meaningless.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:34 pm
by Phlegm
Eziekial wrote:Interesting #. Does it take into account the cost of fuel prices going up or the service men and women killed/wounded in the conflict? I doubt it. How do you put a price on someone's life?
No. The number is the money spent so far. The money allocated by Congress is around 600 billion dollars.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:37 pm
by Phlegm
Xaiveir wrote:Eziekial wrote:Interesting #. Does it take into account the cost of fuel prices going up or the service men and women killed/wounded in the conflict? I doubt it. How do you put a price on someone's life?
Whats the going rate of a barrel of oil today? Suppose that would answer your question.
The current price of a barrel of oil right now is about $55 down from the record high of $77 a few months ago.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:50 pm
by Xaiveir
Phlegm wrote:Xaiveir wrote:Eziekial wrote:Interesting #. Does it take into account the cost of fuel prices going up or the service men and women killed/wounded in the conflict? I doubt it. How do you put a price on someone's life?
Whats the going rate of a barrel of oil today? Suppose that would answer your question.
The current price of a barrel of oil right now is about $55 down from the record high of $77 a few months ago.
My sarcastic point was, the barrel of oil is the price of a soldiers life.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:16 pm
by Phlegm
Here's an interesting view on the recent pull back of oil prices.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16772560/
Oil traders and others believe that the Saudi decision to let the price of oil tumble has more to do with Iran than economics.
Their belief has been reinforced in recent days as the Saudi oil minister has steadfastly refused calls for a special meeting of OPEC and announced that the nation is going to increase its production, which will send the price down even farther.
.
.
.
Moreover, the traders believe the Saudis are not doing this alone, that the other Sunni-dominated oil producing countries and the U.S. are working together, believing it will hurt majority-Shiite Iran economically and create a domestic crisis for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose popularity at home is on the wane. The traders also believe (with good reason) that the U.S. is trying to tighten the screws on Iran financially at the same time the Saudis are reducing the Islamic Republic’s oil revenues.
For the Saudis, who fear Iran’s religious, geopolitical and nuclear aspirations, the decision to lower the price of oil has a number of benefits, the biggest being to deprive Iran of hard currency. It also may create unrest in a country that is its rival on a number of levels and permits the Saudis to show the U.S. that military action may not be necessary.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:59 pm
by Evermore
Harrison wrote:Evermore wrote:how many homeless does the US have? or orphaned children?
How many clueless idiots does it take to ask inane questions not related to the subject at hand?
the clueless idiot is the one critizing. NExt time ill put it in a way that you dont have to think. i know its a strain.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:46 am
by Agrajag
Eziekial wrote:Interesting #. Does it take into account the cost of fuel prices going up or the service men and women killed/wounded in the conflict? I doubt it. How do you put a price on someone's life?
The human body, when broken down into its basic elements and minerals, is only worth about $4.50.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:13 am
by Eziekial
Yes we all know that; I was speaking of opportunity costs.
By the way, that's not taking into consideration the cost of breaking down a body into basic elements. I think looking at it mathmatically we are a net loss.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:11 pm
by Harrison
Evermore wrote:Harrison wrote:Evermore wrote:how many homeless does the US have? or orphaned children?
How many clueless idiots does it take to ask inane questions not related to the subject at hand?
the clueless idiot is the one critizing.
How's that whole English language thing working out for you?
Fucking illiterate retard...
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:31 pm
by Lyion
Ya know, both of you have good points. Howz about discuss them versus epeen warfare?
People living in poverty ARE a big issue. National security is also a big issue. What to spend is a good discussion.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:42 pm
by brinstar
okay finawin, you don't like evermore and you like to pick on him for his poor typing/spelling/grammar/whatever.
we get it.
either get past it, or don't reply to him at all-- all you're doing is adding noise.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:47 pm
by Xaiveir
I added noise too.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:07 pm
by Harrison
I can't take people seriously in a discussion if they can't fucking handle something as simple as the LANGUAGE THEY SPEAK EVERY DAY.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:08 pm
by Lueyen
You know Harrison, when most people read, they tend to skip things unconsciously and fill in the blanks. Misspelled words, subtle grammatical flaws and such are usually not even noticed. I'm not generally in favor of butchering the English language but at the same time freaking out because of one or two misspelled words when the meaning and flow is perfectly clear is anal retentive. Pointing out peoples grammatical errors doesn't invalidate their argument; it just makes you look like an asshole.