Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (249159)	9/4/2005 3:32:54 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572349

Salary question - do you have any idea what the annual pay is for the average US serviceman in Iraq? In fact, if you (or anyone else) have any idea, what are the approximate annual salaries for the following? 1- Marine in 2nd year of duty. 2- Captain in 12th year of duty. 4- General (of whatever star level). I'm trying to get a rough figure on of the "cost of Iraq", what amount is the basic maintenance of the troops?

To: i-node who wrote (249159)	9/4/2005 9:49:54 AM
From: SGJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572349

When the argument is made that the "money went to Iraq instead", you know you're dealing with a Sheehan/Michael Moore/MoveOn.org liberal -- devoid of rational thought. Sorry but rational can cut both ways here. One CAN rationally make that argument. It is so obvious, to so many, maybe you should consider why it is you cannot see that argument rationally on an OBJECTIVE basis? Rational feeds off of objectivity. Thats the bottom line on where most of your responders are coming from. You don't seem objective.

To: i-node who wrote (249159)	9/4/2005 9:56:02 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572349

There are many different ways to skin a cat. I think national security is also one of the biggest functions of our gov't. However, my first priority would have been to spend that $300B on oil independence as a long term means of achieving national security, instead of invading Iraq. But the second best course was to invade Iraq. As far as Afghanistan goes, there is no debate there. We should have invaded there regardless. The only difference in how I would have handled it, is that I would have gone in and leveled the entire place from north to south and would not have relied on any indiginous armies to do our work for us. Bin Laden would be dead today, if I had been President.

To: i-node who wrote (249159)	9/4/2005 2:33:55 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572349

>> More than we needed to go to Iraq. And it needed it desperately. Whatever. No, not whatever. We in this country are paying a price for this senseless war in Iraq. Its not a a small matter.....its a big one........big, costly and dangerous one. Dallas needed the George W. Bush Expressway, too. But the point is, did they need it worse than New Orleans needed levee improvements? (Okay, the Bush Expressway is a toll road, but the point holds conceptually). Why does it have to be an either or proposition in a country as well off as the US? It doesn't and it shouldn't except when you decide to fight a major war during a recession in which you give the favored members of your constituency tax cuts. Do you know how many billions of lost wages were due to the traffic situation in Boston? It was an insane arrangement....the confluence of two or three freeways in downtown Boston and there was no seamless way to get through it. What should have taken 15-20 minutes to do often took hours. Doing the big dig was not a luxury but a necessity. What was inappropriate was the gouging that developed around the project which increased costs. Nonetheless, the cost would have been high if for no other reason than it had to be a one of a kind, customized project. Custom developments by their very nature are always more expensive than run of the mill projects. Iraq was, in the opinion of most people, something that needed to be done for our national security. I know you don't agree, but most people do (or did at the time). National defense is the most important function of our government, so it is essential that funding go there first, before ANY other expenditures. If people agreed to go, it was with the proviso that the US shoulder the burden with other countries. When other countries would not agree, it was at that point that Bush lied and made the reasons to go to war look compelling. That is why public favor is so against him now. When the argument is made that the "money went to Iraq instead", you know you're dealing with a Sheehan/Michael Moore/MoveOn.org liberal -- devoid of rational thought. These people have marginalized their own importance to the process, however, and have no power, which is the way it should be. Dude, get used to it. When you are liars and deceitful, you pay a price.