lucia 0 #1 September 9, 2005 For every euro that is spent in humanitary tasks there are ten being spent in weapons. What do people think about this? Am I the only one who feels shame on myself?Lucy in the Sky http:\\www.skydivelillo.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #2 September 9, 2005 QuoteAm I the only one who feels shame on myself? No, I'm sure there are others who also feel shame on you, too. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #3 September 9, 2005 Oh that was cold (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #4 September 9, 2005 QuoteOh that was cold I'm sorry. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #5 September 9, 2005 TeHe.. no need to appologise to me, mate. Blue Ones, (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #6 September 9, 2005 ***No, I'm sure there are others who also feel shame on you, too. D'OH Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #7 September 9, 2005 QuoteFor every euro that is spent in humanitary tasks there are ten being spent in weapons. What do people think about this? Am I the only one who feels shame on myself? You have to look at the economics of it. For example, let's say that I have to deal with 100 Muslim terrorists and I'm trying to figure out whether to appease them by buying each one a sandwich (not ham!!!) or shoot them. Depending on the kind of gun, I might spend $1500 (USD) on the gun and $500 on ammunition for a total of $2000. That works out to $20 per Muslim terrorist. At first glance, it would appear that buying the sandwiches would be the far better deal because I could spend $2 per sandwich for a total cost of $200, or 1/10 of the cost of the gun and ammunition. The problem is that as soon as the Muslim terrorists get hungry again, they'll want more sandwiches. A bullet, on the other hand, is a permanent fix--not just a short term solution. Plus, now that I have the gun, ammunition is relatively inexpensive so my additional costs will be minimal. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trigger 0 #8 September 9, 2005 If i wanted to kill terrorists, muslim, or otherwise; i would like to do it with my bare hands. But the problem is, it takes balls to do that, and the last time i looked, mine were right where they should be; right between my legs. i don't want a gun......CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 September 9, 2005 Quote At first glance, it would appear that buying the sandwiches would be the far better deal because I could spend $2 per sandwich for a total cost of $200, or 1/10 of the cost of the gun and ammunition. ... Plus, now that I have the gun, ammunition is relatively inexpensive so my additional costs will be minimal. Ya know, I try to be cold and heartless and there's always someone else out there that does it better and with more flare. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #10 September 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteFor every euro that is spent in humanitary tasks there are ten being spent in weapons. What do people think about this? Am I the only one who feels shame on myself? You have to look at the economics of it. For example, let's say that I have to deal with 100 Muslim terrorists and I'm trying to figure out whether to appease them by buying each one a sandwich (not ham!!!) or shoot them. Depending on the kind of gun, I might spend $1500 (USD) on the gun and $500 on ammunition for a total of $2000. That works out to $20 per Muslim terrorist. At first glance, it would appear that buying the sandwiches would be the far better deal because I could spend $2 per sandwich for a total cost of $200, or 1/10 of the cost of the gun and ammunition. The problem is that as soon as the Muslim terrorists get hungry again, they'll want more sandwiches. A bullet, on the other hand, is a permanent fix--not just a short term solution. Plus, now that I have the gun, ammunition is relatively inexpensive so my additional costs will be minimal. Walt Hi walt Intersting math We don't use none of that cheap shit ammo. Those are RPG prices We use smart bombs, airplanes, choppers, AC carriers, subs, contracor's etc. The military arms complex is big $$$. Ask clay. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 September 9, 2005 Whoa there now. Just a minute Coonboy. Where are you going to get a sandwich for $2.00? I think you got some fuzzy math going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 September 9, 2005 QuoteFor every euro that is spent in humanitary tasks there are ten being spent in weapons. What do people think about this? Am I the only one who feels shame on myself? aside from the fun of mocking you, why take this statement at face value? What shallow definitions of humanitarian and military were used to derive the 1:10 ratio? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #13 September 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteFor every euro that is spent in humanitary tasks there are ten being spent in weapons. What do people think about this? Am I the only one who feels shame on myself? aside from the fun of mocking you, why take this statement at face value? What shallow definitions of humanitarian and military were used to derive the 1:10 ratio? Why would you think the numbers are inaccurate? have you actually looked at the size of the military budget in the USA?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #14 September 9, 2005 QuoteWhoa there now. Just a minute Coonboy. Where are you going to get a sandwich for $2.00? I think you got some fuzzy math going. You're right. I checked into it and found that the price of falafel sandwiches has gone up. Probably the result of a Muslim conspiracy to overcharge the infidels. The bad news is that the sandwiches will probably cost $4.00. The good news is that we get to buy a better gun and more ammunition so we can maintain the all-important 10:1 spending ratio. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 September 10, 2005 http://www.falafelgame.com/eng/falafelhome.html Enjoy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purplegirl 0 #16 September 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhoa there now. Just a minute Coonboy. Where are you going to get a sandwich for $2.00? I think you got some fuzzy math going. You're right. I checked into it and found that the price of falafel sandwiches has gone up. Probably the result of a Muslim conspiracy to overcharge the infidels. The bad news is that the sandwiches will probably cost $4.00. The good news is that we get to buy a better gun and more ammunition so we can maintain the all-important 10:1 spending ratio. Walt no, no, you were right the first time... i was just in the middle east 4 months ago -- got 2 (yes, TWO) falafel/shawarma sandwiches for USD$2.00 and included a bottle of water. so in actuality, it's one buck apiece!!! p.s. got them at Afifa Restaurant in Dubai Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucia 0 #17 September 10, 2005 Not as many as those ones that feel shame on u my dear friend. I was asking for your thoughts your opinion and reflections. If that is the only you can squeeze to get out of your hollow head , good for u!Lucy in the Sky http:\\www.skydivelillo.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucia 0 #18 September 10, 2005 Ok another one that relly makes good points here...Lucy in the Sky http:\\www.skydivelillo.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucia 0 #19 September 10, 2005 So you think that the interesting part of my post is where the info comes from. Listen , from the news! And why shouldnt I take as valid? I think it has a lot of sense if you think in all those budgets dedicated to weapons around the world. And now lets touch the sensible fibers, all that money that the us has spent in weapons was it sefull in a situation like katrinas disaster?. People needed water food, doctors, and they didnt get anything of that . Maybe it is because we spend ten euros in weapons and 1 in caring for the peopleLucy in the Sky http:\\www.skydivelillo.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 September 10, 2005 QuoteSo you think that the interesting part of my post is where the info comes from. Listen , from the news! And why shouldnt I take as valid? I think it has a lot of sense if you think in all those budgets dedicated to weapons around the world. And now lets touch the sensible fibers, all that money that the us has spent in weapons was it sefull in a situation like katrinas disaster?. People needed water food, doctors, and they didnt get anything of that . Maybe it is because we spend ten euros in weapons and 1 in caring for the people Government has no obligation to take care of people in the sense of providing subsistence. It does however, have an obligation to protect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #21 September 10, 2005 The military isn't just about killing and murder. Yes, battle (both defensive and offensive) is it's primary role, but it also employs a substantial number of people, and generates incomes in the local community. Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota is on the chopping block and being closed down, this will SERIOUSLY impact the economic situation in Rapid City and in all of SD. The military also does a lot of civilian purchasing (for the ammunition, for the clothing, for the food, ect...) This helps support the population as a whole. The military also has humanitary missions and responds to situations like Katrinia, so to blanket statement say that the military is a waste of the money spent on it is naive. If you would be willing to actually break it down and show me where the money is soley spent on ammunition and then compare it to nonmilitary spending that covers humanitarian missions, EXCLUDING the contribuation of the military. Then, that info would be more relavant. Also, I do not feel shame for other people decisions. Whether it's where money is directed or decisions that might lead to their death. Each person is responsible for the choices that they make in their life. (read Atlas Shrugged) Karen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #22 September 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo you think that the interesting part of my post is where the info comes from. Listen , from the news! And why shouldnt I take as valid? I think it has a lot of sense if you think in all those budgets dedicated to weapons around the world. And now lets touch the sensible fibers, all that money that the us has spent in weapons was it sefull in a situation like katrinas disaster?. People needed water food, doctors, and they didnt get anything of that . Maybe it is because we spend ten euros in weapons and 1 in caring for the people Government has no obligation to take care of people in the sense of providing subsistence. It does however, have an obligation to protect. It has an obligation to provide for the "general welfare"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 September 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo you think that the interesting part of my post is where the info comes from. Listen , from the news! And why shouldnt I take as valid? I think it has a lot of sense if you think in all those budgets dedicated to weapons around the world. And now lets touch the sensible fibers, all that money that the us has spent in weapons was it sefull in a situation like katrinas disaster?. People needed water food, doctors, and they didnt get anything of that . Maybe it is because we spend ten euros in weapons and 1 in caring for the people Government has no obligation to take care of people in the sense of providing subsistence. It does however, have an obligation to protect. It has an obligation to provide for the "general welfare" And I'm quite confident that the "womb to tomb" ideal of the last few decades was NOT was the Founding Fathers had in mind.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #24 September 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo you think that the interesting part of my post is where the info comes from. Listen , from the news! And why shouldnt I take as valid? I think it has a lot of sense if you think in all those budgets dedicated to weapons around the world. And now lets touch the sensible fibers, all that money that the us has spent in weapons was it sefull in a situation like katrinas disaster?. People needed water food, doctors, and they didnt get anything of that . Maybe it is because we spend ten euros in weapons and 1 in caring for the people Government has no obligation to take care of people in the sense of providing subsistence. It does however, have an obligation to protect. It has an obligation to provide for the "general welfare" And I'm quite confident that the "womb to tomb" ideal of the last few decades was NOT was the Founding Fathers had in mind. There's a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Have you applied?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 September 10, 2005 I tend to side with the letter of the law rather than what the European opinion of the week is. I believe in personal, rather than civic responsibility and strongly agree with the Supreme Court's opinion in Madison vs. Marbury that "...that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void." I'd never make it past the confirmation hearings... the Dems would be howling in the halls for my blood... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
