war is horrific.
the use of drones is no more shocking and appalling than the war itself.
How is it any less shocking and appalling for a pilot in an airplane to drop bombs over villages than a drone?
why do you love war so much?
U.S. drone strike kill 15, including a Taliban leader
Started by
concert andy
, Jan 03 2013 02:45 PM
217 replies to this topic
#117
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,055 posts
- Locationthe Island
Posted 03 January 2013 - 09:54 PM
I do not see you posting any awesome research.
don't need to...
the cost your think tank and you are going by is flawed...whether in time of war or peace time the US armed forces travel around the world...maintenance, fuel cell recharge, munitions, costs of everday military activities, and whatever we spend annually that are our annual regular costs for doing what we do cannot be included in the cost to deploy a singular military person...
the actual cost to deploy a single military person is whatever they receive in hazardous duty pay once they enter such a zone...
everything else is already bought and paid for and would still cost us "x" amount anyways if we do not deploy troops. you have to only add to the equation additional costs...and as near as I can tell...that would only be hazardous duty pay.
#121
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,434 posts
Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:14 PM
don't need to...
the cost your think tank and you are going by is flawed...whether in time of war or peace time the US armed forces travel around the world...maintenance, fuel cell recharge, munitions, costs of everday military activities, and whatever we spend annually that are our annual regular costs for doing what we do cannot be included in the cost to deploy a singular military person...
the actual cost to deploy a single military person is whatever they receive in hazardous duty pay once they enter such a zone...
everything else is already bought and paid for and would still cost us "x" amount anyways if we do not deploy troops. you have to only add to the equation additional costs...and as near as I can tell...that would only be hazardous duty pay.
OK. I think you are talking out of your arse until you provide back up for this BS being spewed.
But you are allowed to be that way, just like you think I am molding my argument.
My original response to you, was based on your poorly thought out basis of what this actually costs.
OK. So when we deployed someone to where ever HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
But just to show I am not complete DICK.
I googled it again, and found another source that states it is even higher, 800K.
But please tell me I am wrong again.
One soldier, one year: $850,000 and rising
I pulled the pertinent comments or quotes. But please I beg of you to counter my research. Because I believe this to be true, you know, three sources. You state otherwise. I call your BS and raise it.
Keeping one American service member in Afghanistan costs between $850,000 and $1.4 million a year, depending on who you ask. But one matter is clear, that cost is going up.
A Pentagon spokesman later said a more accurate figure is $815,000 a year.
"The cost per troop in Afghanistan has averaged $1.2 million per troop per year," the center's Todd Harrison wrote in an analysis of last year's Department of Defense budget.
#123
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:28 PM
What about the statistics? Does killing a smaller percentage of innocent people somehow make killing innocent people acceptable?
How many American citizens did Bush specifically target for death? Never mind the cherry picking, one is one to many. If it's allowed to happen once what's to stop it from happening again and again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about their families? Those that would be sent in signed up knowing what the job was about and knowing what could happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many of the 15 killed were terrorist? How many were innocent but deemed terrorists because they were of "military age?" How many did they simply "believe might be behind" attacks against us?
What's is REALLY fucked up is, Hitler and his regime tried to kill MANY in the same fashion only within the confines of technology for the time frame and he is known for one of the worst atrocities of recent centuries.
It's all about how many, and what is the price tag.
There. I figured since it is page three a Godwin's Law should be present.
#124
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,055 posts
- Locationthe Island
Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:29 PM
One thing is clear, the soldier impacts only a small percentage of that cost. A typical army sergeant with four years service makes a base pay of less than $30,000 a year.
that's from your CNN article...which too is already budgeted annually again...no additional cost. facts and figures from a defense department that doesn't want their budget cut
this too
Harrison said the center arrives at its figure by taking "the amount of money spent in Afghanistan for a year and dividing it up by the number of soldiers."
again they are inflating figures by adding already day to day costs of running a military with sending folks over there.
but hey...whatever
that's from your CNN article...which too is already budgeted annually again...no additional cost. facts and figures from a defense department that doesn't want their budget cut
this too
Harrison said the center arrives at its figure by taking "the amount of money spent in Afghanistan for a year and dividing it up by the number of soldiers."
again they are inflating figures by adding already day to day costs of running a military with sending folks over there.
but hey...whatever
#125
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,055 posts
- Locationthe Island
Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:44 PM
oh yeah...one more tidbit from the same article...
Harrison said there are two important factors contributing to the increase. There are fewer troops in Afghanistan than in 2011, and the latest Defense budget puts millions into war spending that in previous years were part of the department's base budget.
another staistical practice to inflate the cost.
Harrison said there are two important factors contributing to the increase. There are fewer troops in Afghanistan than in 2011, and the latest Defense budget puts millions into war spending that in previous years were part of the department's base budget.
another staistical practice to inflate the cost.
#126
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,434 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:37 AM
No other added costs? Everything is bought and paid for already?
Emergencies, long and short term Medical costs, technology, all of it?
While I do see your point I disagree, because of the added costs long term and immediate.
You dont like my opinion cool, I dont have to like yours. But instead preaching to me like you are the expert in this subject, may be you could have been like hey, that is wrong, and this is why. I could have seen your point sooner.
If I am wrong, that is fine, just dont be an
.
That is all.
Emergencies, long and short term Medical costs, technology, all of it?
While I do see your point I disagree, because of the added costs long term and immediate.
You dont like my opinion cool, I dont have to like yours. But instead preaching to me like you are the expert in this subject, may be you could have been like hey, that is wrong, and this is why. I could have seen your point sooner.
If I am wrong, that is fine, just dont be an
. That is all.
#128
-
- VibeTribe
- 8,055 posts
- Locationthe Island
Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:10 AM
No other added costs? Everything is bought and paid for already?
Emergencies, long and short term Medical costs, technology, all of it?
While I do see your point I disagree, because of the added costs long term and immediate.
You dont like my opinion cool, I dont have to like yours. But instead preaching to me like you are the expert in this subject, may be you could have been like hey, that is wrong, and this is why. I could have seen your point sooner.
If I am wrong, that is fine, just dont be an
That is all.
Prolly shouldn't tell someone to do research and get all bent when someone researches using your own research and shows you your own research proving someone was right from the get go
#129
-
- VibeTribe
- 21,834 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:52 AM
Yep, we are not in a war right now, lets not bomb and or kill the combatants that wish us so much good will.. Tabbooma has lost a young fella he helped raise over there and knows of more than a couple maimed soldiers. Until we leave that hell hole in Afghanistan, killing combatants hiding in Pakistan with drones does not keep Tabbooma up at night.
#130
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,795 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:01 AM
Yep, we are not in a war right now, lets not bomb and or kill the combatants that wish us so much good will.. Tabbooma has lost a young fella he helped raise over there and knows of more than a couple maimed soldiers. Until we leave that hell hole in Afghanistan, killing combatants hiding in Pakistan with drones does not keep Tabbooma up at night.
#131
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,434 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:02 AM
My research only shows that the per soldier impact is 30K in salary doesnt prove you are right. I see why you believe that.
You say the cost for equipment is already bought and paid for.
I still disagree.
2008 article: 275K in 2005
http://www.infiniteu...75000-per-year/
2009 article: 390K
http://www.democrati...ess=389x5727935
I google and read a lot of articles, but they all agree the cost has increased. Your evidence is circumstantial. I feel you are doing what I sometimes do, which is connecting the logical dots. With the how can that cost more than that? I am sure some of it is wasteful, but again the cost is there. May be I am wrong and you are an expert. Unfortunately I doubt that you are. I would be happy to find out you are and you can back up your claims with something other than strong words.
Also remember when, you dont care about the troops was an argument to get funding for the best equipment. Well I think that still applies to some extent, and the troops get the latest greatest flashiest equipment. And that shit costs money.
but hey, whatever.
You say the cost for equipment is already bought and paid for.
I still disagree.
2008 article: 275K in 2005
http://www.infiniteu...75000-per-year/
2009 article: 390K
http://www.democrati...ess=389x5727935
I google and read a lot of articles, but they all agree the cost has increased. Your evidence is circumstantial. I feel you are doing what I sometimes do, which is connecting the logical dots. With the how can that cost more than that? I am sure some of it is wasteful, but again the cost is there. May be I am wrong and you are an expert. Unfortunately I doubt that you are. I would be happy to find out you are and you can back up your claims with something other than strong words.
Also remember when, you dont care about the troops was an argument to get funding for the best equipment. Well I think that still applies to some extent, and the troops get the latest greatest flashiest equipment. And that shit costs money.
but hey, whatever.
#132
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,272 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:54 PM
Yep, we are not in a war right now, lets not bomb and or kill the combatants that wish us so much good will.. Tabbooma has lost a young fella he helped raise over there and knows of more than a couple maimed soldiers. Until we leave that hell hole in Afghanistan, killing combatants hiding in Pakistan with drones does not keep Tabbooma up at night.
I've talked to a few kids/guys, who have come back from there, down at the AMVETS post I drink at and some of their stories just break my heart .
I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't go after the combatants.
Personally I don't think the drones should be used to bomb in residential/civilian areas where there are innocent civilians and I'm definitely against their use in assassinating American citizens.
If we're going to be ok with the killing of innocent civilians over there then we have no right to bitch about the 9/11 attacks or any other attack against the US and it's innocent citizens here or abroad.
#134
-
- VibeTribe
- 12,961 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:06 PM
If we're going to be ok with the killing of innocent civilians over there then we have no right to bitch about the 9/11 attacks or any other attack against the US and it's innocent citizens here or abroad.
That ship sailed about 9 years ago, and only seems to be picking up speed.
How do we turn it around?
Nice job with the law, TASB.
#135
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,434 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:13 PM
What's is REALLY fucked up is, Hitler and his regime tried to kill MANY in the same fashion only within the confines of technology for the time frame and he is known for one of the worst atrocities of recent centuries.
It's all about how many, and what is the price tag.
There. I figured since it is page three a Godwin's Law should be present.
Godwin's Law
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches. In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
#136
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,272 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:35 PM
Speak out against it? Protest against it? Sign petitions? Rallies? Basically do something that would let the government know that it's unacceptable. Or pretty much anything the left should/would be doing now if this was a Republican administration.That ship sailed about 9 years ago, and only seems to be picking up speed.
How do we turn it around?
#138
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,434 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:47 PM
Speak out against it? Protest against it? Sign petitions? Rallies? Basically do something that would let the government know that it's unacceptable. Or pretty much anything the left should/would be doing now if this was a Republican administration.
You/people might have to camp out in front of Obama's ranch, similar to the mom who camped out by Bush's Ranch.
#140
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,272 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:52 PM
Hmm I'd have to check with the wife to see if she'd mind me going off to Hawaii to protest but that sounds like an excellent ideaYou/people might have to camp out in front of Obama's ranch, similar to the mom who camped out by Bush's Ranch.
#141
-
- VibeTribe
- 6,434 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:05 PM
Hmm I'd have to check with the wife to see if she'd mind me going off to Hawaii to protest but that sounds like an excellent idea
Ahhh, forgot he was from Hawaii. I was thinking Chicago, but Hawaii works better, and I am sure the wife will at least entertain the Hawaii idea.
#143
-
- VibeTribe
- 12,961 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:23 PM
Speak out against it? Protest against it? Sign petitions? Rallies? Basically do something that would let the government know that it's unacceptable. Or pretty much anything the left should/would be doing now if this was a Republican administration.
So what's wrong with the Republicans?
Why aren't they throwing a hissy fit about this, like they do over every other move Obama makes?
#146
-
- VibeTribe
- 12,961 posts
Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:38 PM
Probably because they're more likely to support this type of shit no matter what party is in office.
Hell, just the fact that they're NOT protesting it should be a warning there might be something wrong with it
Good point.
I can't believe they reelected Boner as House chair.
