BF2S Forums Money money money...

Spark wrote:

...for bombs and missles.

Do you really need to spend US$320 billion on the military (as of 2002)? Couldn't you funnel that money into more useful enterprises, like a decent education - especially geography, or stricter border control?

EDIT: Make that US$419 billion.

Plus all of the emergency supplimental increases passed by congress, 80% of the intelligence budget (most the US intelligence capabilities are within the Defense Department), and various black budget projects which puts the total defense expenditures somewhere above $500 bil (possibly over $600 or even $700 bil).

Last edited by Masques (2006-11-12 23:03:18)

In a time of war the US usually spends an exuberant amount of money on its military forces. It’s always been that way. When the war is over it will go down again, especially now that the Democrats have control (they love to / military funds).

Parker wrote:

military equipment costs money.........around $80,000 for the heat dispersing exhaust for blackhawks. shit everytime a fighter drops one of those 500 gallon fuel tanks thats 15 grand. and ammo cost from 9mm's all the way up too 155mm arty and the mlrs rockets.....$$$$$$$$$$$

Jesus Christ.  Do you know what that money could be better spent doing??  Seriously, the stuff thats going in Darfur right now is horrible, i just heard that the Darfurian government just blocked the UN from coming into the refugee camps..  We don't even know/care what's going on there.


And in all truth, given the current administrations justifications for going to Iraq, we should not even be there.  The 9/11 bombers came from Syria... The ignorance in here blows me away...

Spark wrote:

[b]...for bombs and missles.

Do you really need to spend US$320 billion on the military.

Yes.

Spark wrote:

...for bombs and missles.

Do you really need to spend US$320 billion on the military (as of 2002)? Couldn't you funnel that money into more useful enterprises, like a decent education - especially geography, or stricter border control?

EDIT: Make that US$419 billion.

Yes, if we don't who else is going to help the Iraqi people?

DeepSkysUrGe wrote:

Spark wrote:

...for bombs and missles.

Do you really need to spend US$320 billion on the military (as of 2002)? Couldn't you funnel that money into more useful enterprises, like a decent education - especially geography, or stricter border control?

EDIT: Make that US$419 billion.

Yes, if we don't who else is going to help the Iraqi people?

Yeah, how's that working out over there?  Everyone safe and sound?

weamo8 wrote:

Hey Spark... read your own sig.

You are a loser.

I'm asking a question, moron.

Konfusion0 wrote:

ATG wrote:

Spark wrote:

[b]...for bombs and missles.

Do you really need to spend US$320 billion on the military.

Yes.

Now that's a great answer. And a reason? Why do you need to keep reinforcing an army, one of, if not the largest army in the world, and then send it on suicidal missions like "freeing" Iraq. Money spent on napalms and other chemical weapons is money spent on making people suffer. A gun is one thing, but killing people slowly should be outlawed.

Are you retarded?  When was the last time you heard about us using napalm or chemical weapons in Iraq?  We're in the process of destroying all of our chemical weapons, there's a factory doing it about 150 miles from my house.  Also, our army is nowhere near as large as China's.  Personnel wise, our army isn't all that large, that's why it costs so much money.  We spend money on good gear for our soldiers so we don't need as many to get the job done.  As far as education is concerned, everyone calls Bush a warmonger, but his "No Child Left Behind" has pumped a ton of money into education, but it's also proven overwhelmingly that the federal government should leave schooling to local governments...