Page 1 of 1
Wow, this is a direct rip off of FARK.com, but worth mentioning here...
PostPosted:Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:09 pm
by Flip
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3017644
Since the death total for modern 'wars' is relatively low, comparatively speaking, this should defenitely get through.
PostPosted:Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:05 pm
by Tessian
yeah I was just thinking that. This ain't WWI anymore, each soldier is also worth more comparatively
PostPosted:Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:19 am
by SineSwiper
Bush seems to think that if we don't have the money in the budget, he could get the US Mint to print up some more.
PostPosted:Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:49 pm
by Flip
SineSwiper wrote:Bush seems to think that if we don't have the money in the budget, he could get the US Mint to print up some more.
c'mon, even raging liberals have to agree with this idea. This proposal wont break the budget.
Re: Wow, this is a direct rip off of FARK.com, but worth mentioning here...
PostPosted:Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:17 pm
by Nev
the u.s. hasn't been involved in a seriously major conflict since the development of atomics.
here's a random stat from a pbs story on the congolese war (currently ongoing).
"More than 1,000 civilians die each day as a result of the simmering civil war, the group said, citing statistics from on-site medical teams.
Six years of war have claimed about 3.8 million lives - half of them children. "
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/featu ... _1-12.html
for a point of reference, here are stats for world war ii:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t ... istics.htm
I'm familiar with the nuclear deterrent argument for major world powers, and i no longer believe pessimism solves anything, but I don't think a war with major loss of life for our country (heaven forfend) is out of the realm of possibility by any means, and this isn't the kind of benefit that's easy to reduce.
i hope that in that kind of situation, people would probably understand. i still don't know whether i'd support this though.
PostPosted:Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:17 am
by SineSwiper
Flip wrote:c'mon, even raging liberals have to agree with this idea. This proposal wont break the budget.
Granted, I like the idea, but it seems like Bush is trying to make amends with the war with our own budget. The death toll has been close to 1400, just on the US soldier side. 1400 times 250K is $350 million dollars, but then again, that's only about 2 days of budget for the War in Iraq.
PostPosted:Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:12 am
by Nev
SineSwiper wrote:Granted, I like the idea, but it seems like Bush is trying to make amends with the war with our own budget.
that is a good point.
can money somehow pay for the lives of the soldiers that were lost? these are people's kids.
PostPosted:Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:14 am
by Nev
Tessian wrote:yeah I was just thinking that. This ain't WWI anymore, each soldier is also worth more comparatively
"Worth more????"
inherent in that statement is the idea that money can pay for loss of life. i don't really think that's true.
PostPosted:Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:41 am
by SineSwiper
Mental wrote:Tessian wrote:yeah I was just thinking that. This ain't WWI anymore, each soldier is also worth more comparatively
"Worth more????"
inherent in that statement is the idea that money can pay for loss of life. i don't really think that's true.
I think that's more to do with their military worth as a whole, not their worth as their lives. Number crunchers in a war have to think in terms of that, to remove objectivity from the subjects they are counting.
PostPosted:Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:00 am
by Nev
true... (ai)
sigh.
it's a great idea, i just want to disabuse everyone of the notion that somehow money can pay for someone's life. providing for the support of the families of servicemen and women who were the sole or primary financial support of those families seems like the better reason to do this. if i lost my mother in a war, and she wasn't supporting me, i don't know if would feel good about accepting money in return for her death.
PostPosted:Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:04 am
by SineSwiper
Think of it as punishment for the government killing your mother. It seems like a crude way of looking at it, but it forces the govt to think "We need better way to protect these people." So, in a way, accepting the money is like helping the troops.
PostPosted:Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:17 pm
by M'k'n'zy
I defidently dont see the money as being able to replace a lost life, however considering how many people I know are over in Iraq now, I really hope to see this pass. You dont want the worst to happen, but unfortunatly you just never know. At least this way the familys will have something to fall back so that they dont have to worry about financial problems while they recover emotionaly.