Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » So you ignorant supporters of our "great" military can get a clue where a huge amount of money is wasted.....

So you ignorant supporters of our "great" military can get a clue where a huge amount of money is wasted.....

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26521.htm


Killing Each Taliban Soldier Costs $50 Million

Killing 20 Taliban costs $1 Billion / Killing all the Taliban would cost $1.7 Trillion


- The Pentagon will not tell the
public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier
because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban
appear to be Super-Soldiers. As set out in this article, the estimated
cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a
conservative estimate being $50 million. A public discussion should be
taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have
become too expensive an enemy to defeat.Each
month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to
create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author
decided to compile his own statistics. As the goal of any war is to kill
the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill
just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a
statistic are formidable. The problem is that the Pentagon continues to
illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information.
Regardless, some information has been collected from independent
sources. Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:




The military is right there sucking on the WELFARE TIT just like those in the projects....

Guest


Guest

Sleep lol! Sleep lol!

Yep, Matthew Nasuti writing for the Kabul Press. No agenda or bias to see here folks, just move along quietly please while TEOs generals are out in the poppy fields picking flowers. For crying out loud you really think those military folks WANT to be over in that cesspool? Apparently you have never met any of them.

no stress

no stress

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26521.htm


Killing Each Taliban Soldier Costs $50 Million

Killing 20 Taliban costs $1 Billion / Killing all the Taliban would cost $1.7 Trillion


- The Pentagon will not tell the
public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier
because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban
appear to be Super-Soldiers. As set out in this article, the estimated
cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a
conservative estimate being $50 million. A public discussion should be
taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have
become too expensive an enemy to defeat.Each
month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to
create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author
decided to compile his own statistics. As the goal of any war is to kill
the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill
just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a
statistic are formidable. The problem is that the Pentagon continues to
illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information.
Regardless, some information has been collected from independent
sources. Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:




The military is right there sucking on the WELFARE TIT just like those in the projects....


You cant honestly believe that it costs 50 million to kill a person. If it were anything close to true then you could blame military contractors who charge ridiculous prices for research and development of equipment and then turn around and rape us when they sell the equipment to our government. Also, our government has gone to largely contracting mercinaries to do the military's work because they dont have to play by the same rules. They are extremely expensive. If the "military" was sucking the welfare tit to the extent that you elude to then wouldnt our soldiers be all rich? Your barking up the wrong tree.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Gunz wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26521.htm


Killing Each Taliban Soldier Costs $50 Million

Killing 20 Taliban costs $1 Billion / Killing all the Taliban would cost $1.7 Trillion


- The Pentagon will not tell the
public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier
because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban
appear to be Super-Soldiers. As set out in this article, the estimated
cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a
conservative estimate being $50 million. A public discussion should be
taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have
become too expensive an enemy to defeat.Each
month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to
create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author
decided to compile his own statistics. As the goal of any war is to kill
the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill
just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a
statistic are formidable. The problem is that the Pentagon continues to
illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information.
Regardless, some information has been collected from independent
sources. Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:




The military is right there sucking on the WELFARE TIT just like those in the projects....


You cant honestly believe that it costs 50 million to kill a person. If it were anything close to true then you could blame military contractors who charge ridiculous prices for research and development of equipment and then turn around and rape us when they sell the equipment to our government. Also, our government has gone to largely contracting mercinaries to do the military's work because they dont have to play by the same rules. They are extremely expensive. If the "military" was sucking the welfare tit to the extent that you elude to then wouldnt our soldiers be all rich? Your barking up the wrong tree.

No it's the right tree but you like most wear blinder when it comes to the military...I did for a while myself....

Guest


Guest

Welfare and Warfare are bleeding us dry.. It seems like only the independents can see it.. the r's and d's each want one of the two..

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Lurch wrote:Welfare and Warfare are bleeding us dry.. It seems like only the independents can see it.. the r's and d's each want one of the two..

I think you nailed it Lurch.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Lurch wrote:Welfare and Warfare are bleeding us dry.. It seems like only the independents can see it.. the r's and d's each want one of the two..

That's not true at all. What I want from the government is effective regulation and diplomacy instead of war.

no stress

no stress

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Gunz wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26521.htm


Killing Each Taliban Soldier Costs $50 Million

Killing 20 Taliban costs $1 Billion / Killing all the Taliban would cost $1.7 Trillion


- The Pentagon will not tell the
public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier
because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban
appear to be Super-Soldiers. As set out in this article, the estimated
cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a
conservative estimate being $50 million. A public discussion should be
taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have
become too expensive an enemy to defeat.Each
month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to
create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author
decided to compile his own statistics. As the goal of any war is to kill
the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill
just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a
statistic are formidable. The problem is that the Pentagon continues to
illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information.
Regardless, some information has been collected from independent
sources. Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:




The military is right there sucking on the WELFARE TIT just like those in the projects....


You cant honestly believe that it costs 50 million to kill a person. If it were anything close to true then you could blame military contractors who charge ridiculous prices for research and development of equipment and then turn around and rape us when they sell the equipment to our government. Also, our government has gone to largely contracting mercinaries to do the military's work because they dont have to play by the same rules. They are extremely expensive. If the "military" was sucking the welfare tit to the extent that you elude to then wouldnt our soldiers be all rich? Your barking up the wrong tree.

No it's the right tree but you like most wear blinder when it comes to the military...I did for a while myself....



Teo, I know that shit costs us alot of clams. I just dont know if you are blaming the right culprit.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Lurch wrote:Welfare and Warfare are bleeding us dry.. It seems like only the independents can see it.. the r's and d's each want one of the two..

Actually, you are correct.... Both the Republican and Democratic parties are simply the right and left factions of the same (corporate) party. Both are lovers of Big Government. The Republicans need your tax and deficit dollars to fund their warfare arguments (Romney wants to greatly increase defense spending if he is elected--much like Reagan did in the '80s). The Democrats need your tax and deficit dollars to fund their entitlements (Obamacare and all others). In their arguments against the other faction, one side only talks about ripping down the other side's Big Government arguments, while preserving their own Big Government arguments.

Neither side sees that the whole festering mess needs to be reduced in order to end the federal deficit. This is why if Romney is elected, he will run the same deficits that Obama is running--that will not change one bit.

BTW, I spent some time yesterday watching YouTubes of Garry Johnson speeches in order to make sure my heart is in the right place when I fill out my absentee ballot. It is just too bad that the Republican ticket isn't a Paul/Johnson ticket. Those are two of the wisest men in American politics.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Lurch wrote:Welfare and Warfare are bleeding us dry.. It seems like only the independents can see it.. the r's and d's each want one of the two..

AThis is why if Romney is elected, he will run the same deficits that Obama is running--that will not change one bit.s.

The problem is if BHO is reelected it won't change either. If the moderates had bothered coming out in the primaries we wouldn't be in this mess. Voter apathy is killing the country.

Guest


Guest

nochain wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Lurch wrote:Welfare and Warfare are bleeding us dry.. It seems like only the independents can see it.. the r's and d's each want one of the two..

AThis is why if Romney is elected, he will run the same deficits that Obama is running--that will not change one bit.s.

The problem is if BHO is reelected it won't change either. If the moderates had bothered coming out in the primaries we wouldn't be in this mess. Voter apathy is killing the country.
romney destroyed everybody with his deep pockets and now the r's are in a mess tryin to defeat obama, romney isn't the man to do it.. Paul/Johnson would have been the ones..

no stress

no stress

Paul/Johnson would have been the ones..


Then why didnt they

Guest


Guest

Gunz wrote: Paul/Johnson would have been the ones..


Then why didnt they

"romney destroyed everybody with his deep pockets"

It was in the same post..

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

It isn't voter apathy. If everyone in the USA, south o the border in graveyards and all the hanging chads voted we still would have Romney or Obama. What we have is like a communist banana republic. Only party members allowed

no stress

no stress

Lurch wrote:
Gunz wrote: Paul/Johnson would have been the ones..


Then why didnt they

"romney destroyed everybody with his deep pockets"

It was in the same post..

No, Paul is a career politician. What has he fixed? What has he done to earn a vote for president?

Guest


Guest

He influenced dialogue... if not legislation. He is one man... There has been a hundred years of progressive legislation.

It's nearly criminal that there was a debate about the economy and neither mentioned the federal reserve.

no stress

no stress

PkrBum wrote:He influenced dialogue... if not legislation. He is one man... There has been a hundred years of progressive legislation.

It's nearly criminal that there was a debate about the economy and neither mentioned the federal reserve.


Whats more criminal is neither has mentioned reducing government spending which is the biggest problem

Guest


Guest

Well... all those charts and graphs and numbers counting spending and debt don't take into account printed dollars.

Spending without that equation isn't a full picture... and most people have no idea it's taking place.

The federal reserve may have injected as much tax and debt as all of obama's deficit spending... just food for thght.

Nekochan

Nekochan

There is a huge amount of waste in military spending. We need a strong military but it doesn't have to cost so much.
No one in Congress wants to vote to cut programs in their districts.

no stress

no stress

Nekochan wrote:There is a huge amount of waste in military spending. We need a strong military but it doesn't have to cost so much.
No one in Congress wants to vote to cut programs in their districts.


Plus vote! Laughing

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Yes by all means vote...for welfare or warfare. Would be nice if we had a candidate that would bust corporate monopolies and impose tariffs on companies that sent our yobs overseas never to return...

sorry yobs is an old south park show....

Guest


Guest

Gunz wrote:
Lurch wrote:
Gunz wrote: Paul/Johnson would have been the ones..


Then why didnt they

"romney destroyed everybody with his deep pockets"

It was in the same post..

No, Paul is a career politician. What has he fixed? What has he done to earn a vote for president?

His problem is that he's anti-war and us being the police of the world and a Rep..
That would be like an anti-welfare dem tryin to run..

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Well the Republican party cheated, lied, changed the rules and beat up Paul supporters and had them arrested.....they feared Ron Paul because he does have solutions but they don't jive with the MICs wants. The criminals would have done anything to marginalize Ron Paul and they did, so don't ask why he didn't do more...marvel at what he did accomplish as one man against the devil and his republican minions....

P.S. MIC Killed Kennedy.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Lurch wrote:
nochain wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Lurch wrote:Welfare and Warfare are bleeding us dry.. It seems like only the independents can see it.. the r's and d's each want one of the two..

AThis is why if Romney is elected, he will run the same deficits that Obama is running--that will not change one bit.s.

The problem is if BHO is reelected it won't change either. If the moderates had bothered coming out in the primaries we wouldn't be in this mess. Voter apathy is killing the country.
romney destroyed everybody with his deep pockets and now the r's are in a mess tryin to defeat obama, romney isn't the man to do it.. Paul/Johnson would have been the ones..

Yep.... I said months ago that Ron Paul would have made this election very exciting.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:He influenced dialogue... if not legislation. He is one man... There has been a hundred years of progressive legislation.

It's nearly criminal that there was a debate about the economy and neither mentioned the federal reserve.

Why would they say bad things about their controllers? The bankers/financiers have a history of eliminating presidents who don't do their bidding. Lincoln, Garfield, Mckinley, JFK, were all assasinated. The funny thing is, each did or said something which made Wall Street banksters angry.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » So you ignorant supporters of our "great" military can get a clue where a huge amount of money is wasted.....

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum