Comments:President Bush signs $162 billion war funding bill
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
" 'I really do believe this 4 percent floor is important . . . really important, given the world we're living in, given the threats that we see out there, the risks that are, in fact, global, not just in the Middle East' standard Pentagon gibberish to suggest a world populated by terrifying and deadly monsters intent on destroying this country root and branch. "
<sarcasm> YEAH, meals on wheels / " peacekeepers not peacemakers " /can't we just talk?...,
Lets forget inflation and the massive growth in the U.S. economy since WWII....
Just claim that they are all apples to oranges comparisons, and ignore the fact that more people died on September 11th than on December 7th
Let's just get rid of our army. Weakness isn't provocative. </sarcasm> QUINTIX (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question for QUINTIX: If we adjust the dollar amounts for inflation, should we adjust the casualties for inflation? The population more than doubled between the Attack on Pearl Harbor and the September 11, 2001 attacks. --SVTCobra 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, but here is the flaw: Your comparison is apples to oranges. Comparing economic growth to population growth is like assigning a dollar value to each life. I mean, let's take your argument further and compare the number of people who died on 9/11 to the U.S. population, which is approaching a third of a billion as we speak. Assuming the population hasn't changed too much between the 2000 census and September 2001, we can just assume that there where around 290 million people alive on 9-11. So that means on that date only a little over 1 out of every 100,000 in this nation died that day, which is as you stated much lower than the ratio of 12/7 causalities to the U.S population at that time. There are probably other activities and happenings that are far more "dangerous". One could argue based on that reasoning that we should have just ignored 9/11 and treat it like the common fatal car crash.
- Lengthy paragraph aside, my bottom line argument here and in my previous statement is that life is priceless, and should not be compared to material things. In fact material things, and even the lives of those who don't value the lives of others, should be sacrificed in order to preserve it. For example, what happen 12-7 could have been ignored based on the above reasoning, but that was just a first blow. No doubt the base philosophy that brought on that attack would have resulted in much much higher casualty ratios if allowed to continue to fester. Like wise 9-11 was just a first blow, a larger one numerically, and shows what they can be capable of if we had and will allow them to continue to grow in strength. QUINTIX (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems it would be a peace funding bill. Strange if peace is desired war would be financed. —71.199.49.248 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)