$456 billion

that's the price of love

Tough Love

Why feed the poor when you can bomb them?

Bill Gates has stolen well over 5 billion GPB from the sick and elderly of the UK, his shower of cunts were commissioned to build a new NHS central system, to be deliverd in full last year for 2 billion. To date they've had well over 5 billion and delivered, nothing, diddly squat, not one single line of code. The amount mentioned does not include what the NHS is spending to keep it's existing infrastructure going until Bill pulls his finger out.

Maybe they should install linux, and spend the health service money on HEALTHCARE!!!!!!!!

(I'm almost sure those figure are a 0 short too!)

ALTOGETHER NOW.....Best liza manelli voices please...

Money makes the world turn brown, the world turn brown, the world turn brown

As my suggestion I will update the wisdom of Arthur C Clarke, when he was asked if he thought 2001 would be like 2001. The war would pay for ever single piece of equipment and infrastructure, every ship, station and moonbase seen in that film, with the obvious exception of the Monolith, and proably that of the HAL series computer, which has AI decades beyond current levels (cheers Bill, you've got the artificial retard thing sorted, perfected even, now move on to something that BENEFITS mankind). Everything else in 2001 used existing, scientifically proven technology and could be built at any time if we just stopped actiing like a race of chav monkeys for a second.

Then again, you look at Iraq and all the other shitty stuff we do to each other, and wonder if we're not better off trapped in our cradle, unable to piss off the more evolved lifeforms out there.

To quote The Doctor...."I gave them the wrong warning, I should have told them to run, to run and hide, because the monsters are coming, the human race!"

It would build a nice big wall around the UK to stop us being over run with everybody and anybody who fancies coming here to drain our resources and claim benefits we have to pay tax for...

Absolutely, wall round the country!

But before we build it we need to take back everyone in the USA and Australia (and everywhere else we've gone and stole the resources and bossed the rightfuls owners about) and ensure that the native peoples of those lands get THEIR homeland back too.

Why are brits so terrified of foreigners? Easy, they're shit scared they'll get end up getting treated the way they treat everyone else!

Doctor? wrote: Why feed the poor when you can bomb them?

Bill Gates has stolen well over 5 billion GPB from the sick and elderly of the UK, his shower of cunts were commissioned to build a new NHS central system, to be deliverd in full last year for 2 billion. To date they've had well over 5 billion and delivered, nothing, diddly squat, not one single line of code. The amount mentioned does not include what the NHS is spending to keep it's existing infrastructure going until Bill pulls his finger out.

Maybe they should install linux, and spend the health service money on HEALTHCARE!!!!!!!!

(I'm almost sure those figure are a 0 short too!)

ALTOGETHER NOW.....Best liza manelli voices please...

Money makes the world turn brown, the world turn brown, the world turn brown

What's the source of this story? I know Computer Weekly (or is it Computing?, anyway the trade paper with all the job ads) used to have a regular column where they detailed that month's government/private sector collaboration computer fiasco. It always seems to go disasterously wrong when some govt department gets a megacorporation in to handle some computing project.

Well, I, for one, am glad we spent our $456 billion on something useful.

404 error wrote:

Doctor? wrote: Why feed the poor when you can bomb them?

Bill Gates has stolen well over 5 billion GPB from the sick and elderly of the UK, his shower of cunts were commissioned to build a new NHS central system, to be deliverd in full last year for 2 billion. To date they've had well over 5 billion and delivered, nothing, diddly squat, not one single line of code. The amount mentioned does not include what the NHS is spending to keep it's existing infrastructure going until Bill pulls his finger out.

Maybe they should install linux, and spend the health service money on HEALTHCARE!!!!!!!!

(I'm almost sure those figure are a 0 short too!)

ALTOGETHER NOW.....Best liza manelli voices please...

Money makes the world turn brown, the world turn brown, the world turn brown

What's the source of this story? I know Computer Weekly (or is it Computing?, anyway the trade paper with all the job ads) used to have a regular column where they detailed that month's government/private sector collaboration computer fiasco. It always seems to go disasterously wrong when some govt department gets a megacorporation in to handle some computing project.

been an ongoing "lets laugh at Tony and Bill" story on theregister.co.uk

I probebly messed up the numbers by an order of magnitutde or two, just can't figure out in which direction Either way, money for sick folks....straight to the back pocket of the world's richest wanker, who in return, gives....sod all. But it's Ira* that has a shit government we need to shoot....uhhh Huuuuuh?

This $465 billion is always discussed as if it was all dropped into the middle of nowhere. First off, alot of this money has stayed in the military system. We have finally new equiptment upgrades from all the equipment that was designed mostly around the Korean War. This goes for personnel equipment, to facilities (to work and live), to vehicles. Clinton also downsized the military to extremely low levels, and this has helped increase the military to a "normal" size. Granted alot was dropped into Iraq directly, but alot of this has gotten the US military out of Cold-War gear and facilites. Not to mention that it has increased the job market in all these areas and fields.

EdelBrock wrote: This $465 billion is always discussed as if it was all dropped into the middle of nowhere. First off, a lot of this money has stayed in the military system. We have finally new equipment upgrades from all the equipment that was designed mostly around the Korean War. This goes for personnel equipment, to facilities (to work and live), to vehicles. Clinton also downsized the military to extremely low levels, and this has helped increase the military to a "normal" size. Granted a lot was dropped into Iraq directly, but a lot of this has gotten the US military out of Cold-War gear and facilities. Not to mention that it has increased the job market in all these areas and fields.

So it is a good thing to invest into war and not put the money towards the future of ones country like education and new technologies?

EdelBrock wrote: Clinton also downsized the military to extremely low levels, and this has helped increase the military to a "normal" size.

"Normal" for fighting completely unnecessary wars on multiple fronts against an unending onslaught of anonymous enemies, I suppose. Clinton was smart enough to avoid conflicts that would've required a giant military-industrial build-up (plus he didn't have the oil/Halliburton investments to make it all worthwhile).

EdelBrock wrote: Not to mention that it has increased the job market in all these areas and fields.

Well the iraqi war has been good for the job market. Not much more, but fair trade.:\ohwell:

EdelBrock wrote: This $465 billion is always discussed as if it was all dropped into the middle of nowhere. First off, alot of this money has stayed in the military system. We have finally new equiptment upgrades from all the equipment that was designed mostly around the Korean War. This goes for personnel equipment, to facilities (to work and live), to vehicles. Clinton also downsized the military to extremely low levels, and this has helped increase the military to a "normal" size. Granted alot was dropped into Iraq directly, but alot of this has gotten the US military out of Cold-War gear and facilites. Not to mention that it has increased the job market in all these areas and fields.

But isn't 'government spending to increase the job market' Keynesianism? Aren't conservatives generally against that? And spending the cash on domestic healthcare, say, would create even more jobs and actually serve a constructive purpose as well. Suggesting that the system needs to spend money on war just to create jobs is actually the sort of argument a die hard Marxist would make!

I'm in a concilliatory mood so I grant you that _some_ of the cash may have been 'invested' in updating the military, but it seems the lions share has gone up in smoke or been stolen in Iraq (and does that figure include all of Iraq's own oil revenue cash which has also been spent with not much to show for it?)

But isn't 'government spending to increase the job market' Keynesianism? Aren't conservatives generally against that

Well Bush has alienated many conservatives with his spending. One of the reasons why his approval rating is around 30%. He has lost much of his core supporters.

EdelBrock wrote: This $465 billion is always discussed as if it was all dropped into the middle of nowhere. First off, alot of this money has stayed in the military system. We have finally new equiptment upgrades from all the equipment that was designed mostly around the Korean War. This goes for personnel equipment, to facilities (to work and live), to vehicles. Clinton also downsized the military to extremely low levels, and this has helped increase the military to a "normal" size. Granted alot was dropped into Iraq directly, but alot of this has gotten the US military out of Cold-War gear and facilites. Not to mention that it has increased the job market in all these areas and fields.

You do realize how much money goes to contractors and their private militia (numbering nearly 100k in Iraq). Also if the money was really for upgrading our military through and through, how expensive is it to armor humvee's? BTW your point is nothing more than a smokescreen of the level of me wanting to vomit. Hey Hitler did good things for Germany's roads and infrastructure, and hey oh tens of millions died!

Korean War? I guess Reagan and Poppy Bush failed in upgrading the military, so W was left to do it all himself, the brave man he is.

Figured I strike a nerve with that post. A few things of mention, HWMMV armour was an issue at the begining of the war, it has long since been taken care of (2004/5). Reagan was spending money on large ticket items (nuceular warheads, planes, ships, etc) in the arms race, individual gear has been the same since the Korean War, with a few exceptions here and there. If you saw the gear we had as of 5 years ago you'd be amazed.

Though I understand the point on Clinton's downsizing, it put us at a dangerous vunerability. I am not saying we should have a huge military, but enough to complete a mission if put to the task.

While there is alot of misspending going on, I only wanted to point out that not ALL the money has been wasted.

FFS, you been out five minutes and you already make more sense

i'd be happy to go back to where my ancestors came from, if they had any sense some of them would have stayed where they were. first pick :scotland. and don't get me started on bush. he's not worth any space anymore.i just had an argument earlier on another message board. i'm not about to go into one. here cos i would probably lose...then again...

EdelBrock wrote: Figured I strike a nerve with that post. A few things of mention, HWMMV armour was an issue at the begining of the war, it has long since been taken care of (2004/5). Reagan was spending money on large ticket items (nuceular warheads, planes, ships, etc) in the arms race, individual gear has been the same since the Korean War, with a few exceptions here and there. If you saw the gear we had as of 5 years ago you'd be amazed.

Though I understand the point on Clinton's downsizing, it put us at a dangerous vunerability. I am not saying we should have a huge military, but enough to complete a mission if put to the task.

While there is alot of misspending going on, I only wanted to point out that not ALL the money has been wasted.

Rather than jab at falsehoods and inconsistencies (armor being taken care of, blaming Clinton for a 'vulnerable' military, etc etc) in your post, I'll just note that even with the 'weak' Clinton military, it is our foreign policy which has threatened us more than any other issue, and in the end all the money has been a waste for if we didn't have shithead hawks in the gvmt embroiled w/ our military-industrial complex, the amount of military conflicts we'd ever engage in would be left to ones to actually defend ourselves.

The war has weakened our military and put us in more danger. With so many nat. guardsmen having to train and go to Iraq, they become unavailable to perform disaster relief which they were a crucial part of. We've created more terrorism than we've quelled. So on and so forth. The only people that benefit from this war are military contractors and high up Iraqi Shiite officials/clerics.

404 error wrote:

Suggesting that the system needs to spend money on war just to create jobs is actually the sort of argument a die hard Marxist would make!

:\pissedoff:

Die hard Marxist, so that would be someone who wants a Stateless Classless Moneyless society. That is Stateless in the sense of NO ARMY/ARMIES politicians etc, moneyless in no banks bank-notes coins ect, and as for "creating jobs", this society would operate on lines of "from each according to ability to each according to need".

The Lennon that didn't bastardise Marxism put it simply in his song "Imagine". "Imagine there's no country's/nothing to live or die for". Before you comment on Marx/Marxism you should at least attempt to read what the man himself actually said, and to not rely on second hand accounts, (and that includes the arsehole Lenin).

BTW The Pope and Doc will need to watch, they are gonna give Irishmen a reputation for making sense!

MIMX wrote:

404 error wrote:

Suggesting that the system needs to spend money on war just to create jobs is actually the sort of argument a die hard Marxist would make!

:\pissedoff:

Die hard Marxist, so that would be someone who wants a Stateless Classless Moneyless society. That is Stateless in the sense of NO ARMY/ARMIES politicians etc, moneyless in no banks bank-notes coins ect, and as for "creating jobs", this society would operate on lines of "from each according to ability to each according to need".

The Lennon that didn't bastardise Marxism put it simply in his song "Imagine". "Imagine there's no country's/nothing to live or die for". Before you comment on Marx/Marxism you should at least attempt to read what the man himself actually said, and to not rely on second hand accounts, (and that includes the arsehole Lenin).

Huh? I'm not a Marxist but I know that according to Marx, capitalism has a tendency to over-production. In order for the system to keep functioning, this surplus value must somehow be consumed. Some Marxists claim that one way this has been acheived is through military spending, as it is a non-productive means of destroying value. Ergo our conservative leaning friend was inadvertantly echoing the claims of die hard leftists.

404 error wrote:

Huh? I'm not a Marxist but I know that according to Marx, capitalism has a tendency to over-production. In order for the system to keep functioning, this surplus value must somehow be consumed. Some Marxists claim that one way this has been acheived is through military spending, as it is a non-productive means of destroying value. Ergo our conservative leaning friend was inadvertantly echoing the claims of die hard leftists.

Once again... :\pissedoff:

Marx, entirely correctly as history has proven, actually said capitalism goes through cyclic periods of boom and bust, and it's main tendency is to produce scarcity and poverty (which for Marx is always relative and never absolute) and it's only over production is to fulfil what he termed "capricious wants and desires", note wants, not needs).

$456 BILLION?

admittedly, the u.s of a is the richest cuntry in the world,but,to spunk $456 million on summink they cant win then

it pains me to read this when a great number of americans don't have health insurance. Fucked up? eh

MIMX wrote:

404 error wrote:

Huh? I'm not a Marxist but I know that according to Marx, capitalism has a tendency to over-production. In order for the system to keep functioning, this surplus value must somehow be consumed. Some Marxists claim that one way this has been acheived is through military spending, as it is a non-productive means of destroying value. Ergo our conservative leaning friend was inadvertantly echoing the claims of die hard leftists.

Once again... :\pissedoff:

Marx, entirely correctly as history has proven, actually said capitalism goes through cyclic periods of boom and bust, and it's main tendency is to produce scarcity and poverty (which for Marx is always relative and never absolute) and it's only over production is to fulfil what he termed "capricious wants and desires", note wants, not needs).

I just don't follow what your actual disagreement is with what I said. I'll try one last time...

Amongst many other things Marx claimed capitalism was subject to overproduction, (put crudely the workers could not purchase what they produced)leading to a surplus of accumulated capital, leading to periods of crisis. At least in the period following WW2 it was commonplace amongst those of the Marxist persuation to posit that war (and for that matter the arms trade) helped capitalism stave off those periods of crisis, by destroying said surplus capital. This was a necessary argument I suppose as capitalism had obstinately failed to collapse. The argument was that this destruction of surplus accumulated capital could only delay, not avert, the ultimate collapse of the system from its own internal contradictions.

I don't personally believe this, 'cos I'm not a Marxist, but it's not an uncommon position amongst those who do accept Marx's general argument, so I honestly don't understand why it annoys you so much. Unless I've fallen foul of one of those tedious inter-leftist sectarian arguments (the above argument is certainly advanced by the SWP and most Trotskyists, but also by non-Bolshevik Marxists). My only point, that seems to have irritated you so much for reasons I don't understand, was the irony of a conservative arguing for the war because it 'creates jobs' and hence seeming to agree with hard leftists that capitalism can only avoid economic crisis by having periodic wars.

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Clinton also downsized the military to extremely low levels, and this has helped increase the military to a "normal" size.

(plus he didn't have the oil/Halliburton investments to make it all worthwhile).

billclinton may not have had investments with Halliburton, but his administration sure as hell used them in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Tex wrote:

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Clinton also downsized the military to extremely low levels, and this has helped increase the military to a "normal" size.

(plus he didn't have the oil/Halliburton investments to make it all worthwhile).

billclinton may not have had investments with Halliburton, but his administration sure as hell used them in Bosnia and Kosovo.

On that thought, Halliburton is an unbelievably large company. They build EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE. If there was ever large construction in the world (like creating bays, damns, redesigning/building infastructure, large bridges, etc) Halliburton has had a part in it. I had no idea how large and widespread the company is, until I dealt with their employees (mainly looking at possibly work oppotunities). That it is part of Iraq is no big suprise. That people believe that the connection between the VP and KBR being there is pointless. Whether Cheney was in office or not KBR (or halliburton for that matter) would have been there. Possibly Titan (another large company doing the same contracting as Haliburton) would have gotten a larger portion of the contract, but it would have been there all the same.