a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00

Who was it that argued in congress that the United States could save money by paying every man, woman and child in North Vietnam $70k a year not to fight instead of dropping napalm on them?

The United States has some puritanically stupid ideas about incarceration. My experiences with Youngluck were a fuckin' Red Pill.





user-inactivated  ·  3368 days ago  ·  link  ·  

If you and b_b aren't blowing smoke about those numbers, this whole conversation is very upsetting.

b_b  ·  3368 days ago  ·  link  ·  

All those numbers are pulled from the sources listed. Nothing if not upsetting, especially because Clinton is getting boku bucks from these organizations.

user-inactivated  ·  3368 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You know, it's hard to think about subjects like these in general, but when people start throwing hard numbers around, they make even less sense.

I'll check out the sources this weekend, not that I'll enjoy it, but it's good to stay informed.

kleinbl00  ·  3368 days ago  ·  link  ·  

- 40m people in Vietnam, 1968

- $352B spent on Vietnam War

Call it 1964 to 1972, since it was sort of open-ended on both sides, and it's eight years.

Over that period, we spent $1100 per year per inhabitant of Vietnam (north and south) "policing" North Vietnam. Could be worse - we're (arguably) at $50m per Taliban killed and during the Iraq War, we fired off 250,000 bullets for every enemy casualty.

Dunno about you, but I've watched my friends pay $40 for a box of 20 5.56N. At $2/round, that's $500k per rebel just in FMJ.

JTHipster  ·  3367 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.