JDG wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think there is an economic formula in existence > that justifies > > making money in a cause for which people are giving their > very lives. > > Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an > all-volunteer army, lest soldiers make money in a cause for > which people > are giving their very lives?
Umm, soldiers *are* the people who are giving their very lives...y'know, the people who get shot at and shoot others so that civilians like us can sit comfortably in our homes and discuss politics over the internet...Saying people shouldn't profit from the soldiers' sacrifice is very different from saying that the soldiers shouldn't be paid for what they do, the risks they take. I am amazed that the difference isn't apparent to you. > Or at least to only pay a > death stipend? That'd work just fine if you have no problems with a rookie army with no training and experience. If you want professionals, you'll have to pay them for their time and training. > How do you suppose that armies should get their food, > clothing, and boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, > from producers of food, clothing, and boots? There is a difference between procurement and profiteering. Ensuring that the US soldiers in Iraq have proper armours is procurement, or at least should have been procurement. Halutz taking the time out to sell his war portfolio on the 12th of July is profiteering. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
