Viewing Thread:
"More $$ for War"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3088772.stm

$87bn needed.
Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
Yet we can muster it to kill.

*shakes head*

I may have been wrong, but so were you with your figures.
As roundly proven.
I accept I was wrong, it was written with the usual weary disgust at the world.

if you say so. I only ever use alleviate in context to pain, and the getting rid thereof. Incorrect, perhaps, but there we go.

My point stands, it hasn't been taken away, my pride is in place, you're talking crap again. Same old, same old.

*L* So THAT'S why you had a go over semantics; it takes one to know one!

Alleviate can be said to be the same thing as Temporary impact, non? It's just that the former is comparatively neutral whereas the latter was used (in this context) to salvage some pride and keep a negative connotation on the point under scrutiny.

erplace "solve" with "make a minor and temporary impact on" and you're getting closer.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> I'm sure could think of many alternate uses for that sort of cash. I'm
> not criticising what it's being used for, I'm criticising the
> statement "you could solve pretty much the entire world's food
> shortages, homelessness and disease with that." which is
> entirely false.


Heh. And you had the nerve to have a go at me for verbal semantics....

Drop the word 'solve' and replace it with 'alleviate' and you have no more to argue about. I think...

Fair enough, and I'm criticising your figures and facts for saying I was wrong.
We both are.

Now put your helmet on and dance like a big bald bear.

Really? Well Dubya seems to think that 10 to 15 billion is enough to revolutionise Africa. So 87 billion would make an astonishingly large difference using the logic that you employed to erroneously belittle Goatboy's initial assertion.

So in fact, your point falls down because you used incorrect evidence to support it.

I'm sure could think of many alternate uses for that sort of cash. I'm not criticising what it's being used for, I'm criticising the statement "you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that." which is entirely false.

I disagree.
It's more use being used to help instead of funding army manouvres.

So I wasn't correct, I don;t care. My point is still perfectly valid. Get over it. $87 billion isn't significant enough to revolutionise the world.