|
Far and Away (1992)
IMDB rating: 6.20
Plot: Joseph Donnelly, a young Irishman facing property eviction after his father’s death, decides to take revenge on Daniel Christie, his landlord. Instead of killing Christie, however, he is injured and sentenced to a duel with Christie’s arrogant manager, Stephen Chase. Meanwhile, Shannon, Daniel’s daughter, is growing dissatisfied with the traditional views of her parents’ generation and longs to be modern. She makes her plans to leave for America, and with her help, Joseph is able to escape. Upon arriving in Boston, Mass., they find jobs and begin saving money. Joseph becomes a local barehands boxer, while Shannon works in a chicken processing plant and then as a dancer at the social club. All goes well until Joseph loses a boxing match, after which their money is taken away. Joseph and Shannon are left to starve in the winter cold. Shannon’s parents, still in Ireland, face a devastating loss and decide to come to America to be with her. Chase, who joined them, has begun a campaign to find her, but his efforts are unnecessary Joseph brings Shannon to them after an accident. Joseph then heads west to work on the railroad. After many months, Joseph is confronted by his father in a dream, and is reminded of his desire to own his own land. Joseph decides to join the wagon trains and arrives in Oklahoma Territory just in time for the big land race, upon which his fate will lie.
|
i get this movie here and download Far and Away
Available versions:
DivX Version (Normal Quality), iPod/iPhone Version
Directors: Howard Ron
Actors: Cruise Tom,Gibson Thomas,Prosky Robert,Cusack Cyril,Meaney Colm,Gillison Douglas,Grace Wayne,Toibin Niall,McGovern Barry,Davis Gary Lee,Harris Jared,Adventure,Drama,Romance,
1 soldier to war for 1 year:$500k 1 student to University 1 year:$50k Q: Send 1 to war or 10 to college?
Article Text:
Reporting from Washington - As President Obama measures the potential burden of a new war strategy in Afghanistan, his administration is struggling to come up with even the most dispassionate of predictions: the actual price tag for the anticipated buildup of troops.
The calculations so far have produced a sweeping range. The Pentagon publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional service member sent to the war zone. Obama’s budget experts size it up at twice that much.
In coming up with such numbers, the White House and the military have different priorities as well as different methods.
The president’s advisors don’t want to underestimate the cost and then lose the public’s faith. The Pentagon worries about sticker shock as commanders push for an increase of as many as 40,000 troops.
Both sides emphasize that their figures are estimates and could change — in fact, a Pentagon comptroller assessment this month put the number closer to that of Obama’s Office of Management and Budget.
Still, budgeting and politics are entwined, and numbers can always support more than one point of view.
The Bush White House minimized costs as it moved toward war. Obama is weighing skeptically an escalation of a war he didn’t launch. In his campaign, Obama promised not to tuck war costs away, off federal budget books.
"Our resources in manpower, our resources in human lives and our resources in money are not infinite," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in an interview. "The notion that we wouldn’t take each of those things into account does not make a lot of sense to this commander in chief."
All of those elements are under consideration as Obama wraps up a review of war strategy. He is expected any week now to respond to requests from his commander in the region for a strategy change and for additional forces. The White House could announce an increase of 20,000 to 40,000 troops shortly after Thanksgiving.
During a recent session of his war council — where one contingent has questioned the wisdom of sending more troops — Obama asked how much it would cost to pay for the troops Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has requested. The president sought an exact accounting, a request that turned out to be more complicated than anticipated.
The Office of Management and Budget says adding 40,000 troops would cost about $40 billion a year, or $1 million each. White House officials included in their estimate everything they consider necessary to wage war, including troop housing and equipment.
Inside and outside the Pentagon, some suspect an effort to undermine support for a troop increase. "The large-scale message has been, ‘This is going to be hard and expensive,’ " said Thomas Donnelly, an American Enterprise Institute fellow and defense expert.
The Pentagon arrived at its much lower estimate by dividing its war funding request by the number of troops throughout the region: 68,000 in Afghanistan and up to 95,000 in supporting roles elsewhere, such as on nearby ships or in surrounding countries.
The Pentagon cost includes higher combat wages, extra aircraft hours and other operations and maintenance costs, but omits such items as new weapons purchases — one-time costs that vary by year — and support equipment like spy satellites and anti-roadside-bomb technology.
The Pentagon also does not try to estimate costs of new bases for additional soldiers.
But in a memo early this month, obtained by The Times’ Washington bureau, the Pentagon’s own comptroller produced an estimate that broke with the customary Defense formula and did include construction and equipment.
That memo said the yearly cost of a 40,000-troop increase would be $30 billion to $35 billion — at least $750,000 a person. An increase of 20,000 would cost $20 billion to $25 billion annually, it said — a per-soldier cost equal to or greater than the White House estimate.
Even determining past spending is a fuzzy endeavor: Big chunks are paid through emergency measures and are not calculated into the total.
Under questioning by the House Armed Services Committee this month, a Congressional Budget Office expert couldn’t say how much it costs to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I find it astonishing that, eight years into this, we haven’t nailed it down with precision," another witness at the table, David Berteau, director of the Defense Industrial Initiatives Group of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said later.
And yet the effort is necessary, said Stephen Daggett of the Congressional Research Service: "If the budget is going to be constrained, one of the questions we have to ask is whether we can sustain the increases in forces."
Partisans of all stripes are likely to think first about intangibles, including American tolerance for troop casualties and support for sending new troops to Afghanistan.
Democratic leaders say money won’t determ
You are missing the more important figure, which is how much money can be made by defense contractors and oil and gas companies.
Eudes | Nov 23, 2009
MORE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Doodu Brown | Nov 23, 2009
Hmmm….1 person to go and kill people, or ten to go and learn for the same price? yeah that’s tough.
Machinehead 625 NYY WORLD CHAMPS | Nov 23, 2009
When making the decison to defend our nation or retaliate against attacks, I don’t believe we should consider "what else can we do with this money?" to be a very important question. I’m sure you would counter this point by saying the war is frivolous and not important to our national interests, but you have to establish that first before you can move onto this type of arguement. And if the war is in fact frivolous and not important to national interests, again, should we really have to resort to this argument? The decison to fight or not to fight should not be based on the cost.
EDIT: I’m amazed at people who give me thumbs down for this. You really believe the cost of war should be a serious consideration when deciding whether or not to defend american interests!? What a bunch of cowards you all are! Where is your backbone!? I’m ashamed to have you as countrymen, and I hope to God that I’ll never have to rely upon any of you to protect our nation.
GrizzlyMint | Nov 23, 2009
wow quite a manifesto. when did the president start worrying about spending money.
short answer I don’t like our troops being there, but the moral obligation is if we broke it we have to fix it
Dusty the electrician | Nov 23, 2009
Holy #### - A Liberal is using Logic! What’s the world coming to?
8***L | Nov 23, 2009
Send more kids to college so we would’nt have to go to war.
Stickboy | Nov 23, 2009
I think you’re misunderstanding the point here.
Making war and pissing of the world is manly.
Getting educated and protecting the economy for years to come is something wimps do!
Plus more educated people would allow us to understand our enemy and how to fight them better. Then we would end wars too quickly and there wouldn’t be enough American manliness.
And with more educated liberals sitting around coffee shops and fewer people pissed at me, there would be just as many people as we hate but fewer I can legally shoot.
Jesse | Nov 23, 2009
WannaBeActress | Nov 27, 2009