The cost of war
This is pretty dramatic.
http://www.costofwar.com/
CanuckHeaven
13-04-2004, 05:17
This is pretty dramatic.
http://www.costofwar.com/
Pretty amazing for sure. When you see the REAL cost of war it is mind boggling.
The other REAL cost is the 600 US soldiers that have died and the 3500 that have been injured :!:
Leaked Saturn
13-04-2004, 06:00
This is pretty dramatic.
http://www.costofwar.com/
Tell me, is the main reason for government to provide services or protect citizens?
Iraq doesn't protect citizens so the question itself is irrelevent.
Leaked Saturn
13-04-2004, 06:14
Iraq doesn't protect citizens so the question itself is irrelevent.
Actually I was talking about the U.S. gov.
This is pretty dramatic.
http://www.costofwar.com/
Tell me, is the main reason for government to provide services or protect citizens?
As an American, I suggest that you edit out that post. It'll only bring a lot of quoting.
Iraq doesn't protect citizens so the question itself is irrelevent.
Actually I was talking about the U.S. gov.
sorry wasn't clear, tired
The Iraq War doesn't protect US citizens
Leaked Saturn
13-04-2004, 06:18
Iraq doesn't protect citizens so the question itself is irrelevent.
Actually I was talking about the U.S. gov.
sorry wasn't clear, tired
The Iraq War doesn't protect US citizens
Really? Are you sure? Hmmm....
Iraq doesn't protect citizens so the question itself is irrelevent.
Actually I was talking about the U.S. gov.
sorry wasn't clear, tired
The Iraq War doesn't protect US citizens
Really? Are you sure? Hmmm....
Quite sure. You konw the standard response: No WMD's found, no strong links to terrorism, etc..
If you honestly think this war was about protecting the US, i suggest you read the thead about bill 39
Iraq doesn't protect citizens so the question itself is irrelevent.
Actually I was talking about the U.S. gov.
sorry wasn't clear, tired
The Iraq War doesn't protect US citizens
Really? Are you sure? Hmmm....
Quite sure. You konw the standard response: No WMD's found, no strong links to terrorism, etc..
If you honestly think this war was about protecting the US, i suggest you read the thead about bill 39
Hey, we also never found Saddam until months from the fall of the former Iraqi gov....what makes you think we'll never find WMD?
Saddam doesn't seem to wanna talk! hmm hmm...wonder what he's hiding?
Iraq doesn't protect citizens so the question itself is irrelevent.
Actually I was talking about the U.S. gov.
sorry wasn't clear, tired
The Iraq War doesn't protect US citizens
Really? Are you sure? Hmmm....
Quite sure. You konw the standard response: No WMD's found, no strong links to terrorism, etc..
If you honestly think this war was about protecting the US, i suggest you read the thead about bill 39
Hey, we also never found Saddam until months from the fall of the former Iraqi gov....what makes you think we'll never find WMD?
Saddam doesn't seem to wanna talk! hmm hmm...wonder what he's hiding?
Because when the US went to the UN, they claimed to have completely relialbe data about where these nukes were. They based their information on a group of exiles who had everything to gain by overthrowing the current regime. Because even members of the Bush adminestration are beginning to admit they may not be there.
Leaked Saturn
13-04-2004, 06:23
Hey, we also never found Saddam until months from the fall of the former Iraqi gov....what makes you think we'll never find WMD?
Saddam doesn't seem to wanna talk! hmm hmm...wonder what he's hiding?
Good point
Iraq doesn't protect citizens so the question itself is irrelevent.
Actually I was talking about the U.S. gov.
sorry wasn't clear, tired
The Iraq War doesn't protect US citizens
Really? Are you sure? Hmmm....
Quite sure. You konw the standard response: No WMD's found, no strong links to terrorism, etc..
If you honestly think this war was about protecting the US, i suggest you read the thead about bill 39
Hey, we also never found Saddam until months from the fall of the former Iraqi gov....what makes you think we'll never find WMD?
Saddam doesn't seem to wanna talk! hmm hmm...wonder what he's hiding?
Because when the US went to the UN, they claimed to have completely relialbe data about where these nukes were. They based their information on a group of exiles who had everything to gain by overthrowing the current regime. Because even members of the Bush adminestration are beginning to admit they may not be there.
First off, we never suspected him of nuclear weapons
Second, yes...the President was a f-ing moron for claiming to have "reliable" evidence, and then saying that there was no credible intelligence. That was bad of him. He needs out.
However, the WMD could STILL be there! Think, Saddam had these WMD before when the UN found them. I honestly dont think that he'd get rid of all his WMD stuff....hide some stuff there, a little but of mustard gas there.
Hey, we also never found Saddam until months from the fall of the former Iraqi gov....what makes you think we'll never find WMD?
Saddam doesn't seem to wanna talk! hmm hmm...wonder what he's hiding?
Good point
That's a good point?
You also haven't found any dodobirds yet, maybe they're not extinct.
That's an awful reason to believe. It hasn't worked yet so its bound to!?! I hope you don't base most of your opinions on the absence of proof.
Smeagol-Gollum
13-04-2004, 06:28
Hey, we also never found Saddam until months from the fall of the former Iraqi gov....what makes you think we'll never find WMD?
Saddam doesn't seem to wanna talk! hmm hmm...wonder what he's hiding?
Good point
He hasn't been sighted or brought to trial either.
Wonder who is hiding what.
imported_1248B
13-04-2004, 07:14
He hasn't been sighted or brought to trial either.
Wonder who is hiding what.
Thats something that caught my attention too. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't even the real Saddam. Just a double they 'caught' to make themselves look good in the newspaper.
Prosperite
13-04-2004, 07:45
While some reports have it that he's not saying anything, couldn't that just mean that he's not saying anything the military wants to hear?
And of course there are no WMDs. I don't mean to sound critical of you for thinking so, but when the head of the inspectors admits to Congress that "we were all wrong" about the WMDs i'd say their pretty sure.
And yes, they did say Saddam was working on Nukes. Or did you forget the whole deal with Iraq buying plutonium(sp) for Niger. If you did thats not your fault because it was proved to be false and then quickly died from the news.
The fact is that the Bush administration used unreliable info and based their decisions on it, while ignoring the strong/reliable data.
Raysian Military Tech
13-04-2004, 07:49
That calculator is totally screwed up
It says total cost is over 100 billion
then says the cost from my city is 45 million.
How does that work? Is that talking about a military base? or tax dollars going towards the war from that town? I seriously hope it's not the latter.
Either way, they need MORE money. They need armor over there!
Catholic Europe
13-04-2004, 13:59
This is pretty dramatic.
http://www.costofwar.com/
Bloody hell....that's a lot!
That calculator is totally screwed up
It says total cost is over 100 billion
then says the cost from my city is 45 million.
How does that work? Is that talking about a military base? or tax dollars going towards the war from that town? I seriously hope it's not the latter.
Either way, they need MORE money. They need armor over there!I think thats its probably that they take the cost of war, divide it by the population of the US and then multiply by the number of people in each town. Thats just a guess though
they actually explain it in the "how do we calculate this thread"
[quote="Madrigals
Quite sure. You konw the standard response: No WMD's found, no strong links to terrorism, etc..[/quote]
Chemical weapons are WMDs.
"Chemical Ali" used chemical weapons
"Chemical Ali" used WMDs
"Chemical Ali" had WMDs.
"Chemical Ali" was in Iraq
WMDs were in Iraq
I rest my case.
[quote="Madrigals
Quite sure. You konw the standard response: No WMD's found, no strong links to terrorism, etc..
Chemical weapons are WMDs.
"Chemical Ali" used chemical weapons
"Chemical Ali" used WMDs
"Chemical Ali" had WMDs.
"Chemical Ali" was in Iraq
WMDs were in Iraq
I rest my case.[/quote]
Do you know when those weapons existed? In the late 80's and the early 90's. Do you know who gave him those weapons? Rumsfield, Bush Sr. and the US. government. Do you know who gave Iraq information to help them gas the Iranians, the great satan of the time? Once again, the US government
As Chomsky said, "There isn't a single US president (i don't remember the exact number of years, it may have been pre ww2) that hasn't committed major war crimes and/or crimes against humanity.