NationStates Jolt Archive

The "War on terror" is costing vast amounts of money (as well as lives).

Could the money have been spent more efficiently?

Could more lives have been saved and the quality of life for people of whatever country have been improved more if the money had been spent on a less militarily oriented "solution"?

Perhaps they could have a war on other emotions since Terror doesnt seem to be going so well.
How about a war on sarcasm?

The "War on terror" is costing vast amounts of money (as well as lives).

Could the money have been spent more efficiently?

Could more lives have been saved and the quality of life for people of whatever country have been improved more if the money had been spent on a less militarily oriented "solution"?

Sure it could've. Could've been spent more wisely, too. I think that the gung-ho pro-war types are completely overlooking just how much money it's costing them, and down the line, their descendants, just to ensure Q3 profits for Halliburton shareholders.

Spent on what? Guns and bombs feed the poor and starving children of America ya know.

I am starting to believe that american make war for fun.
I mean, of course, lots of money are being spent, lots of people are dieing, but hey! At least is a fun show to the whole family.

"Look dear, your brother just died"
"hohoho, oh man, this sure beats any reality show, look there´s go your sister!"
"She´s not dead! Just being tortured!"
"Hohoho, what a funny show, look look! Another bomb!"

I am starting to believe that american make war for fun.
I mean, of course, lots of money are being spent, lots of people are dieing, but hey! At least is a fun show to the whole family.

"Look dear, your brother just died"
"hohoho, oh man, this sure beats any reality show, look there´s go your sister!"
"She´s not dead! Just being tortured!"
"Hohoho, what a funny show, look look! Another bomb!"

Wow, when you put it that way, it'd make a great lead-in to 'Survivor'...

You should pitch someone on it...

Almost any money spent by the government could automatically be spent more efficiently.

Defending ourselves from terror is always priority.

However, our government cannot control its spending, regardless of terror threat or not - they should spend smarter, not more (which, as a matter of fact, is a conservative value; a value our current president cannot uphold). Streamline operations to make counter-terror more efficient (and no, this would not be done in a way which infringes our civil liberties)

Defending ourselves from terror is always priority.

Out of interest - why?
If the money spent on the current war and all the hooha after Sept 11th had been spent on primary health care you'd have saved tens of thousands of lives.

As it is you've not demonstrably saved any lives at all yet and have certainly cost a few thousand as well.

Out of interest - why?
If the money spent on the current war and all the hooha after Sept 11th had been spent on primary health care you'd have saved tens of thousands of lives.

As it is you've not demonstrably saved any lives at all yet and have certainly cost a few thousand as well.
Ok - the Iraq war, whether or not it being justified, was a prime example of mis-spending our money. Our government must learn to choose its battles selectively, and spend wisely

Almost any money spent by the government could automatically be spent more efficiently.

*worth seeing in more than 1 post*

The "War on terror" is costing vast amounts of money (as well as lives).

Could the money have been spent more efficiently?

Could more lives have been saved and the quality of life for people of whatever country have been improved more if the money had been spent on a less militarily oriented "solution"?
Apparently some people will never pull their heads out of the sand and realize that nothing, no amount of humanitarian aid, no logical arguments, not even just ignoring them, is going to deter those who know their Allah is "the only god," and that they should therefore be the ones running the world. To them, the rest of us are just "unblievers" who must either be converted ( by the sword, if necessary ) or killed.

Perhaps they could have a war on other emotions since Terror doesnt seem to be going so well.
How about a war on sarcasm?

Or a war on monkies.

oops, there goes a certain person :D

It is strange how the biggest single threat to the west are the environmental effects of global warming and yet Britain chooses to spend twice as much money on the war in Iraq, not on defence in general but just that war alone, than on preparing for these effects. America and the other EU countries are just as bad.

So quite simply, in terms of 'is the government truly protecting us when it is spending our money' then the answer is no. So yes, the money could be much better spent!

Apparently some people will never pull their heads out of the sand and realize that nothing, no amount of humanitarian aid, no logical arguments, not even just ignoring them, is going to deter those who know their Allah is "the only god," and that they should therefore be the ones running the world. To them, the rest of us are just "unblievers" who must either be converted ( by the sword, if necessary ) or killed.

Apparently some people will never pull their heads out of the sand and realize that throwing money at the government is not going to protect the free world either.

And you know, to a majority of Americans I'm an "unbeliever" too, whose soul is bound for Hell, whose death would be just that much less of a worry as a result. Frankly, you're all a bunch of dangerous fanatics, and the quicker I become global dictator the better things will be. :D

What really pisses me off is how people respond to terrorism. Do you know what the point of terrorism is? TO SCARE PEOPLE! By being afraid, you do exactly what the terrorists want. They aren't out to kill everyone--they're out to terrorise. They really don't kill that many people. Compare how many people died on 11 Sept. 2001, to how many people die in car accidents each year. I don't know the statistics, but I know they are very telling.

Of the choices? I'd say 1. I think a lot of things about war ar illegal that shouldn't be and some things in war that are legal shouldn't. I'd be more for secretly sending about a billion camoflauged snipers to massacre the enemy, then formally declare war when the freedom fighters are all gone

:sniper: .

Almost any money spent by the government could automatically be spent more efficiently.


Everybody should be given a big tax cut - then there would be no money to spend on reducing foriegn cities to rubble.

Apparently some people will never pull their heads out of the sand and realize that nothing, no amount of humanitarian aid, no logical arguments, not even just ignoring them, is going to deter those who know their Allah is "the only god," and that they should therefore be the ones running the world. To them, the rest of us are just "unblievers" who must either be converted ( by the sword, if necessary ) or killed.
That didn't answer the question.

Yes, I'm aware there are radical people who call themselves Muslems (but actually aren't really). However, is fighting them actually the best way to spend limited resources? Even if they killed ten thousand people a year there's things the money could be spent on which would save more than that.

I presume (possibly wrongly) that you think "security" is worth fighting for. For whom are you creating safety - and why is it better to be safe from a bomb only to die of a preventable disease or in a preventable car accident?