Look at this link, we are spending this much money on the "War On Terrorisom", what is up with that.
http://nationalpriorities.org/ index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
ID:11936
 May 3 2006, 5:14 pm
|
|
Yeah, did you see the comparison for world hunger, thats disgusting, what we aren't doing.
| |
Thats not the cost of the war on terrorism, thats just Iraq, which btw was never actualy a terrorist organisation, but a dictatorship government.
The full cost of "the war on terrorism" is wayyyyy more. | |
Iraq was accused of harboring chemical weapons, that we the U.S. gave to them during the Iraq-Iran war, so technically we went there because they were harboring terriorist groups, and had weapons of mass destruction.
| |
There is no evidence that Iraq harboured terrorist organisations, and we still haven't found these weapons they supposedly had (Recently. It's obvious that he had them a while ago).
Osama hated Saddam as much as he hates George. Saddam is a secular dictator - Osama is a religious nut. They don't get along well. | |
Not only is the financial cost crippling, take a look at the human cost.
2415 US soldiers dead, 17,469 wounded. 2782 Iraqi police and miltary deaths, 8391 civillian deaths. It's staggering. And it has no end in sight. | |
I am sure that whoever our next president is, I am guessing won't be a republican do to the Bush Administrations horrible failure in almost everything, I am embarrased to say I voted for him, you can almost be sure that the person to win the next elections ,will be anti-war, and have solutions for americas biggest problems.
| |
Dark-V said:
I am embarrased to say I voted for him Then don't. =P the person to win the next elections ,will be anti-war, and have solutions for americas biggest problems. That said... every person running for election is anti-war has solutions for America's biggest problems... | |
Don't be too sure the Republicans won't steal.. ermmm, I mean win the next election.
Seriously, Hilary is not an electable candidate. If you don't understand why, please take a look here:http://timesunion.com/AspStories/ asp?storyID=452066&category=NATIONAL&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=2/ 19/2006 When roughly 1/3 basically ADMIT they won't vote for a woman, there is a problem. Of course they are likely Republicans anyway.... And she will almost certainly get the Dem nomination. If the Repubs put up a decent moderate like McCain (I use "decent" very loosely here, referring to his popular rep, not the actual person, who seems to be a spineless Republican sycophant- How can a POW suck up to the cokehead, alcoholic, air reserve no-show who questioned his war record?), my money is on the Republicans. It's like the Dems like losing. Why else would they put up a bozo like Kerry? I mean he was one of the few who could actually lose to Bush. Well, with the help of Diebold, of course ;-) | |
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/11836/ Rumsfeld_gets_called_out_by_20_year_CIA_verteran_video
Funny listening to Rumsfled say...Myy words werreee.. my woorddd ... my word... wait a minute! | |
I personally prefer his whole "known unknowns" speech. Makes John Kerry look downright straightforward!
| |
Not only is the financial cost crippling, take a look at the human cost.2415 US soldiers dead, 17,469 wounded. 2782 Iraqi police and miltary deaths, 8391 civillian deaths. It's staggering. And it has no end in sight. There have been far more Iraqi civilian deaths then that. Can't find the actual study at the moment, but if you go searching, you can find it. | |
If Goerge W. Bush ran again, I'd vote for him.
| |
American Deaths In Wars
Iraq War Total servicemembers 133,000 Iraqi Insurgents Killed, Roughly Estimated 55,000 Battle deaths 2,363 Nonmortal woundings 17,549 World War II Total servicemembers 4,734,991 Battle deaths 53,402 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114 Nonmortal woundings 204,002 Living veterans Less Than 500 Civil War (1861–1865) Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363 Battle deaths (Union) 140,414 Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097 Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881 Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000 Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524 Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972 Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown | |
The war in Iraq in fatalities and similiarity isn't that much different from the whole northern ireland crap. The difference? This "war" has been publicised beyond reasonable comprehension.
| |
I don't really understand why you posted that, Strawgate.
You can't compare the Iraq war to World War II. ([insert joke here about the americans not actually doing anything in WW II]). | |
The thing about WWII is that we were actually fighting the other side with similar tactics, except for the German hit and destroy tactics. The terrorism groups assault by taking there own lives, thats our problem.
| |
{[instead inserts joke about England and the rest of Europe needing American assistance]}
| |
Psh, America need's more than Europe, we are all problems.
| |
Dammit, I'd say world hunger is important, seriously, it makes me feel bad when our own companies care more about CEO's getting paid off with tens of millions of dollars rather than feeding millions of kids.