View Full Version : Real cost of the "war on terror"
06-07-2007, 07:47 PM
Just a little FYI on what the "war on terror" has really cost this country. What could we have done with the money that we have spent so far? Just read on and find out...
As of May 2007 (statistics from icasualties.org) [Center for Artistic Revolution]
OVER 456 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS spent so far - that is over 275 million US dollars per day!
3,475 US soldiers killed in Iraq - 111 self inflicted & approximately 43 were gay or lesbian at least 400,000 to 793,000 Iraqis killed
That money could have:
allowed 57,062,637 children to attend head start for 1 year; OR 257,977,851 children to have health insurance for 1 year; OR 7,466,217 public teachers to be hired for 1 year; OR 20,885,365 students could have 4-year scholarships to public universities;
OR could have fully funded;
global anti-hunger efforts for 17 years, OR world wide AIDS programs for 43 years....
We owe every country in the world money!
------shows piss-poor leadership if you ask me
06-07-2007, 10:54 PM
Although...just to play the devil's advocate, there are major security breeches in this country that need to be closed-for instance, last year I flew to Maryland for an opera workshop and when I was flying home, the two female security officers were talking about their hair instead of looking at the scanner! I could have smacked them. Instead, I said, "Excuse me, but I would like to be alive when the plane lands. I don't want my plane to be run into a building, rammed into a field, or blown up...so I think that both of you should watch the scanner instead of talking about your hair." I am happy that I said this. It made me angry that the airport would employ people who would take that responsibility in a cavlier manner.
To add a bit of humor to this story, after I was through regular security, one of the woman said, "you have been selected for additional screening, mam." When I went off to the side, this woman picked up a metal detector and said, "now, wherever this goes off, I'm gonna have to touch you there. Is that okay with you?" I raised my eyebrows-"no...that is not okay...obviously there are certain parts of my body that would not be okay to "touch..."
But, I guess what I'm saying is that terrorism is still a major issue that I think its important to remain vigilant about...I don't know if it needs that much money, but I do think we need to consider the fact that just because nothing has happened does not mean it isn't being planned-don't forget about the recent plot to blow up JFK airport.
06-07-2007, 11:15 PM
I agree with you on the national security thing up to a certain degree Progo, but I have a big problem with the government wiretapping American citizens, most of who are probably lawabiding, or even sticking their noses into our emails and other stuff. I do support the FBI and other intelligence and law enforcement activities if they have to probe a persons backround and wiretap them if they are suspected of having links with terrorists,or of possibly orchestrating terrorist activities here at home,or even of having to monitor other possible criminal activity.
I just think the Patriot act goes a little too far when it does that to ordinary citizens. I bet the FBI and law enforcement feel their manpower could be put to better use to keep an eye on potential terrorist plots and such,if all this other stuff wasn't going on.And could do it alot more effectively if allowed to focus on just that ,crime and terrorist activity.. But they don't make the legislation.
However I agree with you on airport security.
06-07-2007, 11:55 PM
The dollars are mind-boggling and extremely frustration. :headbang: (Oh, I've been wanting to use that one again!)
It's amazing how much money is wasted. Instead of doing a better job on national security, we are blowing it all away, just like Scott reported. We have hungry children, educational systems in ruin, horrible lack of health care, etc etc etc. Everything is going to the war. :mad:
06-08-2007, 12:06 AM
The one thing I don't agree with is this prevailing notion that we as Americans have to give up our civil liberties and first amendment rights to combat terrorism,I totally disagree, I still think we can deal with terrorism effectively and keep our constitution and liberties intact.
People are willing to go along with being searched at the airport to help ensure security and most don't really feel that is a violation of their rights,(and of course I don't see any harm, it will probably save more lives in the long run, than the temporary inconvenience it might create) and the wiretapping of certain suspected elements in our country to prevent a potential terrorist attack,obviously could save alot of lives if the terrorism was averted.... but I say everything within reason.
When I read that Newt Gingrich said we may have to give up our first amendment rights to ensure security, I cringed and became perturbed at even such a thought. That will not protect America it will make it a more dangerous country to live in.
We see what happens under dictatorships and in other countries where people abdicated their rights for so-called security. They lived under tyranny and repression. Which is far worse when people lose power and the government has all of it and can use it to terrorize it's own people and even torture and kill them(Think about all the human rights activists who have been censored , jailed tortured and even killed in these countries.)
We need our laws and constitution to stay intact. If something is wrong we need to fix it, and that is what I am saying about the Patriot Act, fix it, make it less ominous and more inline with sensible laws and our constitution.
I say never believe anyone who says we have to trade our liberty for security,in reality we should have both. Not one or the other. There is no tradeoff or compromise in this. Protecting our liberties is apart of our security.So is free speech.
If you aren't sure ,think of all the people Saddam Hussein killed and tortured who didn't agree with him. One of his military advisors was killed just because he said to Saddam, he didn't think the war (Persian gulf war ) was being handled properly under his leadership. Shot on the spot.
Our founding fathers were not cowards,I suspect that they would look at those willing to trade their constitutional rights and liberties for a so-called sense of security, as cowardly or even treasonous.(And especially leaders who were sworn to uphold the constitution and defend it)
To me censorship is just plain wrong. It stops the free flow of exchange of ideas, dissenting views and debate. We as Americans used to pride ourselves on living in a free country.
I often heard people say (in the past), well we can disagree with or criticize our government and not go to jail for it. There was pride that we lived in a country that upheld our constitutional laws, and that we lived in a democracy. But it seems now,even those in Congress, in our law enforcement and other high level positions are often censored. For what "crime"? Disagreeing with the president and his policies.
I don't even believe the president is above the law and certainly not above the laws of our constitution, we have had checks and balances for a good reason ,to keep power in line and to keep those in authority from abusing that power or misusing it.
Our founding fathers were not afraid of differences of opinion , or disagreement. What we have done as Americans is abdicated our freedom for a sense of false security. I don't believe in security without freedom, period.
People back in the days when our founding fathers were alive, were zealous about guarding the freedoms we had. And they lived in perilous times too, but they were resolute in standing up to tyranny. People fought in wars to guard those freedoms, and now we try to "give" them up? That is an insult to our men and women in uniform who fought to keep those freedoms intact and also our founding fathers.We must be real "whimps".
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.