The war on AIDS has been longer and with more casualties. It has also cost more than the War in Iraq.
When looking at Iraq we consider casualties, collateral damage and cost when determining whether to continue.
Shouldn't we consider the same thing when determining whether or not to pursue the war on AIDS?
2006-08-21 02:38:59 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Bring the troops home from the AIDS war I say.
2006-08-21 02:44:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
JUST HIV?
How about ALL of our medical problems.
The government has some limited funding for scientists researching treatment, cures, and vaccines for a whole slew of diseases.
I think it's funny how the government can't open up a few million dollars worth of lines to help scientists study and experiment with stem cells, however, we can open up BILLIONS of dollars (that the public didn't vote for) to fight a war that has little to do with us.
If we really are fighting terrorism..... why aren't we still in Afghanistan? How come we're not going after people and places we know we can target?
I think it's terrible that we went on a campaign to go look for weapons of mass destruction that we thought MIGHT have existed..... yet we do nothing about Kim Jong-il, who not only do we know has nuclear capabilities, but has already gone into the testing phase.
Is anyone else thinking that this is Bush's war, and not America's?
2006-08-21 09:59:12 · answer #2 · answered by RemyK 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's a war on Aids? The bottom line is that Aids is an incurable disease that science hasn't found an answer for despite funding. Sometimes there's nothing you can do. I hope science finds a cure, but I doubt declaring "war" on it will provide help with that.
2006-08-21 10:00:17 · answer #3 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
these wars are very similar, since most casualties are from 3rd world countries, and who cares about them anyway.
The war on AIDS will probably be won, but the population of Africa and South East Asia will be hit the hardest.
2006-08-21 09:57:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
when we stop the Iraq war their will be lesser casualties and if the war against AIDS is stopped more and more people will die. it is sad that u dont understand a simple thing as that.
2006-08-21 09:48:26 · answer #5 · answered by knu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The war on AIDS is a good cause. bush's war in Iraq is not a good cause.
2006-08-21 09:49:13 · answer #6 · answered by Lucy S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
New drugs for treatment of aids have done wonders to increase the life span, and education about safe sex is a good thing.
I think we should stay the course in both events.
2006-08-21 09:45:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's just stupid. If people can cure AIDS it'll be better than setting up a puppet "democracy in Iraq." I don't see what you're saying here.
2006-08-21 09:48:55 · answer #8 · answered by !{¤©¤}! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is totally unfair , and a suggestion that is extremely bizarre. what are you comparing, killing civilians and having them captive in abu graib and striking a war that costs more and more everyday.
OR finding a cure to a disease that will SAVE tons of ppl all over the world,.
what kind of leadership are you promoting
2006-08-21 09:45:55 · answer #9 · answered by interested 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand - how will the war on AIDS benefit Halliburton? Why would we do anything that doesn't benefit a major oil company?
2006-08-21 10:03:22 · answer #10 · answered by Steve 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋