This are the latest numbers I've found ,I'm not sure there right but I'm sticking with them.Lets close gitmo and let these people out and say we are sorry for this illegal war.We should treat these poor people better then we treat ourselves.
2006-10-19 10:20:19 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Man...are you an idiot.
That is by far the stupidest "question" I have read yet.
2006-10-19 10:22:58 · answer #1 · answered by USMCstingray 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Hell, our whole country has barely spent $5.4 trillion TOTAL in the past 3 years, let alone just on Iraq. It's off by at least a factor of 10!
5.8 million dead in Iraq? Absurdly high. By about a factor of 100!
You obviously do not realize this, but the fact that your numbers are so far off indicates you're not using legitimate sources for your information, which leaves you quite ill informed. This type of thing undermines any opionion you might have.
'illegal' war. *yawn* what a tiresome falsehood. It's been a lie for over 3 years now, and it hasn't aged well.
Close Gitmo? these are terrorists captured on the field of battle or in raids. These are people who have butchered and murdered innocent victims. Many of them will probably get a death sentence for their actions.
Sorry, but you really do not know what you're talking about.
2006-10-19 10:33:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is there a question here? Or just some kind of statement that has no proof and follows no discernible train of thought? Gitmo? We should "treat people better than we treat ourselves"? These are "the latest numbers" you have found? What in the hell does any of this babble mean? Did you find Bigfoot writing down these numbers? Were they written at the same soundstage where "they" faked the lunar landing? The truth is out there, my friend, and so are you...
2006-10-19 10:33:19 · answer #3 · answered by irish1269 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The numbers seen high but it disturbs me that they(the media) do not count a troops death if they get shot on the front line and die two days from then. They go into the wounded category.
2006-10-19 10:31:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
um your way off on the ridiculous assumption of 5.8 million dead.
2006-10-19 10:28:20 · answer #5 · answered by Ski_Bum 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your numbers are WAY off. (And I'm a big opponent of the war.)
You lose credibility when you exaggerate like that.
2006-10-19 10:30:06 · answer #6 · answered by banjuja58 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both numbers seem incredibly high. Sources please.
2006-10-19 10:24:50 · answer #7 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋