Cheney didn't think so in 1994 what has changed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgDIylwPlM
2007-10-06 11:57:42 · 17 answers · asked by Political Sigmund Freud 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
dixiedog1999, thank you for being so kind, I'm just asking a harmless question
You might as well bash me over the head with a baseball bat.
2007-10-06 12:06:39 · update #1
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
600,000 Iraqi deaths there is my sorce.
2007-10-06 12:08:30 · update #2
So to you things don't change? That was 1994. This is 2007 you freaking libturd... What kind of cool aid are they making you drink. With the skewed figures in your heading you're obviously drinking something toxic you fool...
2007-10-06 12:01:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Six hundred thousand Iraqi lives? You people are a scream. Of course you are absolutely right about the vice president. After all, not a thing has changed since 1994. Hillary is still pushing socialism in health care. The left is still making up lies about Rush. Congressman William Jefferson (D) is still stealing money in Louisiana. Democrats still want to raise taxes.
I did hear that something blew up in New York. Couldn't have been worth going to war over though.
2007-10-06 12:35:28 · answer #2 · answered by bucksbowlbound 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is the financial and death toll and unemployment costs of September 11.
IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO), The Global Economy After September 11 ...
Financial Market Dislocations and Policy. Responses After the ... Direct Costs of September 11 Attacks. 2.2. Impact of Confidence Indices on the Growth of ...
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2001/03/index.htm
2007-10-06 12:05:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I sincerely doubt your ability to fully comprehend the broad spectrum demographics.
In over four years, we've lost far less than Patton in 1944. Thanx for the 2 points.
Youtube? Really? Kind of like quoting Wikipedia as a legitimate source...
2007-10-06 12:12:07 · answer #4 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Get a new battery for your calculator. There have been 3,105 combat deaths in Iraq through 10AM washington time on October 5th. There have been 701 non-combat related deaths in Iraq as of the same time. So, if you had a fresh battery in your calculator, it would show that nearly one in five active duty deaths in Iraq was from a non-combat cause.
2007-10-06 12:09:35 · answer #5 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You know, I recently heard that the Marshall plan (in case you're a youngster: a massive aid package for Europe after WW II. Helped rebuild, feed, etc and helped to make America a world hero) cost about a half trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation.
When I compare what was acheived with that half-trillion compared to what was acheived with this half-trillion, I just want to cry.
So, to actually answer your question, no I don't think it was worth it.
2007-10-06 12:08:40 · answer #6 · answered by Robert K 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Odd the libs site I read only listed 3800 American deaths and about 80,000 Iraqi deaths but guess you are adding in all the foreign insuregent troops in Iraq. Or jsut making it up as you go? To keep ths country safe yes.
2007-10-06 12:05:29 · answer #7 · answered by John C 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I don't think the results were worth the price but, that wasn't the best example for you to use. Can you remember something you said 13 years ago? Times change and so do people.
2007-10-06 12:03:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Unfortunately you won't be able to accurately answer that question for another 20-40 years or more.
2007-10-06 16:27:21 · answer #9 · answered by sirtanaka 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
um of the 600,000 can you please tell me how many of them were at our hands ? the almost 4000 of ours, I wish is wasn't so but it is what it is. Its war that is what happens in war. and every single dollar of the half a trillion dollars is worth every penny for our gear our weapons our tanks our humvees our TROOPS.
2007-10-06 12:51:28 · answer #10 · answered by luvmyhubby 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋