So how many have died for the oily Halliburton farce known as the "war on terror"?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylc=X3oDMTE1MmI4N2IyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAxMTgEc2VjA2Fuc19ub3QEc2xrA3N1YmplY3Q-;_ylv=3?qid=20071030234203AAo9yqz

You people saying "zero" are holocaust deniers. I know that it's at LEAST 3000 and that's just American troops. I was asking about American, British, and Iraqi deaths for the proven oil Halliburton farce that you don't know about because you don't read. Click the link. Yes, deaths happen on American soil as troops commit suicide because they're deformed, crippled, and traumatized and threatened with having to go back, etcetera. Shame on you.

Answer 1

Over 3,000 I think.

Answer 2

The function of ‘The War on Terror’ does not lie in the instruction of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain 'facts', processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since ‘The War on Terror’ is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like a poster or billboard, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.

‘The War on Terror’ must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in ‘The War on Terror’, the aim is to influence a whole people, it must avoid excessive intellectual demands on the public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of the ‘The War on Terror’ campaign, and not success in convincing a few scholars or young intellectuals.

The art of ‘The War on Terror’ lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our people do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once we understand how necessary it is for ‘The War on Terror’ to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results: It is a mistake to make ‘The War on Terror’ many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda such as ‘The War on Terror’ must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want them to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely canceled out.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration and its supporters, foreign and domestic, have taken extensive measures to ensure that this does not happen—at least until now. It’s a war of words, and the message that these criminals have propagated for 8 years is finally being seen for the fraud that it is.

Remember this when you vote in ’08.

Answer 3

None but how many suicide bombers does it take to wake the likes of you up , people like you criticize the USA but give a free pass to the real terrorists that are out there trying to kill as many innocent people they can because the terrorists are cowards and cannot fight man to man but in the shadows they are bold , they won`t get no 72 virgins a few blow up dolls at best.

Answer 4

Zero on American soil since 2001.

Answer 5

None to my knowledge, far as i recall haliburton didn't start this war. It has been ongoing for nearly 30 years. You do realize there were terrorist attacks before the year 2000 don't you?

Answer 6

ZERO, ZILCH, NADA! We are at war with radical Islamists, or you can call them Islamofacists, if you prefer. They started the war by bombing our Homeland, the Cole and our embassies. Oh, how soon they forget the 9/11 attacks. Sad, very sad.

Answer 7

According to John Edwards, "War on Terror" is just a bumper sticker war. It doesn't really exists...apparently you never got the memo.

FYI, stick to the playbook.....the left is counting on your support.

Answer 8

Unless they were war protesters in this country none.

Answer 9

Zero.

How many stupid questions have I read about the war being about oil?

Millions.

Answer 10

ever notice that the more asinine the question, the less points the asker has? bonehead