Wars cost 300,000 lives, $4 trillion

lajikal

Registered User
#1
September 11, 2012|William Spain

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- A report released by Brown University in conjunction
with the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks has pegged the cost of the ensuing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan at more than 300,000 lives lost and $4 trillion spent. The "Costs of War" study also found that indirect deaths, those related to malnutrition, damaged infrastructure and environmental degradation "may far outnumber deaths from combat." While those are difficult to precisely measure, they could push the actual toll north of 1 million. And some of the real costs will not be evident for decades as "many of the wars' costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed." The study noted that more than 6,500 U.S. soldiers have died in the wars "and levels of injury and illness among those who have returned are startling, with a quarter-million disability claims filed with the Veterans Administration."
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-09-11/general/33751166_1_wars-terror-attacks-iraq-and-afghanistan
 
#3
Well that seals it. We should just let unclipped savages fly airplanes into our landmarks.
 

Frankie_b

Talk softly and drive a big tank!
#4
Those are some expensive corpses.

And who said nuking them was a bad idea
 

lajikal

Registered User
#5
Those are some expensive corpses.

And who said nuking them was a bad idea
Those 300 afghan women and children must feel really special. Though they probably ended up dead anyway.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
#6
Waiting around and watching when you really, really should go to war instead costs 11,2 trillion and 60 million in lives. At least that what it cost back in the 40s. Now it would be more.
 

Stig

A Bigly Bad Hombre.
#7
No doubt about it. We need to find a cheaper way to kill fuckin' Muslims.
I suggest killing in bulk.
 
#8
Waiting around and watching when you really, really should go to war instead costs 11,2 trillion and 60 million in lives. At least that what it cost back in the 40s. Now it would be more.
We're on the genocide payment plan. Those savages will be the death of us before it's over, and we'll welcome it.

Partly because of people who think war is too expensive.
 

lajikal

Registered User
#9
We're on the genocide payment plan. Those savages will be the death of us before it's over, and we'll welcome it.

Partly because of people who think war is too expensive.
It's just there is no 'end-game' in the passive aggressive way we're fighting. We would have to go in a direct open war against muslims. That ain't gonna happen in this pc culture, especially with a dem/obama administration.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
#10
That's a lot of dead people and progressives think only government should have guns because they are responsible with them...
 

mascan42

Registered User
#11
It's just there is no 'end-game' in the passive aggressive way we're fighting. We would have to go in a direct open war against muslims. That ain't gonna happen in this pc culture, especially with a dem/obama administration.
In case you weren't paying attention, it didn't happen with Bush either. Nobody has the stomach to do what would be necessary, present company included.
 

Yesterdays Hero

She's better than you, Smirkalicious.
#13
The Monetary Cost is irrelevant. The Human Cost is also irrelevant. Human Beings love War. Adore it. Crave it. Need it. The Financial Cost could be double. Triple. The loss of life could've been 1 Million. Doesn't matter.

One thing you can rely on, in regards to the virus known as Humanity. They love to kill each other.

What a silly article.
 

weeniewawa

it's a man, baby!!!
#14
and this study comes out of Shicago, and they know killing on the cheap up there
 
Top