Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (361894)	12/8/2007 8:16:17 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575738

Chris, > Three trillion is a definite high-side estimate. Well why not go to four trillion? Five trillion? Seems like every single time I you or one of the other liberals inflating the cost of the war, you'll instantly run to the "human cost" argument. As if that excuses the lies, damned lies, and statistics. As if that doesn't give a moral victory to the terrorists, who are the ones truly responsible for the maiming and the killing, not Bush. Tenchusatsu

To: bentway who wrote (361894)	12/13/2007 5:37:50 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575738

10 wounded for every one killed, but still much less wounded than in previous wars. The fact that we manage to save the lives of severely wounded people is hardly a negative. The fact that they are severely wounded is, but the wounded totals in this war are not high. Of course any wounded or dead total is to high if the war is evil, or if the war is clearly a horrible mistake, and I do understand that you think it is one. OTOH if you don't start out with that belief than the fact that casualties are lower than normal in this war, and American deaths even lower isn't a point against it.