Here is an interesting counter which shows the cost of the war and other things which that money could have done if spent elsewhere. The counter updates in real time, though I have no idea how accurate it is. Interesting none the less.
fake.
Anyway, they expect that our troops will only be there for a year more.
Say, are you interested in a bridge? 
Say, how’s that Afghanistan thing going? We certainly don’t have any troops over there any more, do we? It’s been nearly two years, and it’s not even in the news any more.
Those boys must all be home by now, right?
** kputt**, what the hell? If you want to dismiss it as fake thats just fine, but the least you could do is back up your assertion with a little information on where you draw your conclusions from.
Especially when the site itself gives info on the methods used to set up the counter and the sources for the numbers. I glanced through it and it looked to be on the up and up to me.
Enjoy,
Steven
We have plenty of troops in aghanistan. Just because the media is talking about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
It’s fake because it’s propaganda.
“What we’ve got here, is a failure to communicate.”
MerriamWebster defines propaganda as
So by that definition, one has to consider all of the White House’s posturing about the war to be propaganda, and therefore fake as well, right?
Also, I think Ino is saying that the fact that troops are still in Afghanistan 2 years later suggests that we will be in Iraq for more than 1 year as well.
Since the US has committed to closing it’s large base in Riyadh, why would the US want to take itself completely away from such a strategically important area?
The US will be there in thirty years time, never mind just one.
That website was propaganda. Look!!! It’s easy to see. They are obviously trying to further their cause of where they think that money should go to.
Quoth kputt
Oh, I quite agree, but that does not detract from the fact that the figures for both the cost of the war and the alternate uses to which that money could be put are apparently roughly correct. Which directly counters your assertion that it is “fake,” which Merriam Webster halpfully defines as
let’s say we used that money on that other stuff. Now, let’s say Saddam started attacking us with his WMD’s. It would cost a lot more money to clean up and in human lives (American lives that is)
Worse yet, he might have attacked us with bombs made from Nigerian uranium! A justification for war based on an extremely unlikely speculative event is a license to invade anyone at any time, which simply won’t wash.
That was false, but the other stuff wasn’t. As a matter of fact, I heard on CNN today that they found evidence of Iraqi deception (Obviously to the U.N.), but the government wasn’t able to reveal it quite yet. Had to study it of course.
Oh? Afeared of big bad Saddam and his WMD’s are ye? We’ll, I’ve got some land where you’d be perfectly safe. Nice, rolling countryside for the most part, but it does have some nice ocean views in some places. It’s far enough from most big cities that you’d not have to worry about being hit by those big nasties. Nice and warm too. It’s in a place called “Arizona”. Special deal, just for you.
Enjoy,
Steven
Look’s like what’shisname was right
Iraqis are leading us to sites we didn’t even know about and they said they have solid evidence of WMD’s.