- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"The three trillion number, does that account for the gross cost of warfare or the net. All those deployed would be pulling a paycheck just being on active duty here in the 'safe' confines of the USA. i safely assume they would have been training here at home for future battlefield excursions, using ammunition, fuel, etc.., is that money deducted from the 3 trillion? It was going to be spent either way, here or in Iraq."
Are you really that anxious to be an apoligst for the war? The bulk of it is NOT money that was going to be spent if the troops stayed in garrison. And that three trillion accounts for little of the cost to rebuild the property damage done in Iraq. Do we need to even mention that it doesn't attach a dollar value to the human (American and Iraqi) cost, other than a little (compared to the real cost) for VA hospitals?
And fear mongering?? The whole justification for the war was the basis of something we told we should FEAR was going to happen if Saddam wasn't removed. It was immoral to invade another country on the basis of what we FEARED might happen, and to use as justification our indignation that stemmed from the unwillingness of the U.N. to take stronger action.
