Iraq verses AIDS

[khirkhib]

Since it now looks like we went into Iraq not because of the false percieved threat to the US but for humanitarian reasons I thought it would be good to do a cost/benefit analysis of the War in Iraq verses, what we should have done, a War against the AIDS epedemic.

13,213 Iraquis have been killed in our Military intervention in Iraq.

4.8 million people were infected by HIV in 2003

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 1979 Saddam in his wars against Iran, Kuwait, Kurds and Shiites is accused of killing about 1,278,317 people.

Since 1981 AIDS has killed more than 20 million people

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Their have been 819 US mortalities thus far in the war.

Their were 16371 US mortalities from AIDS in 2002 and 42136 new infections.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrorists have killed less than 10,000 Americans since 1981 including 2819  on 9/11

AIDS has killed more than 501,669 Americans since 1981.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

34 Countries in the coalition of the willing have had troops in Iraq and actively supported supported the war.

193 countries in the world are affected by AIDS and would support a war against the epedemic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The war in Iraq has cost the US  123.5 billion.

For the same amount the US could sustain a global war against AIDS for 12 years.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam was bad.  AIDS is worse.  The intelligence is there and we know what AIDS is doing.  America needs to keep it priorities straight and attack the worst enemies first.

[MODU]

Hmmmm . . . comparing apples to a-bombs here.  And considering we, as a nation, are paying the most for both "wars," it's a non-issue to argue.

Sorry to say it so coldly, but AIDS is just another one of Natures population controls.  Each century seems to have its mass epidemic, killing more innocent victims that guilty.  And following these epidemics come great scientific advances.  We have come far with the research into AIDS so far that its findings are helping with other illnesses today.  However, don't think that once we find the cure for AIDS we won't have another super killer out there.  They keep coming, it's just a matter of when.

[The Duke]

Yeah, this is bad comparison.  First of all, you Iraqi casualties site has already been debunked as garbage.  Second, as MODU said, we already bear the brunt of the cost of fighting both causes, so I'm not sure what you're point is.  Third, none of the causes cited for war has been proven "false".  Fourth, this line of logic that we should attack the "worst" enemy first is wrong again, because it would compel us not to prosecute bank robbers until every murderer is behind bars.

[khirkhib]

link your evidence.

Where was the casulaty site debunked?

Do we bear the brunt of costs in the war on AIDS.  Is it enough?  

The causes of war haven't been "proven" false.  Just like the law of gravity isn't really a law it is a theory and that hasn't been "proven" beyond a shadow of a doubt its just all the evidence points that way.


It's not that we have problems with dictators though.

When do you think we are going to take care of the top
[url =http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/AlphaD.html]10 worst dictators. [/url]

[MODU]

Al Jazeerah's death toll is 11,164 to 13,118, yet they say that is based primarily off of news accounts.  No honest body count has been done within Iraq since their census figures are outdated, and hospitals are not keeping complete records.  I would say "civilian" (since that is what Al Jazeerah calls anyone that is Iraq and not a part of the old military . . . so that includes all the insurgents) casualties would be somewhere between 5,000-10,000.

[The Duke]

In the "Daily Democrat Propaganda" thread, me and States took down some bogus casualty reports tha seem to indicate that your site has no respect fo truth.  For example, some little girl drowned in a river, and they attributed it to the coalition.  Even when they had a legitimate casualty, they'd imply that the coalition caused it, when in fact it was insurgents.

[Akno21]

The point is valid. However, it's not as if if we didn't invade Iraq we would use the money for AIDS research.

[khirkhib]

The point is valid. However, it's not as if if we didn't invade Iraq we would use the money for AIDS research.

But maybe we should have.

[Akno21]

The point is valid. However, it's not as if if we didn't invade Iraq we would use the money for AIDS research.

But maybe we should have.

Balancing the budget should be high priority as well. You can't give money to AIDS research if you don't have any money.

[MODU]

Macro-economics 101:  The nation functions off of debt.  Therefore, we do not have to have money in order to spend it.  However, we have to have economic value to offset the the debt effect.  There are enough checks and balances built into the national budget to ensure we do not cross that limit.

[Lunar]

The USA is a pretty big country.  I'm pretty sure we're capable of fighting AIDS and a war simultaneously.