More Expensive Than World War One - Page 3

Felix_Nietsche · #21 08-30-2005, 02:05 PM

It wasn't sneaky..........No one said "OMG LOOK THIS WAR WAS WORSE THAN WWI!" because that wasn't what the post was about.
************************************************** *********
The agenda of the author was to imply that the Iraq War is as bad/or worse than WWI. I found this tactic to be "sneaky".

Matty · #22 08-30-2005, 02:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The agenda of the author was to imply that the Iraq War is as bad/or worse than WWI. I found this tactic to be "sneaky".

[/ QUOTE ]No it was not. You cannot blame me if you can only see the world in binary. The title of this thread says "more expensive"- not "worse". Your argument is [censored] pathetic. Spend more time reading and less time posting.

In some ways Iraq is going much better, due to technological advances. However in some other ways (like the justification for it, the planning, and the monetary cost), it really is worse.

FishHooks · #23 08-30-2005, 02:53 PM

It's called reading in between the lines, try it sometime.

jaxmike · #24 08-30-2005, 04:10 PM

I am sorry, but this is a VERY silly comparison. The United States military played a VERY small role (overall) in the Great War.

Yes, about 4 million US citizens were mobilized, but we entered the war just 2 years before it ended.

We were NOT the primary or even secondary or even tertiary nation that waged the war. We helped win the war in the end, this is true, but our contribution was not anywhere near as significant as during WWII or other more recent wars.