It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: U.S War on Terror is "Saving Fewer Lives"

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:47 AM
Dr. Erica Frank of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta has spoken out and said the U.S led war on terror is saving fewer lives than if the money was spent on basic services, disease prevention and research. Dr. Frank has calculated the costs of the Bush Administrations terror campaign in terms of lives. One estimation used by Dr. Frank showed that on September 11 2001, 3,400 people died in the intentional plane crashes but over 5,200 other people died of common disease in America on that day.
"The most recent effects of these diversions of funding have been seen in the unfolding tragedy of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the surrounding area," Frank wrote in a commentary published in the British Medical Journal.

"Governments must protect their citizens, and anticipating these possible future threats is appropriate and could prove essential to Americans' health."

To estimate how many Americans died of routine causes on September 11, Frank used national estimates of mortality from various causes.

"For example, in September 2002, New York was awarded $1.3 million to reduce heart disease, the leading killer of New Yorkers, while $34 million was awarded for bioterrorism preparedness in the state," Frank added.

She cited numerous reports showing the federal government cut spending to reinforce the levees built to protect New Orleans from the flood that has devastated the city.

"Since the point of investing in counterterror is to protect American lives, the question is a dollar better spent in Iraq or is it better spent here?" she asked.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Well it's about time people in the scientific community and other prominent areas did start to show these sort of figures and speak out with research and facts and figures on just what this war is costing the people in real terms.

The response after Katrina was a good example of wrongness and money diverted towards outside issues instead of taking care and making sure the people inside the country were safe.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Mayet]

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:39 AM
That's a good numbers game.

But why make that point? Of course we die of unnatural causes quicker than anyone else could kill us. But then, its easy to pull up the digits 4 years later and make a case for misappropriation of funds when so many people die because they lead poor lifestyles, or that they happen to be random victims of disease.

If this is a pull against Bush, which it seems to be, hey... I'm all for it. Anything that can cause any one the revelation that he's a complete idiot and pawn is good in my book, but for the love of God, put some numbers out there that mean something.

I really don't think Al-Queda could come up with something that was more destructive to that particular area of the world than a grade 4 hurricane.

I think she's comparing oranges to apples in all instances. I for one will probably be the 'victim' of something like heart disease or cancer, and that is due to the life choices I make, but to compare that to deliberate murder is kind of an asinine numbers game.

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:46 AM
agreed delta, what your point mayet? that we would be better off burrying our heads in the sand? To pretend that terrorists motivated by a religion of hate are just a myth and if we dont do anything they will tire of their game? Were that the case why didnt it stop after the USS Cole bombing, etc. ? We are at war with fantical terrorists, just accept it.

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 04:23 AM
Rikimaru...its not MY Point This is ATSNN a news network where we report on NEWS ITEMS for the ATS News network. Please direct your replies to the article in question instead of calling out the author.

Now to your reply. "We are at war with fantical terrorists, just accept it"

Why are you at war? Why are you so impressed with the fact you are at WAR? Is WAR a good thing for your nation? Is WAR a good thing for your people? How many innocents are suffering due to this WAR?

IS WAR A GOOD THING for our world, our future and our children? Or is it just a "Get em" mentality.

The Iraqi's were not responsible for 9/11. That was AL Queda, wasn't it ?

The US led forces have INVADED a nation, Can you accept in turn that things may not be as they seem? Can you accept that money being spent for this war you seem to want me to accept with open loving accepting arms could have been better spent elsewhere for the people of your nation?

This is documented evidence of spending that has been diverted to the war instead of strenthening levee banks and other NATIONAL issue for your country.

Yes I know, Katrina can not be blamed on the Iraqi's but I'm sure if a political point could be scored, it would be. But most certainly many aspects of this crisis can be blamed on this Lovely little "WAR on terrorism" including the clean up attempt. Many peoples lives may have been saved had things been done differently with the people before politics, before oil, and before a tiny desert nation of peoples thousands of miles away.

I have a saying..mend your own fences before you go jumping them.......

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Mayet]

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 06:08 AM

[edit on 10-9-2005 by 7th_Chakra]

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 07:59 AM
In the long run the war on terror is a cannot wage war on dispair or ideas and terrorism is first and foremost rooted in dispair and idealism! It is usually economic dispair...not in the bin ladens, but in the rank and the long run the root problems (and they vary country to country) of political disenfranchisement or rampant unemployment (some areas of the mid-east unemployment is at 40%) and resentment and the feeling of exploitation before it will simply cannot fight terrorism with bullets and bombs because it will only breed more bullets and bombs. BUT since Bush is a simpleton, he will never be able or interested in grasping such ideas...besides they are not politically expedient.

new topics

top topics

log in