I came across this statistic a while back.
According to the editor of Visibone, in Caesar's time it would cost 75 cents to kill a person. In Napolean's time it would be $3,000. In the American civil war it rose to $5,000. In World War One it was $21,000. It is estimated that through the Middle East war of Iraq/Afghanistan it will cost on average $29,000,000 for the life of one person.
Why does the government continue the iraq war when they could use the money for research into a more efficient power source that would jade the reason for oil anyways, being the whole reason why the Bush administration went into Iraq anyways.
Here is a theory how the government acts and they seem to be deviating from it.
The political power of a society is only concerned about maintaining power and stability and through maximum selfishness. If those establishments are threatened or compromised only then would the government actually act in concern to the public, for the public is where the potential of the power lies.
So now I'm sure that this theory I thought up of is wrong. Because it would make sense to me that the government would have more power technologically, economically, public 'trustily' if they never had the war in the first place.
Who's fault is the war then? The people for advocating the propoganda, or the government for starting it? The laws that allow for selfishness of the bush administration to endure, or the lack of laws to stop corporations from having such financial gaining abilities? :confused:
Thoughts?