At the cost of NINE BILLION dollars a month mposing democracy on 80 percent of the Iraqi of people who do not want us there, not to mention the loss of even one of our brave service members in the process. Afterwards we still have the whole Middle East that hates us. Did anybody ever think this one through? Must be the same bunch sleepling at the switch that ignored all the warnings about 9-11
Who gets the NINE BILLION dollars a month? I'll give you a clue, it is not the soldiers that risks their lives, it is the likes of Halliburton. http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm . Insult to injury, Republicans are denying health care to tens of thousdands of veterans by not voting to fund the Veterans Adminisration. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00063
2006-06-12 06:56:53 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No, it isn't. However, the world is better off without Saddam and should be forking in to help out.
BTW: Reps aren't DENYING or CUTTING VA benies, they simply aren't INCREASING the budget. While I don't agree with this and think that all vets should have TOP-QUALITY (better than congress, imo) care and retirement, it is not right to blame ONLY one side for this. If the libs weren't pushing so many social programs, more money would be free for the vets. Think about THAT next time you complain there isn't enough funding. The money has to come from somewhere.
2006-06-12 07:01:34 · answer #1 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only history will be able to answer this. From our perspective in 2006, it could look like it's been a big waste. I personally do not believe so. I question your statistics such as 80% of the Iraqi people not wanting us there. While it may be correct for the long term, I suspect that that many are happy to have our help at the moment. Halliburton gets a lot of the contracts there, but they are essentially the only company in the world to have the ability to do the jobs needed. If they are cheating the US taxpayer, they should be nailed, but there is (contrary to the mass media) no significant evidence to demonstrate that). Bush told us from the get-go that this would be a LONG effort. The plan was two fold: to fight the Islamofascists on their ground, not ours, and to change the entire perspective of the Islamic world. And before you say that this is CAUSING more terrorism, remember who struck first! I do agree that a great deal more needs to be done to assist the troops (I come from a military family, so I do have a bias there).
2006-06-12 07:11:58 · answer #2 · answered by aboukir200 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont think we are loosing a whole lot of money on social programs like we are in a war based on personal agenda. If Iraq is better off without Saddam why are we not in Africa helping the Innocent people that die in the Hundreds of Thousands every year. Removing Saddam was not better for the world it was better for George Bush's personal agenda.
By the way Republicans did try to submit a bill that would completely wipe out Farm Aid for American farms, but they canceled because they though it would hurt their party. They were basically trying to do the same thing to Veterans by reducing their benefits so George Bush can put some more money in the bank for his next big expense....
Also IRAQ had no connection to 9/11 or to Terrorism. Read the 9/11 commissions report. Bush opened to door for them...
2006-06-12 07:53:42 · answer #3 · answered by Scott C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was the fist thing Bush did when he was re-elected. He cut veteran benefits (I know all of you are so patriotic and military supporting that you vote for a guy who gets people killed and then cuts their benefits and wanted to cut their pay).. Did you hear ONE Republican complain about that? Hell no!
2, 500 dead over oil and 18, 356 wounded. That isn't even counting the dead Iraqi's.
Repubs are so pro=military they charge military for their meals when they are discharged from Walter Reed after being wounded, and charge military for the body armor that had to be cut off of them because they were wounded. The whole administration has never been in the military except for Texas ANG AWOL Bush!
2006-06-12 07:07:55 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question is how many ways could education in this country be improved; how many jobs could have been created; how many people without health plans could have been covered; and how many homeless people could have been housed with 9 Billion dollars a month?
2006-06-12 07:34:52 · answer #5 · answered by Swordfish 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your soldiers are in Iraq to incubate more terrorists. that is what they are there for, so whatever is the cost does not matter. the goal must be achieved. the better terrorist must come up, that can make a better attack on US which is better than 9/11
2006-06-12 10:17:52 · answer #6 · answered by gaskiyace'///e'e' 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not at all worth it we can solve the problems of the world but ignore the homelessness and our own struggling economy at home bush should have been impeached a long time ago god knows there are adequate grounds
2006-06-12 07:06:03 · answer #7 · answered by aarika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You went on a bit of a rant there buddy. However, no...it wasn't worth it. Be careful though. Reps will berate you for misleading in your question, even though you were quoting and citing facts.
2006-06-12 07:02:55 · answer #8 · answered by bluejacket8j 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't really care for the war. but the soldiers i do belive in and care for !!
2006-06-12 07:02:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its not but at least some people are getting freedom.
2006-06-12 07:02:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋