What is the point of sending our military to another country and distroying a city just to turn around and have americans tp pay for it to get rebuilt ---- by americans? did any one send or offer to rebuild the towers no just america did anyone send or offer to rebuild the pentagone? no just americans so why is it every city that we go and blow up we have to go and rebuild it?why distroy it if were just going to rebuilt it. this is not the 6 million dollar man we cant make it stronger we cant make it better. let them worry about rebuilding it.
2006-07-03 18:10:57 · 26 answers · asked by tiger 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There is no point in it. What do missiles and bombs cost? Money. What does a soldier's time and effort cost? Money. What do houses and stores cost to rebuild? Money. The way to catch a bad guy is not to blow up everything in site. The policy isn't shoot first ask questions later or at least it shouldn't be. It's a stupid thing to do and is just a bad way to be. It isn't just Bush that has done this, many Presidents before him have done as much and it's a common mistake. I don't think that it is our job to rebuild Iraq, and I don't think that it was our place to blow it up to begin with. America in my opinion needs to learn how to butt out, and focus on its internal problems. After all, what could be more important than home?
2006-07-03 18:16:38 · answer #1 · answered by Skitz628 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it has nothing to do with bush. to start with the military will bomb all forms of telecommunications of a city,country when in war, so the enemy cant use phones.cell included so whoever is being bombed cannot be in contact with each other through these devises. also their power sources and water sources are taken out. along with enemy headquarters etc. the rebuilding only comes if the war was successful in removing the problem. this was made up by the United Nations a long time ago.
2006-07-04 01:25:59 · answer #2 · answered by ronald r 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably because the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer. Meaning it seems to be quite profitable for those involved in the construction process over seas as well as here, as the prices of everything gos up, from construction materials to the labor involved to rebuild, not to mention who gets the contracts to rebuild and who is associated with it. I wish for once when we occupy a country we could actually benefit from it,,,why can't they pay for their own reconstruction with all their oil? Are we trying to show the world how nice we are, we will take on the responsibility and price tag of rebuilding your country? Why do we care, most of the world hates us anyway, whatever we do its not good enough, so lets use their oil and money to restore their country, whatever happened to all that cash we found and took from Sadam whats his face, our fuel prices should be 0.75 cents a gallon instead of 3 dollars,,,,
2006-07-04 01:26:21 · answer #3 · answered by tyler 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oil my boy, don't see anyone from America rebuilding Croatia or Serbia Herzegovina, do you? And US is not re-building the cities, they are building an infra-structure to withdraw oil easily in and out of the country. They are building underground caves to store stockpiles of weapons for future warfare (this is normal for any victor that takes occupation). US is an occupying force, do not mistake that for a benevolent government re-building cities.
2006-07-04 01:16:38 · answer #4 · answered by Ya-sai 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a great lesson in life in the answer to your question. America always leaves it's conquest better then it found them. If you try to leave every place you live and person you meet a little bit better then you found them, your life will have been worthwhile and most important don't worry about what other people are doing.
2006-07-04 01:43:36 · answer #5 · answered by JUNK MAN 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I take it you are an advocate of neutron weapons then? Kill all the inhabitants and leave the buildings in place?
Hmm, when I think about it, destruction of cities during war does foster replacement of dated services such as sewer systems, mass transit, electricity distribution, etc.
2006-07-04 01:15:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the Marshall Plan. It is outdated and sorely putting the crunch on our already insanely huge deficit.
I say if we have to come over there and kick your a**, you will foot the bill to rebuild not us!
2006-07-04 01:13:23 · answer #7 · answered by Biker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point. We are being too nice. We have to destroy the buildings to rid the city of the insurgence, so we should not build it back so they bad people come back when we leave. If there's no city-they won't come.
2006-07-04 01:16:13 · answer #8 · answered by Marlin Darlin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the first answer is completly wrong, the US has done this in every war we have been in... COMPLETLY STUPID! I don't see the afganistan people, or the Al kida?? (SP) rebuilding the damage they did..
This country is full of pansies! who feel sorry for people
2006-07-04 01:14:21 · answer #9 · answered by steveangela1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So they can try out there new toys.
just think if we spent as much money trying to help the world as we do destroying it all things could be. I think people are stupid from air pollution or something. makes no since does it.
2006-07-04 01:17:16 · answer #10 · answered by jamnjims 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋