If so would the republicans support it then.
Why are we being the police of the world?
2 trillion dollars could have bought a balistic missle defense system that works more than 50% of the time.
2006-07-10 23:50:44 · 10 answers · asked by john p 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think your question is worth...and the answer is yes...your country could have saved a lot of money and a lot of lives...tks...
2006-07-10 23:55:27 · answer #1 · answered by kush99100 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd say more like investment in the future that will pay dividends in peace. Seriously, if you don't support the war, I'm quite confident it has nothing to do with the money. In fact 10 trillion dollars could not buy a balistic missile defense system that works right now, that takes time mroe than money considering it's still technologically beyond our limits.
As far as so called policing the world, you assume we should be isolationist & everything would be just fine? All free people havea duty to those who remain oppressed, if that's not enough for oyu then you don't agree with what America means. If you do need mroe, than we weren't attacked for anything we did, we were attacked for who we are. Oh of course they blame our aid to Israel - aid we began giving so that they would not be reduced to using nuclear weapons on Cairo & Damascus. Sure they attacked us for supporting the Saudi regieme who oppressed its people, that would be by imprisoning islamic extremists who plotted or actually did attack American or Suadi targets. They didn't like that we had troops near the holy cities of Meca & Medina, by which they meant a thousand miles away on the border as a guest of the govt at a base they built for us & paid to operate so that we could deter Saddam from invading again - we gave in to that demand by the way by removing the reason to have them there.
What is it you want done? War costs enormous amounts of money. We can't pull out even if we wanted to. Pulling out would make the war worse. It would create a religious-politiclal civil war across the entire middle east. It would empower & massively arm all of islamic extremism, and that includes the declared WMD in Iran & Syria. It would draw Israel into war & against such odds that ouwld easily go nuclear, which along with millions of lives will screw up the atmosphere something fierce while instantly destroying 50-70% of the world's oil supply. Anywhre along that series of scenerios is so much worse than we are now. Let me remind you where we are now is 0.0025% of American troops deployed to combat operations have been killed, about 3 times that disabled. We are now simply standing between the parties until Iraq can grow into a sustainable country. That is a slow frustrating painful process, but any alternative is worse. Maybe you could just let us do our job & stay out of the way till that's over with. I'm pretty confident you aren't qualified to make foreign policy & global military stategy decisions for the United States of America. That's far above my pay grade & I know I'm more qualified than most. In any case, the Presidential race is in two & half years & this guy isn't running, maybe you could get your eye on the ball?
2006-07-11 07:39:45 · answer #2 · answered by djack 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Welfare for sure, BUT!!! the money would go to the top 10% of Republicans in the state and the top 10% would tell the 90% of the Republicans to stay the course and Jesus is on their side and we are all doing his work.
2006-07-11 07:59:23 · answer #3 · answered by Jessica 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be considered disaster aid.You like the money going to Louisiana for not keeping up maintenance on their seawalls or evacuating their citizens.
2006-07-11 07:40:27 · answer #4 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its all accounting, war is accounting. you can win the battle but lose the war or other wise. President Bush has this accounting... in return he secured all his oil businesses, reconstructuring iraq's businesses apart from ignite economy through weapon supplies.
2006-07-11 06:55:21 · answer #5 · answered by n9flyboy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Iraq was a state, then the oil would automatically be ours, and we wouldn't have had to go to war for it.
2006-07-11 06:56:30 · answer #6 · answered by Professor Chaos386 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are the police cause everyone approaches the US with their hands out wanting our money.
2006-07-11 07:06:52 · answer #7 · answered by akebhart 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cUZ govt thought that they would earn more than this when invading Iraq
2006-07-11 06:54:32 · answer #8 · answered by Jenny C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they'd call it welfare to justify it.
2006-07-11 06:53:55 · answer #9 · answered by ohsostarless 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its possible.
2006-07-11 06:53:17 · answer #10 · answered by Hanif 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋