look i am a non biased non-american....answer with reason...not anger
2006-07-16 07:44:28 · 8 answers · asked by tom 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It would depend who the new president was.
2006-07-16 07:47:31 · answer #1 · answered by HelloKitty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoops! Didn't notice the word "war" and thought this was about feeding the hungry.
I don't believe Americans are hungry for war; far from it. Will things ease once Bush is out of office? Yes. I admit I voted for him, and I believed in the things we've done in Afghanistan and Iraq, but now I think we're continuing to set a poor example in places like Israel. I'm not sure if his foreign policy advisors have a clue about setting things right. Things in Afghanistand and Iraq ARE improving... but what about the next crisis? And the one after that? How thin can we be stretched?
I think most people here are tired of the fighting and would like America to take a more isolationist stance. I know I would. I'm tired of us being the world's policeman.
2006-07-16 14:52:18 · answer #2 · answered by moviesauce 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe we are not war hungry. I believe, for whatever reason, we got into the wrong war. I believe as a people, we want out of this conflict, and it seems the only way to get it done is to change administraions. The current group of " Leaders " want to continue on a course that is a proven dead-end, with more American Deaths at the end. Those who fail to study history are domned to repeat it. Vietnam.
2006-07-16 14:50:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
We've been giving money to 'hungry' people in America and around the world since the time of FDR. It hasn't helped much in the long term.
Read 'The Little Red Hen' and 'The Grasshopper and the Ant'.
People who work for their money should be allowed to decide who gets to spend it. Also, there is nothing in the constitution that allows some government bureaucrat the authority to decide the standard of living of anybody.
And yes, my wife and I both contribute time and money to a number charitable organizations that take care of the "less fortunate" among us, including at least 4 that "feed the hungry"
2006-07-16 14:55:22 · answer #4 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure it really would. The fact is, we are in the cross-hairs of terrorists constantly now. I do support the first strike policy and I believe future presidents will too. If we just wait around, some terrorists are going to try to nuke us. We will do anything in our power, including war, to prevent that.
2006-07-16 14:48:30 · answer #5 · answered by duffman071 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You call it "war hunger" and you're not biased? Consider me angered and I refuse to answer.
2006-07-16 14:53:08 · answer #6 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I think it would help if we could get a more diplomatic president into office whose answer to everything is not "attack!"
Bush is the guy who thinks all problems look like nails, because the only tool he has is a hammer.
2006-07-16 14:48:54 · answer #7 · answered by Nosy Parker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2006-07-16 14:51:37 · answer #8 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋