English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Understanding and compensating for NASA's usual
cost-overruns, we could have spent the $300Billion
and put a permanently manned colony on Mars.

Would that have been a better use of the money
than attacking Iraq, even assuming there are
weapons of mass destruction somewhere out there?

Why? Why not?

2006-08-16 15:56:04 · 4 answers · asked by Mark M 1 in News & Events Other - News & Events

4 answers

I agree about the money wasted on Iraq, but technologically, we aren't even close to putting a colony on Mars! And you couldn't do it and maintain it for that amount if we did.

2006-08-16 16:05:46 · answer #1 · answered by Skeff 6 · 0 0

i imagine you're lacking an major element. the worry-loose denominator between those 2 wars is that the politicians tried to strive against it --- with an analogous result. once a conflict is underway, the staggering element a political candidate can do is to step back and enable the military do their element. The politicians recognize little sufficient about each and every little thing else yet seem unwilling to shop their fingers off something they recognize genuinely not something about. If the politicians had not stopped the military after the first Iraqui conflict, we wouldn't have the topics we've. If the politicians had not demobbed the Iraqui military, starting to be an great unemployed yet armed mob, we wouldn't have the topics we've. If the politicians had not tried to strive against the conflict at the low-priced with too few troops we wouldn't have the topics we've. With each and every of the political meddling occurring, it truly is not conceivable to respond to your unique question about the prevalent of the military or their tactics. They by no ability were given a probability to apply them --- in the experience that that they had fought the politicians they could were retired, so maximum of them did not.

2016-11-04 23:47:33 · answer #2 · answered by fleitman 4 · 0 0

why? we can't even buy a gallon of gas for less than $3. besides bush and company are getting rich off of us suckers who let him winn in 2000 and 2004. what better way to spend our social security money on.than an unnecessary and costly war for the war profiteers?

2006-08-16 16:06:45 · answer #3 · answered by de bossy one 6 · 0 0

we don't have the right to move to space without cleaning up our act here on earth first.

Vin

2006-08-16 16:31:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers