The Iraq war costs $2 BILLION a week. Isn't there a more cost-effective way to stop terrorism?

Answer 1

That 2 billion a week is not for terrorism. It's for control in the Middle East. We could have taken out Hussein , even though he was no threat to us, without sending our troops in there and killing and destroying a whole country. We didn't go into Afghanistan for Osama. We went there to get rid of the Taliban so we could put our pipeline through the country. It worked. We now have our pipeline, destroyed the country, made it the biggest opium exporter( 90%), and the Taliban is coming back stronger than ever. It's not about terrorism. It's about power and control and always has been.

Answer 2

The war has nothing to do with stopping terrorism. Even Bush admits that there is no link between 9/11 and Iraq. So the question really becomes, is there a cost effective way to stop terrorism.
The answer is yes, It can be stopped with no cost, and great savings.
Most terrorism is conducted by the secret services, primarily CIA/MI6/Mossad/ISI.
The main culprit is CIA, who were at the root of 9/11.
If the secret services were closed down, the terrorism would stop, and most of the reasons for war would disappear. Enormous savings would be made, the world would be far more peaceful and happy, and no-one would be living in fear.
The only reason it is not done is that those who control the secret services make great profit out of their activities.

Answer 3

earlier the 2nd Iraq war Saddam became into undercutting OPEC to the quantity that it had become an irrelevance and accounting for inflation we (the completed international) have been paying much less for oil than because of the fact the 60's. Taking that under consideration it rather is costing the international vastly better than absolutely everyone seems to be pondering collectively because it rather is doing wonders for the Wahhabi/Saudi fundamentalists (which became into Al Qaeda's plan all alongside inc filling the capacity vacuum in Iraq whilst the U. S. leaves presently). yet you're comparing apples w. oranges; if we commence State subsidies for industries and commerce wars ole Bin weighted down would be guffawing from his grave (we could in simple terms desire he did not get his seven-hundred virgins besides!); it does extremely seem as though the completed of the West is corresponding to a grizzled previous undergo lurching concerning to the pit that in simple terms would be unable to discover the money for extra errors on the size we've been making them. by potential of how, Clinton's trick became into to stick strictly to conservative spending plans for the era of his tenure collectively as rolling around interior the constructive factors created from having been proficient a decade of virtually unfastened oil from the Gulf war a million folly that brought about 9/11.

Answer 4

Yes, it is simple....take our troops home. We will not be effective in Iraq and will eventually do the same as in Vietnam....at the cost of billions that could be used for education, research, and economic gain. We haven't been successful at rooting out the terrorists and another four or five years will yield less at a greater cost.

Answer 5

Hey, it cost a lot of money to spread democracy in another country who has no clue what it is, and start a civil war at the same time. And this is what they call fighting terrorism. And spirit walker, your going to feel really stupid when Democrats win the house.

Answer 6

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorism

Answer 7

yes, broker a just peace in the middle east and stop israel's racist aggression. then share some of the benefits of globalisation more freely in an attempt to get some form of global justice. the amount spent on war and arms is many, many, many times more than needed to provide water, food and another dollar or two more for the poorest in the world.

Answer 8

It's not about a "war on terror" or "fighting for freedom". It's REALLY all about THIS!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

Answer 9

Nuclear missiles are a sunk cost so we should use them. I think the five I'd use now would cost less than $2 Billion (Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Tehran, and Damascus).

Answer 10

maybe build a big wall around the middle east. stop interacting with nations suspected of funding terrorism in any way. appease such countries totally and apologise for any percieved wrongs done to them. then let them go about blowing themselves up.