Many more americans die from autocrashes, heart attacks, cancer, AIDS, homocides, etc. Wouldn't the billions of dollars spent in Iraq be better spent on real problems?
2006-10-29 07:15:16 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't recall any Iraqi terrorist attacks on US soil. What happened to the hunt for Bin Laden? Don't think he's in Iraq.
2006-10-29 07:31:18 · update #1
We aren't defending our borders from terrorists, we invaded a country that didn't have terrorists before we arrived.
2006-10-29 07:35:05 · update #2
Some of you seem to think that I favor entitlements, but nowhere in my question did I state that.
2006-10-29 07:36:16 · update #3
No Life - Iraq was obviously fuc*ed up before we arrived, but Saddam's thugs killed fundamentalist Islamics and Iraq's neighbors kept him pinned up. So how exactly do you think that they were a threat to commit terrorist acts against the US?
2006-10-29 08:02:39 · update #4
Ruth - Even if you disagree with my question, do you really think the best way to defend our borders from terrorists is to invade Iraq?
2006-10-29 08:04:57 · update #5
Roch cop - If you're a cop then you should know that many more americans are murdered by fellow americans than foreign terrorists.
2006-10-29 08:07:32 · update #6
Ruth - most of the terrorists are from other arab countries.
2006-10-29 17:45:21 · update #7
Big C - My main point is that spending billions of $ fighting terrorism in Iraq is not as important as other problems. I support our troops just not this war. You lost me on the Roch cop comment are you saying he's a soldier and not a cop?
2006-10-29 17:50:22 · update #8
I think it's irrational in the respect that I don't think you can defeat terrorism with conventional military strategy.
2006-10-29 07:23:29 · answer #1 · answered by Nick F 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you but you are kind of naive...
What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is simple. We are providing a target for terrorists to attack.
Have you ever lit a fire outside an anthill? All the Ants come running out to attack the fire, and die. Only the worker ants remain. "Terrorists" enlist suicide fighters from these countries, so we have "set the fire" there. Let them attack me and my buddies, who are trained ready to destroy them. Now they have less ability to recruit, and less money to spend attacking USA on its home soil.
I know, you're thinking... there's more recruits willing to fight and die to kill the USA than ever. True, but they are going to fight the US in Iraq. They are going to die trying instead of suicide attacking innocent civilians in the USA.
The Problem? We are doing nothing to redeem ourselves. We need to be honest about what we are doing.
We need a good President. Either a warrior or a peacemaker. Bush is neither, he's a fool and history will be very cruel to him.
Roch isn't racist... he's a man who knows his duty. You gave us the job, and I hate it but the only way I can sleep at night is to know its WAR, not MURDER. There's a big difference between shooting someone in cold blood, and killing someone who's shooting at you. Don't hate us, get us home to our families and pull your heads out! It's disgusting to me that you'd confuse a Noble Soldier who's willing to give his life for you with your pitiful dog of a President.
2006-10-29 20:15:43 · answer #2 · answered by Big C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're right. Let's open up our borders and ignore who crosses them. Let's sit idly by while terrorist bring nuclear weapons into our cities. I think letting millions people die all at once is a terrific idea. The nuclear fall out wont last long. The city may become uninhabitable for hundereds of years but so what. At least we're not wasting our money on a war without a cause.
2006-10-29 15:22:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
It is as rational as the war on poverty and the war on drugs. It is another war that is impossible to win. But, that doesn't make it irrational.
These are all political initiatives. They are very rational to a Political Scientist.
2006-10-29 15:21:22 · answer #4 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Many of the deaths you've listed can be at least partially attributed to personal responsibility.
Tragic, nonetheless, of course, as anyone who has watched someone die of cancer can attest.
It's why some of us are in favor of getting rid of the notion of entitlements and making people take responsibility for their own choices...
Terrorism is a real enemy and makes us victims. Unfortunately, some cannot see the difference.
2006-10-29 15:24:04 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes. It points up the fact that america has been lost to the sound byte and emotion instead of knowledge and reason.
2006-10-29 15:21:11 · answer #6 · answered by notme 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The war in Iraq is a real problem and I'm surprised that you don't recognize that. If we weren't keeping them occupied over there, they would most assuredly be over here shooting at you, no matter how arrogant you may think you are.
2006-10-29 15:19:19 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Well obviously, but rather than save more lives using the money to fix bigger problems, conservative bloodlust forces them to kill kill kill.
Seriously, what do you expect from a people who complain about taking money from defense and putting it in welfare. Apperantly, killing people is a higher priority than helping them.
2006-10-29 15:17:20 · answer #8 · answered by John S 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No ...its very rational for the Oil Company's..
Whats irrational is for Americans to support this theft and call it patriotism.
2006-10-29 15:18:17 · answer #9 · answered by dstr 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Roch is a xenophobe racist.
Forget him.
2006-10-29 15:55:35 · answer #10 · answered by Blim 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋