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

If dems take control, will they really force a "cut and run" from Iraq?

will they not jump government spending on all sorts of "social programs"

I know alot of people are upset with the money we are spending on Iraq, as well we should be, it is ridiculous, but if dems take control and go overboard with social programs is that really any better?

2006-11-06 13:12:02 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

No, they will not leave Iraq, they are just saying that to get votes.

After the recent internet postings, it is very apparent that there were WMD's in Iraq, and the info. can not be disclosed. All of Congress knows of such. A bit hypocritical

2006-11-06 13:15:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

You quite accidentally reference something very important: the proper issue is what tax monies are being spent on, not "taxes". None of us like to pay taxes, but the problems with taxes are that tax dollars are spent improperly.

Regarding the "cut and run" allegation, it is a cliche that has been repeated to portray the anti-war sentiment as timid and unmasculine. Americans just don't like the idea of people dying without results, and they distrust the idea that staying in the cross hairs for several more years will work everything out. We all appreciate the effort to install a democracy in Iraq, but there is such a warped, violent culture there that they may just be unable to "jump government." What if they can't? There is a real problem in throwing good money after bad, in throwing good lives after bad. What is too much? Is this really for the security of the United States? Remember 2003? The issue was Saddam's WMD. We needed to invade to protect ourselves from his WMD. Now it is something quite different: making a democracy there and defeating "terrorists" there.

Some people would like to see Head Start programs and day care being funded instead of militarism in Iraq. I too would like to see that. But the war has cost about $300 billion right now, and that's quite a lot of day care!!!

2006-11-06 21:27:15 · answer #2 · answered by voltaire 3 · 2 0

Number one the democrats know they cannot just get in office and dump the war they aren't idiots even though for some reason some of you seem to think so. They will do there best to do something to stop some of the violence in Iraq first step which some of them think is right to do they should talk with the military leaders and get there ideas how to stop this violence most of them don't think we went in there in the first place with a plan. The military leaders always want enough men to win what they are doing and to have a plan how to get out with there heads held high, If Bush had listened to Colin Powell and some others instead of Runsfeld we would not be in this mess. Believe me I doubt very much the Democrats will be thinking about social programs with this war going on. Also I think your forgetting You still have Bush as Commander of the military and he controls the military and hasn't listen to them much so far.

2006-11-06 21:40:22 · answer #3 · answered by Lolo 3 · 1 0

No they won't force a cut and run from Iraq, that is not possible, not logical and just wrong to do to those people again. Pulling out of Iraq will create more terrorists because all the children of Iraq who are not already full of hate for us will hate us for leaving them in that bloody mess.
Taxes have to be raised to pay for this war. Money doesnt come from nowhere. If corporate welfare were ended that would help, repealing the estate tax affects the top 1 percent of people.
Taxes have to go up, the tax cuts have to be repealed you cant keep spending more than you take in. I never understood this thinking Bush has.I dont spend more than I make and I never buy anything on credit. Why should this coun try, cut taxes, finance a war and expect to just keep borrowing money to pay for it.

2006-11-06 21:16:58 · answer #4 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 4 0

Just take a look at the dispairty between the two budgets and you will have your answer. We will NEVER spend 2 billion dollars a week on our OWN citizens, but yes, it would be better if we did. Why should the Iraqi people get our tax dollars? And the troops will come home some day, and it won't be on Bush's watch, so I guess if you want to call it 'cut and run' then go ahead. i personally don't think it would be a bad thing to end this war since 'mission accomplished'

2006-11-07 09:00:37 · answer #5 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0 0

At least social spending actually benefits America and Americans, unlike this futile conflict in Iraq. All the Iraq war does is drain our treasury, destabilize the Middle East, degrade our credibility and influence internationally, and make Muslims and Arabs want to kill us even more.

Yeah, I'd rather spend my tax money on "useless" wellfare programs. Like medicine for poor kids, better schools, job training, and subsidized child care.

2006-11-06 21:21:35 · answer #6 · answered by Skippy 6 · 3 0

Let me think about this...spending taxpayers dollars to promote a war we can't win, or helping American citizens most of whom are at the bottom of our society. That's a tough one.

The dems can't force a cut and run, and I don't believe they will go hog-wild on social spending. I also think it is a time for a change. One party controlling government is not good for the country.

2006-11-06 21:39:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It can't be any worse. I think the Republican neocons have so discredited the GOP that most Americans are fed up and will hazard something different. I can't vote for anyone with an R next to their name and won't for YEARS. As for Iraq and Bush's war ? I think we are stuck in a no win scenero with no way out. If Bush serves out the rest of his term, it will be interesting to see how long his state of denial can go on.

2006-11-06 21:28:25 · answer #8 · answered by planksheer 7 · 1 0

The only thing worse than Bush's invasion of Iraq would be if Democrats "cut & run" from Iraq. When Saddam was in power he was the key to keeping Iraq from breaking out into all out civil war that would have spread throughout the middle east (Sunnis vs. Shiites). The only thing keeping Iraq (& the Middle East) from civil war is the US military. Anyone takes the US military out of Iraq will only have to send them back, soon again, to the middle east to try and stop an even worse regional civil war (that would drive oil prices to $250 a barrel which would cripple the US & the world).

2006-11-06 21:22:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Almost ALL the money in Iraq is going into Bush & ***** friends pockets.

2006-11-06 21:24:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Just as a small FYI, allot of the money in Iraq is going to rebuilding the nation. Clean water, food, electricity, police stations.

2006-11-06 21:15:12 · answer #11 · answered by Tim 2 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers