Elect a mad man. You get madness.
2007-02-05 03:07:46 · 13 answers · asked by Jamie 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
We're going to have to finish this to some extent now that we're there.
Some of us have learned a lesson about paying close attention to who we elect to office.
2007-02-05 03:13:12 · answer #1 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Hello:
Somehow, I have the feeling the War in the Middle East will go on to the end of time. At this point, it truly seems impossible that it will end anytime soon. It is not necessary to spend this much time and money on killing each other. We are now so accustomed to hearing about death every day that life is not as precious as it should be. This money and effort could be used to aid the hungry and impoverished, the people who REALLY need it. George Bush chose to go into Iraq, most likely influenced by his father (who went through the Gulf War) and with the thought that we would bring peace. Instead, we brought more conflict. I agree, it is a terrible war, but if we weren't there, our gas prices would be extremely high. This is why the finding of an alternative fuel source is so important. Of course, oil tycoons (like George bush) aren't so supportive of the idea of a new fuel source. Someone out there has the idea in their head, we just need to find it. Once we do, many of our problems will be solved or improved.
2007-02-05 15:57:50 · answer #2 · answered by ._. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think its necessary to use $2.9 Trillion on a war that we never NEVER should have started, Because while I really don't know why, but that money should have been used for good use. And the Presiedent only has one year left in office.
2007-02-05 18:06:06 · answer #3 · answered by Tremayne Y 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
More BS from a far left loon...get your facts together before making false statement. 2.9 trillion is the whole budget not what we spent on the war. Americans have done much better economically under Bush and his tax cuts than we did with Clinton. Of course, those of you living with your parents or on drugs didn't do so well.
2007-02-05 11:23:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
"Only" $625 billion of that is for the defense budget, which includes things like the Navy, occupation troops in Kosovo, Korea, Germany etc. in addition to Iraq. The rest of the $2.9 trillion goes for welfare, education and whatever other crap the feds think they need to run.
2007-02-05 11:40:03 · answer #5 · answered by The Father of All Neocons 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree. I wonder how much more money Bush will ask for this year to fund his little tirade over there. Where is all that oil that they said would FUND this war? Hmmm....
And to answer the very rude name calling Richards below me, I wasn't referring to stealing the oil. I was REFERRING to the fact that this was how the GOP (Rummy and Chaney) SAID that we were going to finance the war. Ever hear of sarcasm? Guess not.
2007-02-05 11:53:15 · answer #6 · answered by hera 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually the bill for the war in Iraq is not directly included in the national budget. Its not even linked in with the defense budget. It has a budget all of its own. It is considered separate from that. We have already spent in the trillioins for the Iraq war.
2007-02-05 11:49:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Please, isn't it obvious?!!
I have only one word for you: OIL
America thinks money, thinks future, you need the oil..
Thus $2.9 Trillion isn't much to pay
Neither are the lives of THOUSANDS of Iraquis, they don't count as important..
The painful truth for us, simply everyday news for you.
2007-02-05 15:04:06 · answer #8 · answered by MalaK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is because it would be sooner or later that we would invade Iraq anyway so why not now?
2007-02-05 16:02:34 · answer #9 · answered by Dave Grohl Wanna Be!!!! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I second the motion.
2007-02-05 22:18:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋