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

Shouldn't defense spending be the #1 priority during wartime?
Agree, disagree?

2007-02-11 14:57:03 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

After all, our military's main objective beyond anything else is to protect our country...right?

2007-02-11 14:59:01 · update #1

7 answers

The congress doesn't wan't to address the border or immigration problems. Both parties want to blame each other for not doing anything but in reality neither party wants to deal with the problem in any meaningfull way.

2007-02-11 15:02:57 · answer #1 · answered by Doug 3 · 1 0

You would think securing our borders would be at the top of all our Politicians lists of "things to do".A majority of the new Congress and some Republicans are still fighting securing our borders. To lay blame on the 109th would have worked prior to Jan.1,2007 , now it seems an unsecured border is shared by more than the Republicans.I have not ,nor will I agree with Bush and his immigration policy, I don't think amnesty should ever be an option for illegals. If you remember, a lot of Democrats fought not only a fence,but use of the National Guard....Maybe instead of laying a lot of blame , its time for the Legal American community to start making as much noise as the illegals did when they marched through our streets waving their country's flag..Then and only then will any of our electives be forced to address this issue as a primary objective of the citizens of The United States.....

2007-02-11 15:43:24 · answer #2 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0 0

The primary purpose of the Federal Government is to defend the borders and enforce the Bill of Rights.

The money spent on the war is dwarfed by the money the US has wrapped up in entitlements.


Saddam broke the conditions of the Armistice, and had to pay the price. And the biggest threat to the sovereignty of the US does not take place at the borders---it takes place in foreign capitals (can you say Tehran? no longer Baghdad) and in Congress (can you say Harper Valley PTA? Can you say clown city?)

No one ever mentions the fact that Saddam's WMD programs would have been cruising along nicely thanks to bribes paid to the UN and certain western powers, and Qaddafi would be a nuclear power had Bush and Blair not gone in and kicked butt.

2007-02-11 15:15:50 · answer #3 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 0 1

You're right. We should be doing what we can to secure our borders! President Bush has always been for letting illegals come on over. The one thing I don't agree with him on.

2007-02-11 15:06:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

well the only spending that they will do is on the mexican border. lets face it america really dosent like mexico. they arnt makeing a big deal about it in canada ill bet you. see and that border is twice as bid as the mexican one so just think about that

2007-02-11 15:02:47 · answer #5 · answered by mustangplayer2008 1 · 0 1

Well, we have a republican president and a at that time, republican congress. Enough said?

2007-02-11 15:05:44 · answer #6 · answered by puppyfred 4 · 0 1

agreed

2007-02-11 15:00:27 · answer #7 · answered by markisme 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers