pay to rebuild a nation we just defeated when we have our own needs at home in which money could go to? As a combat veteran I can attest to the fact that war is a living hell, the end of all reason, however half hearted efforts in battle due to restraints placed up on troops by gutless politicans have always increased casualities. You dont beat up the bully next door then pick him up and buy him lunch, no you leave him lying there holding his groin and moaning ajnd then he will never come back to ahunt you in my opinion.
2007-02-16 01:36:38 · 16 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yahoosux dude you all did your best to do so.
2007-02-16 01:50:28 · update #1
Agreed whole heartedly. You kick their *** till they want no more of you. You kick their *** until they would never want to fight with you again. Then you leave them in the heap of their existence. The rebuilding money could be better spent here. There are no innocent civilians on a battlefield!
2007-02-16 01:41:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
I am not a fan of nation building either. It makes very little sense to me why we would vanquish an enemy, only to hold that enemy's hand afterwards and help them rebuild all the bridges, power plants, and buildings that we just bombed the hell out of a few months before. HOWEVER..................
In the aftermath of World War I, Germany was completely decimated. They went through a depression 10 times worse than the one in the United States. Europe ordered Germany to pay back all the countries they waged war in, and the country was on the verge of complete and total collapse. That left the door wide open for a young idealistic individual named Adolf Hitler to rise to power, restore German pride in the Fatherland, blame the jews, and convince an entire population that they were the master race. Meanwhile the United States did nothing, trying to preserve it's isolationist position on global affairs. We all know how that worked out!
So although spending BILLIONS to topple a middle eastern dictator may seem ridiculous when we spend BILLIONS more to rebuild all that we destroyed, let us not forget what happened in Germany. All it would take is another Hitler to unite the Arab world against the United States for bombing them into the stone age and then leaving them there to rot. And with liberals slowly taking control of the government, by the time this country realized what was going on, it might be too late!
2007-02-16 09:50:42 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
DREW-BLUE should be awarded 20 points instead of the usual 10 which I'm sure he will get for the most intelligent answer in the other excellent posts.
And to those who agree with the "let them rot" theory, what happened to you since you all declared you were a CHRISTIAN?
You don't sound like you are much better than the ones you defeated.
Surely by now, after 2000 years of enlightenment and education and democratic example we ARE OUR BROTHER'S KEEPER?
Is this really the way your superior brain, given to you by the Architect of the Universe, allows you to think?
If so, then it's woe to mankind and alas for your future !
2007-02-16 10:28:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Japan and Germany are good examples of rebuilding nations after defeating them in wars: both are far better countries with vibrant democracies and strong economies. So it seems to me there is some precedent for rebuilding.
Iraq, however, can never be rebuild. If you look at the quality of the Japanese and the Germans, and compare that with the scum in Iraq, I see a permanent vassal state that is going to sap our treasury for decades to come. Japan and Germany moved on; Iraq is going to be perpetual basket case.
So, all out? What does that mean in Iraq? We saw all out in WWII but who do we kill in Iraq? Everyone? Then send it all to Syria and Iran, then off to North Korea?
I, too, served and I know that it's a dirty business. And the Stone Age is NOT an option. That's why we are America and American troops. We stand for something, something right.
2007-02-16 09:50:06 · answer #4 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is part of our agreement with the United Nations. If we use military force in another country, we must restore the infrastructure of that country to it's pre-war condition before we leave. It seems rather stupid to me, but that's what we get for belonging to the U.N. This is part of the reason our country has been working on developing neutron bombs. They destroy organic matter, but leave infrastructure intact. The only problem with neutron bombs is that they destroy all organic matter without respect to age, gender, species, phyla, etc.
2007-02-16 09:44:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well Said! I agree with you whole heartily. When you have to go to War against an Enemy, you must completely destroy their ability to harm you. You do not reward the Enemy. There destruction is a result of their actions.
2007-02-16 09:53:51 · answer #6 · answered by Sentinel 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I AGREE!
The terrorists already think we are weak. They hide behind their women and children because they know we will not hunt them down and shoot them like the rabid dogs they are if they are holding their babies.
Let's WIN this war, and then bring our brave troops home. Let's let Iraq use their oil money to rebuild - with "help" from us - NOT US doing all the work!
2007-02-16 09:43:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
Because of all the Innocent people that would be killed. Most of the people in those countries are just ordinary citizens like us; trying to work and raise their families. What Truman did was atrocious.
2007-02-16 09:49:32 · answer #8 · answered by starflower 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Hmmm - Comparing a street fight to the "war" in Iraq, leaving out the fact that the innocent get caught in the middle. Nice.
2007-02-16 09:45:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Agree completely with everything you say here, and thank you for your service to our country.
2007-02-16 09:47:11 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋