Do you think Bush's war is a good long term approach to eradicating terror?
2007-02-20 16:09:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
no, data for 2007 - Bush set aside $100billion for war, has requested a further $70 billion. That is one year. And the key to ending poverty, hunger, overpopulation, HIV/AIDS, vulnerability to radicalisation...education, especially girl children. How can you say that is NOT US's problem, but fighting terror is??? THEY'RE THE SAME BLOODY THING!
2007-02-20 16:47:21 · update #1
$10B from UN Millenium Development Goals site.
2007-02-20 19:38:19 · update #2
No. Quite the opposite. It's an excellent investment in terror. The cold war is over. Without a faceless enemy our nation's defense contractors (and their lobbiests) would be in for some might lean times. Keeping anxiety in a culture so numb to violence costs money. Keeping Haliburton stock prices growing costs money. How unpatriotic of you to rationally question the President's priorities.
2007-02-20 16:15:31 · answer #1 · answered by Goofy Foot 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, you could educate the world's children for a lot less than $10 Billion a year, but only if the heads of governments would stop killing all their children. Many heads of governments, notably in Africa don't want anyone educated because it is easier to keep their population controlled if they keep them starving and ignorant. The US has nothing to do with it and neither does the war against terror. Look at the Middle East where they have extreme amounts of money and still refuse to educate all their children. Why should we become the babysitters for the world? Then you have to decide what "education" you will give them. The socialist education the UN wants or an education that will allow them to make informed decisions, which necessarily includes Reading, Writing and Math as well as Science.
Most importantly, no one cares about education if you are starving and only the Heads of individual countries can fix that instead of keeping all the funds in their personal accounts in Switzerland.
2007-02-20 16:26:18 · answer #2 · answered by Wiz 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well considering the 29 richest nations spend over 1.1 trillion dollars per year educating children.
In 2004/2005 school year, total spending in the United States on K-12 education was 536 billion dollars
Just where did you ever come up with that 10 billion figure ?
2007-02-20 17:30:45 · answer #3 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure which of your questions in YOUR question.
Educating the world's children is the world's problem and has no bearing on the amount of money the USA spends on defeating terrorists in Iraq. Personally, I am pleased that Bush is fighting them in Iraq instead of NYC. However, the same Democrats that are whining today about the war would be whining if he had NOT attacked Iraq. They would be criticizing him for NOT attacking Iraq!
In other words, the criticism is the constant, only the reason changes. That is because the only interest Democrats have is in winning the next election. They do NOT care about the soldiers in Iraq, they are overwhelmingly conservatives anyway!
2007-02-20 16:21:48 · answer #4 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And how is Obama cleaning it up? By borrowing trillions of more dollars and printing some too. That should really make the value of the dollar go up. Wow. The change is overwhelming. More of the same but some how it sounds good now because its a democrat spending the money in the US AND the wars. Party bickering is ridiculous. Thay are all nuts.
2016-05-24 00:57:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you really think Your point of view will educate the children of the world? Locally cells around the world have been teaching children to believe in whatever the leaders of those cells want them to believe. They will still hate us even if you send teachers to do math and science. You can NOT educate political and religious hate.
Yes 170 B is extreme, but you cannot compare the 2 issues on the same flowchart. They never intersect because they are on different planes.
2007-02-20 16:25:35 · answer #6 · answered by Carl P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, this has been the problem. Bush has not eradicated any thing( but, of course innocent lives !!). In simple words, he invited and absorbed terrorism in Iraq and provided a NICE and comfortable re-union for so called 'terrorism".
And as far as $170 billion, i know, what a wast!!
2007-02-20 16:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You overlook the fact that a defeated country with educated people ends up destroying itself. Look at how useless France has become since losing their colonies.
2007-02-20 16:14:04 · answer #8 · answered by mr conservative 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the kids are dead what will it cost to educate them?
We're at war or don't you think that?
2007-02-20 16:17:06 · answer #9 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bad data.
2007-02-20 16:13:09 · answer #10 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋