Would the threat of terrorism motivate you to give up as much money as Bush tells you it's going to take...

Question

...To defeat terrorism? Are you ready to pay as much tax and to get just as deep in debt as is required to overcome the threat against the USA?

Appeasing who, Little?

I thought you may have been referring to the hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children who have been killed. Sure a good thing we didn't appease them, isn't it Little? Just imagine the harm they could have done to America.

Answer 1

I wouldn't being willing to give up any money to this admin anymore. I do not trust them. Iraq was called the mostdangerous nation in the world- we took the whole country over in days.

I just love it that we're so low on money we can't give more for education and healthcare but we can go into debt -trillions of dollars - for a war.

Answer 2

No. Not because I believe that the threat isn't real but because Bush's approach and plan are failures. He has exposed America to greater danger with his antiquated solutions to the problem and the quest for the oil resources.
We should have spent our money more wisely strengthening the borders and employing more Americans to handle that job, while quietly gathering intelligence on our enemies and strike them when the best opportunity arose. Now, we have them right where they want us. Going bankrupt. Bin Laden himself stated it this way in the very beginning and Bush walked right into it anyhow. It's as much about economic warfare as it is about bullets and bombs.
Iraq was not a threat. We and the rest of the world had Hussien painted into a corner. The attacks on 9/11 came from other quarters. "Fixing" Iraq could have waited.

Answer 3

While I support combating terrorism, if we are talking about 'the war on terror'. well to me it is pretty clear things could have been and could be alot more effective.

So no I am not going to support a blank check. If in Iraq for instance after Saddam being deposed they would have secured the border in Iraq so that at least the majority of insurgents couldnt have got in there in the first place we would have a much better situation.

But then our government isnt very good at securing borders is it.

Answer 4

Anyone who claims there have been no terrorist attacks because we are fighting them in Iraq, instead of here, are completely midguided victims of right-wing misinformation.
The same thing most suicide bombers are under islamic right-wing fanaticism. Every country in the world is still thwarting terrorist attacks on their own soil, including America, using old school counter-terrorist intelligence.
What good is it doing to give Bush a blank check to throw our troops continuously at their pawns while the real terrorists go free?

If the terrorists want to cause America financial problems, as they have already said that it was the goal of many thwarted attacks, wouldn't spending like Bush is doing, be helping them achive their objectives?
Its goes the same way with people saying we have too many right, and we should give some up for security against someone who hates us for those freedoms.

Answer 5

#1. There is no way to "defeat terrorism". Some people who have radical beliefs, and no armies to back them up, will always resort to attacking their "perceived enemy"--whether it is abortion clinics, the IRA, a Federal building, or other innocents--by violent means.

#2. Obviously, what Bush is doing is creating more "terrorists".

#3. There are other, more serious "threats" to the American way of life right now, that need to be addressed: education, health care, SS and pensions, high infant mortality rates, etc.

#4. We need to protect this nation, and make it strong, from within, not by trying to take over the world. (Pinky....)

#5. Good "intelligence" and securing of our borders would keep us a lot safer than fighting in Iraq, as would leaders with integrity and truthfulness.

Answer 6

The war on terror (Bin Ladin) I support, the war for greed in Iraq I oppose. They are quite different, the war on terror has been put on hold so we could disarm Saddam of his WMDs. Still haven't got back to Bin Ladin but Haliburton is doing great, their stock has quadrupled since the invasion. WOW.

Congress has been a rubber stamp to this rogue regime and I have seen little change since the mid-term elections.

Oh well, only 17 months to go and then the repair of our country can begin.

Answer 7

Well, you know that any amount Bush names is going to be ridiculously understated. Remember how he fired Paul O'Neill (his first Sec. of Treasury) for honestly and accurately admitting that Bush's little Iraq adventure would cost more than $250 billion while PNAC stooges were saying it would cost less than $50 billion?

Bait-and-switch is the Bush family's favorite con game.

You can safely take any figure Bush quotes and multiply it by a factor of 10 to get a more realistic estimate of the true cost.

Answer 8

The terrorists are not a "threat to the USA" and never have been. They are a threat to public safety--organized criminals, no more and no less.

If Bush were dealing with the terrorists, I would support him 100%. But he is not. He withdrew much of our resources in Afghanistan, where the terrorists had their bases, to attack Iraq on false pretenses. He has ignored al-Caida while they secured sanctuary in Pakistan and rebuilt their training, organizational, and logistical resources.

I amnot willing to pay one penny, or condone the shedding of one more drop of our soldiers' blood, until and unless--and only to the extent--that the objective is to destroy the terrrorists.

Answer 9

I'll spend my own money to protect my land, no need to allow Washington Overhead to get all the thrill of spending money.

Answer 10

The threat is already here and if anyone thinks different then they have their head in the sand. The next scenario is any money we have is no good if terrorists win and were all dead. So, my opinion is, whatever it takes.