Arguments?
2007-08-29 16:27:59 · 18 answers · asked by Glen B 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
There's a simple counterargument to this that you see in any shop that sells fragile merchandise: you broke it, you pay for it. Iraq was under the rule of a vicious dictator, but there was not the sectarian violence one sees today and the country had power, water, and electricity. The United States invaded a country that posed no threat to anyone and completely destroyed it.
The holier-than-thou attitude that so many Americans have toward Iraq is disgusting. "Why should we help a country that can't help itself?" "Why should rebuild a nation overseas instead of taking care of our own?" Statements like this are a manifestation of arrogance and hypocrisy that is simply mind-blowing. It's like beating the crap out of a random stranger on the street and whining about having to pay his medical bills. You broke it, you pay for it.
Having said that, I have real doubts about the effectiveness of any U.S. actions to fix the mess Iraq is in now. The U.S. has managed to create one of the great clusterf*cks of history, one that is probably beyond fixing. Now all the world can do is watch things go to Hell even further.
2007-08-29 16:43:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
They aren't rebuilding a nation overseas they are destroying it. just like they did in Vietnam.
lets think has the U.S government really done enough to help the poor people in new Orleans? NO, billions of dollars that could have gone to help these people have gone to the Iraq war.
you know what happened to most of the people in new Orleans they were scattered around the US now living in trailor parks
2007-08-30 04:45:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
We can do both at the same time. Don't use the brdige disaster in Minnesota or Katrina as examples. katrina is bogged down due to corruption and greed and the bridge disaster in Minnesota has been building for thirty years with the advent of welfare and prok programs. And they are to a degree. That is the poor and supposedly unable to work. But let's forget the middle class. So to a extentI have to agree.
2007-08-29 23:35:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. the US government is a money laundering machine - in goes the taxes of the average Joe Shmoe, it is then divided into 3 equal parts.
33% go to the Military and wars
33% go to pay the Goverment and all its tentacles
33% go back to the people, most of it in one form or another to a few, who get richer by the minute. Since 2000, the top rich people of the US trippled their wealth, the rest has about the same today, as in January 2000, inflation ajusted.
2007-08-29 23:38:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
They aren't rebuilding a nation overseas they are destroying it. If you get free speech TV(FSTV) youi'd get a glimpse of the REAL world our media can not portray.
What do you think the 800+ FEMA camps are for that are ALREADY manned? They are cooking up something that has to do with depopulation, a fact that they aren't sharing or advising people of.
2007-08-29 23:34:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
We shouldn't have destroyed a nation overseas in the first place!
2007-08-29 23:55:48 · answer #6 · answered by worldinspector 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Our government shouldn't take care of us,(as if we were children) but the use of our taxes should go first to the U.S. citizens and second to other countries.
2007-08-29 23:34:01 · answer #7 · answered by Sgt Little Keefe 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
yes no need for a argument , America first
2007-08-30 00:37:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, absolutely.
2007-08-29 23:52:06 · answer #9 · answered by Laurie 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You bet bub...there's plenty of citizens over here I would like to "take care" of.
2007-08-30 00:17:31 · answer #10 · answered by EL CHATO DE GATO 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋