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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_tax

do you support it enough to pay an additional 2% in taxes (if you are poor) or 12-15% annually if you are rich?

2007-10-02 06:08:44 · 31 answers · asked by Free Radical 5 in Politics & Government Politics

now that the war may finally affect many of America's apathetic and bloodthirsty crowds some of you may rethink your support.

2007-10-02 06:10:02 · update #1

"throw down"
i think you express your ignorance eloquently yourself wanttoflybye

2007-10-02 06:18:40 · update #2

meganetf -
Please for your own sake know what you are talking about before you speak and prove that you do not. Iraq did not attack us or anyone else. we attacked them. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi Arabians

2007-10-02 06:23:50 · update #3

31 answers

One colonel I know in Russia supports it 100%.
He says: the more America is humiliated in Iraq, the better for all of us, the longer they stay, the more they sink.

2007-10-02 06:13:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 5

Maybe by passing a bill that finally makes the "war" (and I use the term loosely, since we never declared war and have been defying the Geneva convention) our problem, then politicians won't be considered so heartless and unpopular if they don't support the troops and give them more money (another $150 billion just passed the senate 92-3).

2007-10-02 06:14:57 · answer #2 · answered by smartsassysabrina 6 · 1 0

Never did, never will. It's not a war but an invasion/occupation. Regardless of what the partyline may be. We are not leaving. The plan to begin with was to give the U.S. military strategic positioning in the Middle East. And we will continue to pay out the wazoo for this. I also am not supporting the upcoming attack on Iran.

2007-10-02 06:16:50 · answer #3 · answered by gone 7 · 4 1

Yes, I'd rather have my tax money spent on keeping the Islamist fanatics busy on the other side of the world (sending an impressive number of them to meet their god while we're at it), than have the fruitcakes continue their assault on our own soil. Saddam Hussein should have been taken out 14 years ago and was justifiably removed for thumbing his nose at a dozen United Nations resolutions.

Honestly, I'd be a lot happier if other nations would step up and put some more money and troops into this War on Terror, as it is brutally clear from the actions of the Islamist militants on every single continent that the conflict will continue until one side or the other submits. There are some 60 wars in progress around the world, and in 58 of those wars, one side or both are Muslim. Now don't paint me with tar and feathers just yet, I don't give a d*** what religion someone is, but that fact alone speaks for itself, and loudly. Too many Muslims in too many places simply demand that other societies bend to their Islamic laws rather than subject themselves alone to additional restrictions and let others deal with God as they will.

Besides, the Islamist extremists aren't up in arms about religion, and neither are their clerics. It's about power, controlling oil, and taking back Israel. As far as I'm concerned the fruitcakes can't have Israel, because they'll just rape it and take everything of value for some power-mad sheik and turn it into another 3rd world wasteland like every other Middle-Eastern country that isn't overflowing with cash like Dubai.

2007-10-02 06:31:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

NEVER! LETS QUIT DOING STUPID STUFF LIKE THIS! With all the brains we have in this country I am amazed that no one has come up with a better plan for the Middle East that most Americans can agree on.

May God bless America and keep our troops in foreign lands safe from harm.

2007-10-02 06:14:50 · answer #5 · answered by GENE 5 · 3 0

Mute point. We are there and if we bail now it will leave the whole region worse off than when it all started. Though the Iraqi government is taking too long to get organized so part of me wants to just start bringing the troops home and let the Iraqis kill each other til they get a government.

2007-10-02 06:57:25 · answer #6 · answered by archkarat 4 · 1 1

As long as we finish this war responsibly and it keeps us from having to go back for a third time. I'm all for it. I'm also all for fighting them over there rather than fighting them here. If there's a small price to pay for that, then I'm all for it. besides, with 300 million people in this country, the debt for the war will be paid off in like 2 years anyway. And if Hillary's Universal Health Care passes after she becomes president, taxes will increase permanently.

2007-10-02 06:22:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

I was against this war from the beginning & still against it, but I totally support our troops who have been put in the middle of a civil war because of Bush & Cheney

2007-10-02 06:19:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Never did in the first place. I believed that going in would do nothing but throw Iraq into turmoil, waste billions of mine and yours and my children's tax dollars, and create even MORE terrorists and MORE US resentment around the world. I'm sad that this came to fruition, and frustrated that we can't go back.

2007-10-02 06:18:08 · answer #9 · answered by Frank 6 · 5 1

I think you'd find there's very little support for the war as is. All too true, though...

A lot of money still going to the war, seemingly endlessly, yet Bush is so against SCHIP delivering health care to more children that can't afford it.

2007-10-02 06:12:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7 2

Only the supporters of this bogus, Bush's optional war, should be taxed. Those that opposed the war from the beginning should not have to pay for a war that was unnecessary.

2007-10-02 06:12:57 · answer #11 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 4 3

fedest.com, questions and answers