Or must the taxpayer shoulder the entire burden of this disastrous war?
2007-10-24 19:45:09 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I have read that we are. The U.S. does not engage in wars for humanitarian reasons. Economics is always behind it.
The U.S. was bankrupt after the Civil War. England bailed us out. It could happen again. Which country will come to our aid and what will it cost us? China? They own a lot of our debt now.
Bush/Cheney are dangerous and foolish men. They have put all of us in serious jeopardy. Congress is just letting them do whatever. Some people still don't see it.
2007-10-25 03:26:03 · answer #1 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Indirectly, yes. Taxes on the profits (mainly to Russian and French interests) are being used to finance much of the infrastructure repairs. Every dollar that iraq spends is one less for the USA and the UN. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, terrorists keep impeding the oil flow. As per US tax payers, returns on investments are often slow or negative at start up but the end result of kick starting the change in the Middle East that brings it into the world economic structure will be worth it in the long run.
2007-10-24 19:54:33 · answer #2 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That my friend is a given. Why else do you think the war was waged? I mean come on, put aside all the talk about democracy and the freedom of the Iraqi people and think; the first thing that American troops secured after the invasion was the oil ministry. Iraq was on fire and they safe guarded oil. not the people not anything. Only OIL.
a fact: wars are always waged on grounds of economical interest.
2007-10-24 22:09:43 · answer #3 · answered by Freedom Fighter 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes, cause because of the war it help u.s. oil company to secure oil reserve in Iraq. And has a lot to withe the vice president, he hook up his buddy. that's why vice president is so support of the war.
2007-10-24 20:02:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
iraq was about to switch to "euros per barrel" instead of "dollars per barrel" which would have hurt the US economy more, the US, very cleverly went in , took control of the OUTPUT and where the oil goes and to whom, under US oil companies....
2007-10-25 00:51:50 · answer #5 · answered by openyoureyespeople! 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Does food for oil ring any bells.
2007-10-24 19:59:25 · answer #6 · answered by the rocket 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure do next place is IRAN its been building up to that for years.biggest smoke screen is the nuclear debate about what IRAN is making or not making.USA will be bankrupt if they don't back off soon.
2007-10-25 00:28:04 · answer #7 · answered by country bumpkin [sheep nurse] 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe so, if we were are gas prices would be down. By the way don't worry about us worry about your countries own problems.
2007-10-24 19:50:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You bet and it was one if not the main reason for the invasion.
2007-10-24 20:20:54 · answer #9 · answered by James Mack 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
you bet
2007-10-24 19:54:20 · answer #10 · answered by tex 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋