Health care, education, key infrastructure maintenance, port security, etc.
All pressing domestic problems that have languished.
Do you agree or not?
2007-12-18 05:17:53 · 21 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
War or no war, all of those issues you mentioned would have been neglected anyway.
I don't really think the White House cares about anything but the war and preventing another terrorist attack on US soil under their watch. So in a sense I agree.
This White House, nor any in the past 40 years have had a vision for the countries future. The last president with a vision was Dwigtht D. Eisenhower.
2007-12-18 05:31:35 · answer #1 · answered by Fester Frump 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, yes, several trillion times yes!
The war on terror has been a complete failure in that we are less safe today then we were as a nation on Sept. 11.
This has all been done at the cost of the lives of our own people.
In 2006, 35.5 million Americans regularly experienced hunger.
More persons are homeless today than at any other time in this naitons history.
This nation can not or does not provide meidcal services for those in poverty and in need nor can we manage to give health insurance to the children of this nation.
Millions of elderly citiznes can not heat their homes.
Funding for education has been cut over and over again.
Our excuse for not helping our own citizens is that we do not have the money to do so, especially now that we have spent trillions of dollars seeking weapons of mass distruction that never existed.
Yes, I agree with you several trillion times over.
2007-12-18 05:27:38 · answer #2 · answered by Big Bill 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
War should only be a course for national survival. This was NOT the case with the Dictator Dumbya Big Lie Iraqi Crusade. Yes! Among these problems is REAL sustainable energy independence. Dictator Dumbya said we are "addicted to oil" but has not lifted a finger.
2007-12-18 05:37:48 · answer #3 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Iraq war is not a war on terror - how can you fight terror? Is it a war fought for our security? No - how can we be more secure when we borrow from the Chinese to fight the war? The morons in Washington have doubled the debt to $10 trillion in eight years - this country is in a big, big mess and can't afford the domestic programs you mention anyway as its funded by borrowing.
2007-12-18 05:30:01 · answer #4 · answered by Worried in Bolingbrook 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do help a "conflict on terror," because of the fact i think this boil has been festering for too long, and nukes are actually a sensible tactic. That reported, i think of our bare Emperor and his sycophants have dumped billions of $$$ and 1000's of lives right into a maw of mismanagement, cronyism and incompetence. The "conflict on terror" did not ought to develop to Iraq, whilst there have been extra pressing objectives. Now, of course, Iraq has grow to be a self-relaxing prophecy, as a results of cowboy international family. meaning that needed money for family individuals themes are being sucked away to the two conceal our bare Emperor's idiocy and incompetence or quell terrorists in coaching. (If my harmless brother/mom/sister/father have been killed via an invading tension, i could take in palms, too.) -------------- super question. If i ought to, i could provide it 2 stars :-)
2016-10-02 01:32:15 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government has always squandered resources on things outside the scope of the Constitution. Also, the government would be best to stay out of spending taxpayers money on the items you listed. The market is a better allocator of resources than politicians.
2007-12-18 05:21:56 · answer #6 · answered by sweatyshavedpits 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am all in on neglect domestically. I could go on forever but the question is yes or no and yes they have squandered resources.
2007-12-18 05:26:34 · answer #7 · answered by Pablo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is why we are not suppose to go to war unless there has been a direct threat to The United states. When we went to Iraq everyone should have realized that it was wrong, because there was no threat made to us from Iraq. Yes war takes away from domestic issues like health care, but what are we going to do? Regardless of how we got to war, we are there, and we have to fund our troops we owe that to them.
2007-12-18 05:24:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course...they are in this to make $$ for themselves not the country.
Our security....against what? Six guys with sling shots?
I have no fear of terrorists in out country at this time and never have. A small group of people (not from Iraq) attacked our nation. They killed people and it was tragic. A real threat to our country no. An annoyance; yes.
Something we can stop by blowing the crap out of Iraqis no. A group that grows because of our actions, yes.
2007-12-18 05:21:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
lol
Have you noticed that the same people who are in favor of staying in Iraq perpertually and willing to spent an infinite amount of money there just so happen to be the same ones that want bush tax cuts to be permanent and want even more tax cuts...and also happen to be the same ones that want cuts to education funding, cuts to medicare, cuts to medicaid, and cuts to anything that actually helps americans here at home? oh....and by the way have you noticed the same people want guest workers from mexico by the millions and from India and other parts by the millions and think that policies that send american jobs to china and india and elsewhere are really great for americans and that americans should embrace them?
now connect the dots......
2007-12-18 05:29:00 · answer #10 · answered by ez f 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋