Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 4, 2005.
Expected, at least from those who have been realistic about the situation from the beginning.
From those who support(ed) our actions though, who knows? Is this really the best place to spend our money in order to reduce terrorism? Are we getting the desired results? Don't forget to check the other headlines of the day.
Will solving the, more than likely created, situation in Iraq solve the problem of terrorism?
Those who support the current administration support the continued cost, why?
To tell me that there is no perceived benefit runs against human nature, IMO. Especially given the benefits that the current Administration promises to deliver.
A different version of trickle down in my opinion. Though no one has ever been able to irrevocably demonstrate that rewarding the greedy has beneficial to a society as a whole, have they?
Unless we support the wealthy in their actions and then tax them. But that is another argument more applicable to a different party.
I still wonder where this money is going. Obviously not armor for the troops, or benefits, or planning. Maybe it's so we can pay people $30 million dollars to tell us there are WMDs in Iraq, despite being wrong (look it up, it'll piss you off too).
While I do not, and never did, think that invading Iraq would help prevent terrorism, and I certainly never supported our invasion, I do support the allocation of funds at this point. The reason being that I feel we now owe it to the Iraqi people and our troops to try and finish, and clean up the best we can, the mess we made. Although, as solvs said, I would really hope the money go to better causes such as protecting our troops and training Iraqi soldiers and police.
For quite a while now, I've felt that a life lost in Iraq is a life wasted.
I'm feeling that way about money now also.
When Bush said how do you tell the troops they are fighting and dying for the wrong war at the wrong time?, I wish Kerry would have had the guts to say how do you tell them that? I've been saying that those who claim to support the troops are actually just supporting the administration, and their war, at all costs. Even at the cost of those same troops safety... and lives. While the real terrorists are still out there. If the liberal media was doing their job from the beginning, perhaps more people would be asking these questions too. Especially considering the war's biggest supporters have never seen a day of combat.
I keep thinking about those soldiers who asked Rummie the questions about the lack of armor and extended stays, and how they said they and their wives voted for Bush. It just astounds me. I mean, Kerry wasn't that bad. Compared to the alternative. At least he was a soldier.