Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The interest we pay on our national debt each year is nearly double what we've allocated for the War on Terrorism.
Since the president preached that "the war would pay for itself" maybe we could send him the bill?
Quote:
As a nation we have to either agree to pay more taxes and/or require less services.
I'm surprised those on the right haven't already attacked your statement.
If a Dem is voted into office and raised the taxes the Republicans will have a field day with this,' those stupid Dems & their tax raising ' they refuse to understand someone has to pay for all of this. Maybe we can raise taxes on all who recommed staying in Iraq and when they feel the pain of paying for it they will understand.
War hawks don't want to leave Iraq until victory is declared. But what defines victory in Iraq? Supposedly the war has taken a turn for the better, because of the surge. I guess 10 deaths a month is better than 40 or 50. But 10 is still bad. Most Americans already think we should leave. But to the neo-con types, what needs to happen for you to agree to leave? Are we supposed to be the military strong arm in Iraq forever? They have a democratically elected government now, and an army. At what point do we say enough is enough? Or like McCain do you think we should stay for 100 years?
There can be no victory in this war. The ideology has prevailed.
Neocon types should take solace in the fact that they "stayed the course", even if the course was ill-conceived, poorly-executed, and an utter failure.
I'm surprised those on the right haven't already attacked your statement.
If a Dem is voted into office and raised the taxes the Republicans will have a field day with this,' those stupid Dems & their tax raising ' they refuse to understand someone has to pay for all of this. Maybe we can raise taxes on all who recommed staying in Iraq and when they feel the pain of paying for it they will understand.
From my most basic math (174 trillion$ for the war on terror / 300 million legal residents) I've come up with an annual cost of $580/citizen per year... for better or worse.
As for the arguement of Republicans vs. democrats... I think you'll find the that most republicans are fiscally conservative, and many would argue that the current administration hasn't been "republican" enough. Perhaps theres a separation between what I refer to as Republicans (moderates) and evangelical republicans.
I believe ta core value of the republican party to be fiscal conservativism for both the individual and government... with individuals and corporations being largely responsible for their own well being. Republicans believe that the private sector is better equipped to deal with many issues than the gov't... and overall believes in smaller gov't with less taxes and more private economic freedoms.
I think we should stay until the Iraqi forces are able to fend for themselves and do what we're doing now. They are getting closer, but unfortunately it has been slow.
I would not consider myself as a hawk necessarily, nor a neo-con so this might not help to answer your question.
I still have a copy of a Stars and Stripes I picked up in Taji, Iraq, in which Bush and Rumsfeld are each quoted as saying that multiple Iraqi battalions were ready to stand up and fight, with many dozens more within a few weeks or months of being ready.
From my most basic math (174 trillion$ for the war on terror / 300 million legal residents) I've come up with an annual cost of $580/citizen per year... for better or worse.
As for the arguement of Republicans vs. democrats... I think you'll find the that most republicans are fiscally conservative, and many would argue that the current administration hasn't been "republican" enough. Perhaps theres a separation between what I refer to as Republicans (moderates) and evangelical republicans.
I believe ta core value of the republican party to be fiscal conservativism for both the individual and government... with individuals and corporations being largely responsible for their own well being. Republicans believe that the private sector is better equipped to deal with many issues than the gov't... and overall believes in smaller gov't with less taxes and more private economic freedoms.
I think republicans often pay lip-service to those values, but eventually just vote on jingoism and taxes. I used to be a republican, for left the party for this reason.
I was a Republican until this year. I have over the past year tried to listen and watch more than Fox News and I guess I finally realized that at least this administration is feeding this country fear. I know there is propaganda on both sides but when I watch President Bush give his speeches it is always the axis of evil and we have to fight over there or we will have to fight them over here. I don't think he cares what happens once he is out of office and the mess this country is in now. I myself could no longer vote the
Republican party line, we need someone in office that cares about the people of this country, I'm still holding out hope that we will get someone in office that can turn this country around.
I am optimistic about the future and try not to get to excited about retoric during the long campaign season. I was at a reception for J. McCain and i think he didn't even know what town he was in. Rep's should fear consolidating more presidential power and then losing the election. My cynical side says we'll have the best Pres money can buy. To bad health care isn't going to change much. Edwards was the only one who said he would fight the current broken system. (Optimism: "The content of small men in high places" F. Scott Fitgerald)
I still have a copy of a Stars and Stripes I picked up in Taji, Iraq, in which Bush and Rumsfeld are each quoted as saying that multiple Iraqi battalions were ready to stand up and fight, with many dozens more within a few weeks or months of being ready.
That was in 2003.
Some have not been as successful as had hoped. Others are currently leading operations. Others are taking over and holding territory once the US clears them. What's your point? I clearly said I think it has taken too long, but it is happening.
War hawks don't want to leave Iraq until victory is declared. But what defines victory in Iraq? Supposedly the war has taken a turn for the better, because of the surge. I guess 10 deaths a month is better than 40 or 50. But 10 is still bad. Most Americans already think we should leave. But to the neo-con types, what needs to happen for you to agree to leave? Are we supposed to be the military strong arm in Iraq forever? They have a democratically elected government now, and an army. At what point do we say enough is enough? Or like McCain do you think we should stay for 100 years?
America has already established 14 bases in Iraq with American forces according to American Legion magazine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
