Quote:
Originally posted by ShadowWraith
Bush did have a hand in turning surplus into deficit. It costs billions of dollars a month to wage a war, money that could have been spent on schools, healthcare, and other programs to help not only the American people but those worldwide. Consider this, one tomahawk cruise missle costs about $1 million to build. One dose of nevirapine, a drug used to combat passing on AIDS hereditarily costs about $5. Thousands of children in Africa die each year due to AIDS from their parents when money spent killing people could have been spent saving people.
As for raising military spending, Bush seems to subscribe to the NRA school of "Its better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it." Clinton realized that its a waste of money to maintain thousands of tanks, planes, and warships during peacetime. Look at Canada, (my home country ;p). We have a rather small army/navy/air force but we don't need a huge one in spite of the fact Canada's landmass is rivaled only by that of Russia. So why does Bush feel the military constantly needs to be expanded?
|
I don't think you understand the concept of killing to save lives. It is a bit of a paradox, but think how many people Saddam would have killed if we allowed him to continue running his country the way he was, regardless if he had nukes and decided to nuke someone, or sell the information/nukes to terrorists/rogue nations.
I'll tell you what, it would have been a hell of a lot more then the casualties we caused. Also, Canada doesn't need a large military force because you have America there to protect you.