I was going to make this really long and drawn out to get my point across, but I erased it. I'll just answer.

Yes, I support spending $2 billion a year to fund a country that will help reshape the middle-east into a more peaceful and understanding society. And most importantly, one that posses less of a threat to my livelyhood and my children and grandchildrens livelyhood.

 

I saw a little bit of a news report tonight. It said something like no one in the world envisioned a peaceful europe around d-day, but look at europe today. So maybe in time the middle-east will become a much more peaceful place even though it doesn't look too good right now.

If this is what it takes to get terrorists to fawk the hell off... I'll go with it. I'd like to have gas under $1.50, though

 

We'll find out if reform is what it takes, no one really knows for sure. What we do know is that the way the world went about dealing with it for the past 30 years was certainly not working, so something had to change.

The fact that Iraqi "insurgant" groups (with exception of Al Sadr) are signing treaties with the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition shows that even those groups have some sort of idea that this could perhaps be the correct fork in the road for their future. To me, that says a lot; look at Palestine and Israel, you've seen nothing of the sort from Palestine towards Israel, yet we're already seeing cooperation from "insurgants" in Iraq.

Time will tell, it's too complex of a problem to just understand in one week, year, or decade. We'll look back 20 or 30 years from now and find out if the worlds new idea on how to deal with terrorism and the middle-east, lead by America; turned out to be the correct choice.

We've been pretty good at doing this kind of stuff in the past, so I'll take our record to the bank and go out on a limb and say that in 25 years we'll look back and see that this time was a time when it turned for the better; not the worse.

 

Well, the thing I'm trying to figure out why some people have no problem spending that kind of money abroad, and yet resist similar domestic spending because they feel like it's giving money to people that don't deserve it...

And I dunno about our track record... both Vietnam and WWI were handled very improperly in their concluding phases...


For the record though, I'm not trying to argue that we shouldn't be spending money to make life easier over there... It's the least we could do after invading the country and leveling a lot of their infrastructure. I'm just trying to figure out why such spending, if used domestically, is attacked by the same people championing this Iraqi subsidy?

 

Yes, fully and completely

 

I think really what it comes down to, is Conservatives in most cases like defense spending because it protects our national security. Conservatives in that manner are very active and see it as an extremely high priority.

That could answer your question... they look at fixing Iraq as a matter of national security due to the necessity of reforming and reshaping the middle-east, to help protect current and future American interests; both on and off our own soil.