2008 Woodie Awards
U.S. needs 'Bush's war' to end now
Freshman Confessions
Brian Washburn
Issue date: 10/26/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In light of recent news articles, the on-going debate over when the war will end and my recent viewing of the anti-war, Beatle's-themed musical "Across the Universe," I propose we end the war in Iraq immediately.
President Bush asked Monday for Congress to allow $42 billion more for the war in Iraq. According to a USA Today article, the war in Iraq will cost up to $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years. The money spent on this war is up to astronomical numbers and could have been used to help the people in need in this nation or even help re-construct the ruins of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
At the White House Monday, Bush said parts of this war are "complicated," according to CNN.com. One part is not complicated, however - America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people.
I will not go to the extent that a certain editor at Colorado State University did in condemning Bush for the controversial moves made during his past two terms, including the move into Iraq more than fours years ago. However, since when is protecting our people the same as putting them in harm's way in the middle of a civil war in the Middle East?
Bush's war (which is how I plan to refer to it from now on) was not an all-bad, meant-for-failure idea at first. I understand protecting the people of the United States does include stopping terrorism, and capturing the vicious dictator Sadam Hussein was a great step towardsachieving this. But with the scare of terrorism racing through our country at the time of the invasion of Iraq, shouldn't we have been at least sending the bulk of our troops to Afghanistan to find the perpetrators who performed the Sept. 11 attacks?
Some people have said Bush's war is about more than just stopping the spread of terrorism. Money, oil and other factors important to our economy have been suggested as reasons for the situation in the Middle East. Although the American economy is vitally important to our survival as a country, I believe the nation would not exist, or have the economy it has now, if not for the people in it, or in this case, those defending it.
President Bush asked Monday for Congress to allow $42 billion more for the war in Iraq. According to a USA Today article, the war in Iraq will cost up to $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years. The money spent on this war is up to astronomical numbers and could have been used to help the people in need in this nation or even help re-construct the ruins of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
At the White House Monday, Bush said parts of this war are "complicated," according to CNN.com. One part is not complicated, however - America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people.
I will not go to the extent that a certain editor at Colorado State University did in condemning Bush for the controversial moves made during his past two terms, including the move into Iraq more than fours years ago. However, since when is protecting our people the same as putting them in harm's way in the middle of a civil war in the Middle East?
Bush's war (which is how I plan to refer to it from now on) was not an all-bad, meant-for-failure idea at first. I understand protecting the people of the United States does include stopping terrorism, and capturing the vicious dictator Sadam Hussein was a great step towardsachieving this. But with the scare of terrorism racing through our country at the time of the invasion of Iraq, shouldn't we have been at least sending the bulk of our troops to Afghanistan to find the perpetrators who performed the Sept. 11 attacks?
Some people have said Bush's war is about more than just stopping the spread of terrorism. Money, oil and other factors important to our economy have been suggested as reasons for the situation in the Middle East. Although the American economy is vitally important to our survival as a country, I believe the nation would not exist, or have the economy it has now, if not for the people in it, or in this case, those defending it.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 6
Brian
posted 10/26/07 @ 2:44 AM CST
"shouldn't we have been at least sending the bulk of our troops to Afghanistan to find the perpetrators who performed the Sept. 11 attacks?"
How many troops were sent? How much is a bulk of troops? I'm amazed at the continued drivel that comes from the left, like Afganistan is the country responsible for 9/11. (Continued…)
thomas franks
posted 10/26/07 @ 7:55 AM CST
Washburn
You are an idiot. It is not Bush'd war, you hajjiloving peaceoussy. It is WW3. The "war" in Iraq ended in Nov 2004 when Fallujah fell, you foolish pacifist. (Continued…)
Brian
posted 10/26/07 @ 11:01 AM CST
"The money spent on this war is up to astronomical numbers and could have been used to help the people in need in this nation or even help re-construct the ruins of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. (Continued…)
rdepper
robert
posted 10/28/07 @ 9:17 PM CST
Sometimes I think the only thing that keeps me commenting on the above uninformed and nasty comments is to keep the voice of reason in the dialog. Anyway, one-sided rants about the Iraq war or the broader "war" on terrorism is really unhelpful. (Continued…)
Post a Comment