devans said:
So its not so funny really. I can see why Bush is spending the money. But it's not going to work. He got rid of Saddam (and good riddance) the job is done. Let's get our young people home and let the Iraqis get on with it. If they want to fight it out between themselves let them I don't see why American and British young people should be sent out to act as policemen and go on "sitting duck" patrols. Plus Britain and America have got better things to spend their money on now - such as propping up financial institutions. I do recognise the great job the armed forces of many western nations and the U.S. in particular have done - but enough is enough. Was this topic discussed; or were the candidates too busy worrying about the future of Israel and getting their share of the jewish vote?
It was actually a pretty good debate if one accepts the premise that the US is a socialistic Zionist empire that allows demagogues to say and do whatever is necessary to attain their ends.
If one doesn't accept that premise, the blatant intent to meddle in other countries' backyards was alarming, and the subservience to an alien nation's will (Israel) was disgusting.
Yes, there was talk about the financial situation, and the need to allocate military resources differently, including spending more in Pakistan, but less in Iraq.
There was also some talk about more government spending programs domestically, especially from the Democratic side. So much money being thrown around, it made one forget about the current financial "crisis".
An honest money supply wasn't on the agenda.