Quote:
Originally posted by Centurion
Last comment to you since you do love to make up unreal scenarios in your mind that you believe are true of the world.
You can't pay for everything if you don't have the money for it and you simply tell me: "We've done it before!"
Somehow..money to pay for things in this country has NEVER been an issue or problem! Jeezus..you do not grasp reality.
We can't stay in Iraq indefinitely: We can't afford not to? But you never tell us how the heck we're going to be able to afford to.
Then after going through this whole routine of "There's plenty of money, no problem"..the screeching breaks are put on spending suddenly because "Congress prioritizes". Why does Congress have to prioritize when you have pointed out several times that money IS NO ISSUE!?!?
|
Here is a real scenario for you...that I believe to be true.
The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Europe for 58 years...there are currently more troops in Europe that there are in Iraq.
The Second World War ended 58 years ago...we have found the money to keep troops in Asia for 58 years...there are currently almost as many troops in Asia as there are in Iraq.
I suggest to you that we will find the money to keep troops in Iraq for 58 years...if we deem it to be necessary...and it will probably be deemed necessary...as historically the US maintains forces in an AO once they have been initially introduced.
Congress has prioritized since the very first Congress...and will continue to do so...and to answer your question of "Why" because Congress deems it necessary to do so.