Isnt this the guy who said he'll pull the troops out from asia?
Obama wants $33 Billion more for the War - Page 2
Forum Index > General Forum |
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
Isnt this the guy who said he'll pull the troops out from asia? | ||
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
On January 15 2010 01:13 jello_biafra wrote: War is expensive business, this comes as no surprise. Well, some1 is getting paid... | ||
iloveHieu
United States1919 Posts
screw this, I'm leaving the country. | ||
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 15 2010 00:42 ghostWriter wrote: Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost? Attempting to streamline the military into lighter, modular forces isn't a bad thing, it was just near impossible to make that transition during an actual war. Rumsfeld may have been a great peace time Secretary. While it's fun to say in pop culture that the WMDs were fabricated, it's simply not true. I know it's not in your style to do any research, but the US army deployed fully expecting its soldiers to be attacked with chemical weapons, and most of the IRG forces expected they'd have the weapons available to attack with. No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted. I'm sure there's some corporatism involved, but that's the way the American political system works and has always worked. There's always an economic component, and I don't think they ever tried to hide the fact that oil played had a role in rebuilding the country. In fact, I'm almost positive Wolfowitz, as big of an asshole as he is, openly said as much. It certainly isn't the only factor, however, as there are way better countries to invade if you just want oil money. It may not be as much fun, but you can't ignore the political or social motivations as well. | ||
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 15 2010 01:43 Jibba wrote: No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted. If only someone had spoken up and said "hey maybe he doesnt have WMDs". Why didnt anyone think of that ?!?!?!?! | ||
ondik
Czech Republic2908 Posts
| ||
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On January 15 2010 01:43 Jibba wrote: Attempting to streamline the military into lighter, modular forces isn't a bad thing, it was just near impossible to make that transition during an actual war. Rumsfeld may have been a great peace time Secretary. While it's fun to say in pop culture that the WMDs were fabricated, it's simply not true. I know it's not in your style to do any research, but the US army deployed fully expecting its soldiers to be attacked with chemical weapons, and most of the IRG forces expected they'd have the weapons available to attack with. No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted. I'm sure there's some corporatism involved, but that's the way the American political system works and has always worked. There's always an economic component, and I don't think they ever tried to hide the fact that oil played had a role in rebuilding the country. In fact, I'm almost positive Wolfowitz, as big of an asshole as he is, openly said as much. It certainly isn't the only factor, however, as there are way better countries to invade if you just want oil money. It may not be as much fun, but you can't ignore the political or social motivations as well. I know it's not in your style to do any research, but I suppose you meant the chemical weapons that America sold to them to use against Iran during the Iraq-Iran war and that were used to gas the Kurds. Those chemical weapons, correct? And I'm sure Saddam wanted his country to be invaded and destroyed while he was deposed and killed. That seems to be EXACTLY what he wanted. | ||
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 15 2010 01:53 ondik wrote: Nobel peace prize is in good hands. lol hes just like ghandi....if ghandi had a submachine gun and staged a violent coup of the british goverment. | ||
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On January 15 2010 00:42 ghostWriter wrote: + Show Spoiler + Obama wants $33 billion more for war ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY | January 12, 2010 09:36 PM EST | AP WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned. The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans through 2015. The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013. The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year. The request for that additional funding will be sent to Congress at the same time as the record spending request for next year, making war funding an especially difficult pill for some of Obama's Democratic allies. Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public. Story continues below U.S. officials outlined the coming requests on condition of anonymity because the budget request will not be sent to Congress until later this month. Obama's request for more war spending is likely to receive support on Capitol Hill, where Republicans will join moderate Democrats to pass the bill. But the budget debate is also likely to expose a widening rift between Obama's administration – it sees more troops and money as necessary to winning the war – and Democratic leaders, who have watched public opinion turn against the military campaign. "The president's going to have to make his case," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters last month at her year-end briefing. The 2010 budget contains about $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That figure would rise to $159 billion next year under the proposals prepared for Congress. The Pentagon projects that war funding would drop sharply in 2012, to $50 billion, and remain there through 2015. That is a calculation that the United States will save money from the withdrawal of forces in Iraq, as well as a prediction that the Afghanistan war will begin to wind down in the middle of 2011. Obama has promised that U.S. forces will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, but his defense advisers have set no time limit for the war. The Pentagon projects that overall defense spending would be $616 billion in 2012; $632 billion in 2013; $648 billion in 2014; and $666 billion in 2015. Congress sets little store by such predictions, which typically have fallen short of actual requests and spending. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are expected to testify to Congress about the budget and the policy review in February. The four-year policy statement is a more important statement of administration goals. For the current wars, the policy statement focuses on efforts to refocus money and talent on beefing up special operations forces, countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threats and on cyber security and warfare. For example, the Pentagon would like to expand special operations forces' aviation by expanding the gunship fleet from 25 to 33. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100112/us-obama-war-funding/ Why is the Defense Department's budget so inflated? Why did Donald Rumsfeld try to win a war rapidly with the smallest number of troops possible, forcing us to continually add soldiers as the situation degenerates and inflating the estimates of how much the war will actually cost? The war in Iraq was specifically created to enrich the corporations. The official rationale for the war was WMDs, which was shown to be patently false. The unofficial rationale for the war was oil. But is it? It seems to me that the no-bid contracts given to corporations like Halliburton for billions of dollars were nothing more than the members of the Bush Administration making money for themselves. Many people in government refused to give up their ties to the corporate world, although this is required by law and augmented their personal wealth, as well as the financial status of their respective companies using the influence of their governmental positions. Many companies were given billions of dollars in government contracts to help rebuild Iraq. They took the money, but did very little, if anything at all to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure or help Iraqi unemployment, basically stealing money from the American taxpayers and the future of the Iraqi people. Even the war itself is beginning to become privatized, with mercenaries from Xe Services taking part in raids and fighting besides American soldiers. Why are we still funding this war? lolollolol. This news doesn't shock me one bit. One more promise broken by the Obamination Administration. By the way I want to go on record with an "I told you so" for the whole increase in government spending thing... I mean $700 billion wasn't enough or anything last year... we can definitely fork up an additional $33 billion that we don't have this year ![]() | ||
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive. | ||
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. We should have had some kind of election where we can all vote between the "pull out troops" and "stay the course" options. Darn how come no one ever thinks of these things?! | ||
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
On January 15 2010 02:12 ggrrg wrote: After Bush got the US into the whole mess with two wars, there is not much Obama can do at the moment. Just imagine if he would order the troops back or even just cut military funding. All the redneck hillbillies down South would start a revolution and burn him alive. Are all Europeans this uninformed about America? | ||
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 15 2010 00:44 tirentu wrote: Tsk tsk, it's not Blackwater, it's Xe. Get your evil corporations right! Blackwater is Xe lol. They rebranded themselves after all the bad press. | ||
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 15 2010 01:43 Jibba wrote: No one in the international community realized Saddam had them destroyed after Desert Fox, which is exactly what he wanted. What are you talking about ? Even Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission for Iraq and WMDs stated that the UK and US government were lying about WMDs. Also i don't know what international community means for you ( Uk + Us i guess ) but the opposition to the war in France and Germany was important because nobody believed that Iraq had still WMDs ( except maybe some expired leftovers made before the first war ). Seriously man you have a major in International Relations ? -.- | ||
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
| ||
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
On January 15 2010 01:06 meegrean wrote: I guess the US will just keep borrowing more money from China. Except, the US isn't really borrowing money from China. The US is now borrowing money from /us/, the taxpayers and money that could be used to create government jobs instead of just shipping folks overseas as a half assed approach to fixing employment. For those who don't get this statement, think about how much troops we have stationed there. Remember we have a 10% unemployment rate. Now imagine ALL those troops coming back home when we're still at 10% unemployment and having to find jobs for these returning vets as well. Ughh ... the more I think about it, the worse I feel =(. | ||
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On January 15 2010 02:18 Amber[LighT] wrote: Are all Europeans this uninformed about America? Most definitely not. But really the uninformation goes both ways (: | ||
| ||