riddler 0 #1 April 10, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs This is the first let-down for me WRT the Obama agenda. I know he wanted 16 (then 19) months to get out of Iraq, and until then there is going to be continued spending there, but I really hoped we could scale down the foreign invasions. QuoteThe funding measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army. Why the Hell do we keep giving money to other countries for them to build up armies with? We gave money to Iran and Iraq, and then later went to war with them. I agree with going into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. We don't need to spend billions doing that - go in, find him, kill him, get out, and get the military back home and protecting our own borders. QuoteHe is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that. Does anyone believe that after Lockheed Martin spent $65 billion to develop this project, that they are going to be OK with a measly $600 million from the US government? The F-22 isn't going away, they are going to remind the government just who is in charge (the corporations), and the government will buy more of them. Obama is going too far, trying to make everyone happy, and spending too much money. Bush told the dems to shove it for 8 years. Now Obama has a democratic congress, and he needs to tell the republicans to shove it. Let's stop the Bush-era war-mongering, use the military to protect our own country, and use taxpayer money to help US citizens.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #2 April 10, 2009 Quoteuse taxpayer money to help US citizens. Um....apparently that's called socialism...we can't have any of that!Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #3 April 10, 2009 Quote http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs This is the first let-down for me WRT the Obama agenda. I know he wanted 16 (then 19) months to get out of Iraq, and until then there is going to be continued spending there, but I really hoped we could scale down the foreign invasions. Quote The funding measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army. Why the Hell do we keep giving money to other countries for them to build up armies with? We gave money to Iran and Iraq, and then later went to war with them. I agree with going into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. We don't need to spend billions doing that - go in, find him, kill him, get out, and get the military back home and protecting our own borders. Quote He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that. Does anyone believe that after Lockheed Martin spent $65 billion to develop this project, that they are going to be OK with a measly $600 million from the US government? The F-22 isn't going away, they are going to remind the government just who is in charge (the corporations), and the government will buy more of them. Obama is going too far, trying to make everyone happy, and spending too much money. Bush told the dems to shove it for 8 years. Now Obama has a democratic congress, and he needs to tell the republicans to shove it. Let's stop the Bush-era war-mongering, use the military to protect our own country, and use taxpayer money to help US citizens. Yeah he should fuck the troops and let them figure out their own way back and also leave all the valuable equipment for the terrorists to use after we leave in a disorderly manner Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #4 April 10, 2009 Where is he supposed to get all of this money? Trillions spent already for handouts to companies failing anyways (e.g. GM). Now more Billions more... I thought he was the great savior, riding a unicorn and handing out rainbows that was supposed to put a stop to all of that "evil war spending."--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #5 April 10, 2009 QuoteThis is the first let-down for me WRT the Obama agenda. I know he wanted 16 (then 19) months to get out of Iraq, and until then there is going to be continued spending there, but I really hoped we could scale down the foreign invasions. As they say... the honeymoon is over,welcome to the party. This was and is the biggest wool that Obama pulled over some peoples eyes. It was quite easy for him to say he was going to pull troops out but doing it is always harder than most realize. Obama is pulling a shell game on the public and relying on their having a short memory as long as he keeps the shells moving around. In the end, I doubt much will really change. QuoteI agree with going into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. We don't need to spend billions doing that - go in, find him, kill him, get out, and get the military back home and protecting our own borders. Thats like cutting your head off because you have a headache. The reason the Taliban was able to take over Afghanistan and Osama to set up shop there was due in part to their not having an effective government with a real military to speak of. Its not as simple as going in an killing the bad guys and leaving. If that was done, it would leave a vacuum for the next group of shit heads to set up shop and start the same game over again. A legitimate government with a means to defend its people needs to be established before foreign influences can leave entirely, thats not just Afghanistan/Iraq, thats any situation where there are similar circumstances. Leaving prematurely opens doors for other governments and or bad guys to set up shop which leads to regional and sometimes global instability. Aside from the cultural difficulties inherent to Afghanistan(and Iraq) there is the simple fact that the terrain also makes it difficult for a government to establish a lawful governmental presence to be felt from one end to another. Outside of the major cities it is still pretty much the 13th century still. Until there exists a military/police force capable of establishing and upholding the recognized governments authority, there will be a need to help bolster one. Unfortunately, its never as easy to do as it is to explain it. The ANA is on its way but it still needs a lot of work and hands on guidance as they simply do not know how to go about making these changes. It is literally creating a military from scratch with people who are in most cases motivated but not necessarily educated or equipped with the means to do so."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #6 April 10, 2009 Quote It is literally creating a military from scratch with people who are in most cases motivated but not necessarily educated or equipped with the means to do so. Afghani Push UpsYour secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 April 10, 2009 More of Obama giving out money to his oil and war buddies. Getting hard to tell the difference between him and the other guy - 'whats his face' One difference - take the tab and multiply by 2 or 3 or 10 ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #8 April 10, 2009 Quote One difference - take the tab and multiply by 2 or 3 or 10 Don't worry about the tab. Sure, you started it and put a dozen drinks on it but you don't have to pay it, you only have to leave a tip ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 April 10, 2009 Quote Quote One difference - take the tab and multiply by 2 or 3 or 10 Don't worry about the tab. Sure, you started it and put a dozen drinks on it but you don't have to pay it, you only have to leave a tip ... Sure, some guy built up a drunken tab at the bar and left without paying. But then we took his seat, they handed us the bill, and apparently - in a genius move to pay the tab, - we decided the best way to get it paid would be to buy a few rounds for the entire bar and the bars next door. That'll get it paid FASTER. I'm hopeful....... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #10 April 10, 2009 Quote Quote Quote One difference - take the tab and multiply by 2 or 3 or 10 Don't worry about the tab. Sure, you started it and put a dozen drinks on it but you don't have to pay it, you only have to leave a tip ... Sure, some guy built up a drunken tab at the bar and left without paying. But then we took his seat, they handed us the bill, and apparently - in a genius move to pay the tab, - we decided the best way to get it paid would be to buy a few rounds for the entire bar and the bars next door. That'll get it paid FASTER. I'm hopeful....... Yes, but we put those drinks on a new tab which we'll leave without paying. PS: Are you upset because you got an Appletini instead of a Whiskey and Coke? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #11 April 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteI agree with going into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. We don't need to spend billions doing that - go in, find him, kill him, get out, and get the military back home and protecting our own borders. Thats like cutting your head off because you have a headache. The reason the Taliban was able to take over Afghanistan and Osama to set up shop there was due in part to their not having an effective government with a real military to speak of. Its not as simple as going in an killing the bad guys and leaving. If that was done, it would leave a vacuum for the next group of shit heads to set up shop and start the same game over again. A legitimate government with a means to defend its people needs to be established before foreign influences can leave entirely, thats not just Afghanistan/Iraq, thats any situation where there are similar circumstances. Leaving prematurely opens doors for other governments and or bad guys to set up shop which leads to regional and sometimes global instability. Aside from the cultural difficulties inherent to Afghanistan(and Iraq) there is the simple fact that the terrain also makes it difficult for a government to establish a lawful governmental presence to be felt from one end to another. Outside of the major cities it is still pretty much the 13th century still. Until there exists a military/police force capable of establishing and upholding the recognized governments authority, there will be a need to help bolster one. Unfortunately, its never as easy to do as it is to explain it. The ANA is on its way but it still needs a lot of work and hands on guidance as they simply do not know how to go about making these changes. It is literally creating a military from scratch with people who are in most cases motivated but not necessarily educated or equipped with the means to do so. Good comments! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #12 April 10, 2009 This was the one place that I was hoping Obama would be better than McCain. Looks like I was wrong.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #13 April 10, 2009 QuoteWhere is he supposed to get all of this money? Trillions spent already for handouts to companies failing anyways (e.g. GM). Now more Billions more... I thought he was the great savior, riding a unicorn and handing out rainbows that was supposed to put a stop to all of that "evil war spending." Obama didn't take us into Iraq, and once there, getting out was never going to be cheap. Running the war using supplemental appropriations was not Obama's doing either, but that's what we've been stuck with. Place the blame where it's due. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #14 April 11, 2009 QuoteLeaving prematurely opens doors for other governments and or bad guys to set up shop which leads to regional and sometimes global instability. That's where I disagree. The mentality of get the bad guys before they get us is akin to acting the part of the schoolyard bully, the one kid that is so afraid everyone's going to hurt him that he goes around and beats up every other kid. It makes sense to me to kill OBL. We owe him that much. But then trying to say "this guy here looks evil, let's take over the whole country" is a logical fallicy. I don't think it takes this much money to go prove our point. OBL attacked us, let's kill him, and then protect our own borders. If we had spent 1/10th of what we have on Iraq protecting our borders before 9/11, I doubt it would have happened.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #15 April 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteLeaving prematurely opens doors for other governments and or bad guys to set up shop which leads to regional and sometimes global instability. That's where I disagree. The mentality of get the bad guys before they get us is akin to acting the part of the schoolyard bully, the one kid that is so afraid everyone's going to hurt him that he goes around and beats up every other kid. It makes sense to me to kill OBL. We owe him that much. But then trying to say "this guy here looks evil, let's take over the whole country" is a logical fallicy. I don't think it takes this much money to go prove our point. OBL attacked us, let's kill him, and then protect our own borders. If we had spent 1/10th of what we have on Iraq protecting our borders before 9/11, I doubt it would have happened. If you think thats how the world works then I must point you to history's past to do some research. As you will see, it's been a reoccurring problem that goes back to before the Romans. If we had taken OBL out back when he was first identified as a potential threat and he never had a chance to set up in Afghanistan(and elsewhere), we very well might not have had 9/11, but hindsight is 20/20. The idea of only worrying about our boarders and the world be damned is a very poor strategy as it allows your enemies to build and mass unhindered and makes the world in general an unstable place. The butterfly effect is not as absurd as some may think."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #16 April 12, 2009 Quote Running the war using supplemental appropriations was not Obama's doing either, but that's what we've been stuck with. The current $83B he's seeking is his doing. The very procedure he frequently critisized during his campaign. QuotePlace the blame where it's due. Unless it's Obama's fault. Then blame someone else. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #17 April 12, 2009 QuoteQuote Running the war using supplemental appropriations was not Obama's doing either, but that's what we've been stuck with. The current $83B he's seeking is his doing. The very procedure he frequently critisized during his campaign. As he should have, but since the war was not properly budgeted in the first place, the only way to support our troops is by supplemental appropriations. You do wish to support our troops, don't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #18 April 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Running the war using supplemental appropriations was not Obama's doing either, but that's what we've been stuck with. The current $83B he's seeking is his doing. The very procedure he frequently critisized during his campaign. As he should have, but since the war was not properly budgeted in the first place, the only way to support our troops is by supplemental appropriations. The requested supplemental is for the remainder of FY09. The FY09 defense budget was submitted last spring (4Feb08) and the the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 became law in September 2008. (And I don't know the budget with the fidelity to make any speculations on why it is >$83B short.) SecDef Gates has incorporated funds for supporting operations in Iraq (OIF) and Afghanistan (OEF) into the FY10 proposed defense budget, which also included a number of budget items that had previously been funded through supplementals, e.g., increase funding by $200 million for improvements in child care, spousal support, and housing for military members and their families (an increase in base budget funding of $13 billion from last year). So, yes, it can be done. What Congress (HASC, SASC, HAC, SAC – approval & appropriations committees) do is yet to be observed. Quote You do wish to support our troops, don't you? Such ad hominems weren't useful in 2003 & are not productive now. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #19 April 13, 2009 Quote Quote You do wish to support our troops, don't you? Such ad hominems weren't useful in 2003 & are not productive now. /Marg I guess I omitted the tag.Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #20 April 13, 2009 QuoteThe idea of only worrying about our boarders and the world be damned is a very poor strategy as it allows your enemies to build and mass unhindered and makes the world in general an unstable place. I'm not going to claim I know how the world works. I'm not even going to claim I know how the world economy works. But I don't see how anyone can think that the US will do most or all of the world policing and survive. Speaking of Rome, that is one of the big mistakes they made - militarily and economically spread too thin, it took hundreds of years for their government to unravel, but eventually it did. I'm glad you like Roman history, so do I. I think the US can learn a lot from it, because I think we are making most of the same mistakes they did. As far as what we are doing now, and why, no opinion at this point will make me think that we're not currently choosing the wars that suit us best from an economic standpoint. It's the US economy and our soldiers be damned, and a handful of corporations making a profit. I could point out a few dozen assholes all over the globe that we never touched because no money-grubbing executives were interested. None of that has anything to do with any righteousness about who we are trying to protect, although it's a convenient excuse.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
