Obama seeks $83.4 billion in special war money
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_war_costs
Don't worry guys, we will be saving so much money after Obama ends these wars.
Wait..****.
Obama seeks $83.4 billion in special war money
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_war_costs
Don't worry guys, we will be saving so much money after Obama ends these wars.
Wait..****.
Originally posted by RobtardAlso, the WMDs have to be there, need money to keep up the search, your boy Bush will be redeemed!
they must be, Obama is still there searching for them.
Maybe they are in Pakistan? Lets check Obama!
And yes withdrawal will take a while..but we will just leave a 'security' force of 50,000 soldiers there.
Right.
Originally posted by KidRock
they must be, Obama is still there searching for them.Maybe they are in Pakistan? Lets check Obama!
And yes withdrawal will take a while..but we will just leave a 'security' force of 50,000 soldiers there.
Right.
Originally posted by KidRock
they must be, Obama is still there searching for them.Maybe they are in Pakistan? Lets check Obama!
And yes withdrawal will take a while..but we will just leave a 'security' force of 50,000 soldiers there.
Right.
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
60+ years later, we're still in Germany and Japan, why don't you cry about that too, Cpt. All-American. Those forces are planned to be dwindled in time too, even the Bush admin claimed this, though fell epically short on their time-line(s).
You're crying about Obama way too early, give it some time, I'm sure you'll have valid tears then. Only imagine what you'll be like 3 years from now.
Originally posted by Robtard
Quench my curiosity, why the hostility towards Obama, at least so soon into his term?
Though her comment was "smart", she has a point.
It is "change". It is also good change, for the most part. That's where we should have been in the first place. However, I'm of the opinion that "being there" is one of the reasons we get into terror in the first place. (The Kingdom hits on this concept quite well. It is "terror" for both sides, depending on the perspective.) If were were more of a centristic country, helping only those who ask, avoiding "Police action" (is police action even in the constitution for the President?) where possible, I'm sure we would wouldn't be the target of almost any terror attacks. And think of all the money we could spend on domestic problems, all the money saved, and how nice and neat our budget would be.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Though her comment was "smart", she has a point.It is "change". It is also good change, for the most part. That's where we should have been in the first place. However, I'm of the opinion that "being there" is one of the reasons we get into terror in the first place. (The Kingdom hits on this concept quite well. It is "terror" for both sides, depending on the perspective.) If were were more of a centristic country, helping only those who ask, avoiding "Police action" (is police action even in the constitution for the President?) where possible, I'm sure we would wouldn't be the target of almost any terror attacks. And think of all the money we could spend on domestic problems, all the money saved, and how nice and neat our budget would be.
While I do lean to the "let countries sort out their own shit" mentality, the poorer (and more ****ed up ones) are that way because of the richer [Western] ones meddling with the scurry for resources, many a time. So it's probably the least 'we' can do.
Though part of me truly wishes America was more like (eg) Russia, **** over other countries for profit and not bother putting on the aires of philanthropy.
Yea people don't want us interfering, but they still want our money. If you want billions of dollars in supplies and whatnot then be ready to accept our attempts are stabilizing the area. We give around 800 billion dollars in foreign aide (food, equipment and all that). We could really use that here in the U.S. right now, so yea I'm all about us not getting involved with other places. Then when people start starving to death (even more than they already are) and more and more extremist start popping up in response to their dire situation who will step up then?
Originally posted by Robtard
Your ignorance knows no bounds.60+ years later, we're still in Germany and Japan, why don't you cry about that too, Cpt. All-American. Those forces are planned to be dwindled in time too, even the Bush admin claimed this, though fell epically short on their time-line(s).
You're crying about Obama way too early, give it some time, I'm sure you'll have valid tears then. Only imagine what you'll be like 3 years from now.
Because Obama didn't make claims that he would pull the troops out of Japan and Germany.
Obama didn't claim he would pull the troops out and leave 50,000 behind.
He said he would end the war and pull the troops out.
Building a permanent military base of 50,000 men in the Middle East is sure to improve relations. Troops will be dwindled over time? Yeah, lets see if Obama pulls through with this..so far everything else he said has been a lie.
If you cannot see it or choose not to admit it then that is your problem, but the guy is full of shit whether you want to believe it or not.
He may very well be completely full of shit, he's a politician after all, but that has yet to be seen in the few short months. He also has to face reality, once he stepped into office and started receiving intel on the state of world affairs.
Edit: You were always gun-ho for the war when Bush Co. was in charge, why are you shitting on Obama now for what you perceive as a continuance of the war? Sure, it'd be lie or half-truth from him, but it'd be what you were originally for.
Originally posted by KidRock
Because Obama didn't make claims that he would pull the troops out of Japan and Germany.Obama didn't claim he would pull the troops out and leave 50,000 behind.
He said he would end the war and pull the troops out.
Building a permanent military base of 50,000 men in the Middle East is sure to improve relations. Troops will be dwindled over time? Yeah, lets see if Obama pulls through with this..so far everything else he said has been a lie.
If you cannot see it or choose not to admit it then that is your problem, but the guy is full of shit whether you want to believe it or not.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
The only problem with us not stepping in is that no one else will. The real question is whether or not the violence would be any more or any less if no one stepped in to help. Giving the regions track record with human rights violations and wholesale slaughtering of innocent people I'd imagine probably not.
Well...because...
Screw it...
see below.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why should we be stepping in if no one asks for help and we aren't being threatened?
Gawd, you're sexy. flirt
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...because...Screw it...
see below.
Gawd, you're sexy. flirt
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Yea people don't want us interfering, but they still want our money. If you want billions of dollars in supplies and whatnot then be ready to accept our attempts are stabilizing the area. We give around 800 billion dollars in foreign aide (food, equipment and all that). We could really use that here in the U.S. right now, so yea I'm all about us not getting involved with other places. Then when people start starving to death (even more than they already are) and more and more extremist start popping up in response to their dire situation who will step up then?
Humans have been sorting their shit out on their own terms for thousands of years.
Our government has a direct responsibility to it's people. Our healthcare system is lowest or one of the lowest, in almost every medical category assessment. (I have no idea what to call it...stop criticizing my shitty "articulation", bitches.)
I would certainly be happier if our medical and technology was focused on at home. Just think of the good we could do for other countries with the very same technologies we developed, both medical and otherwise, would do for other nations as well as our own, at a price. awesome You see, we have no moral or ethical obligation to any other country unless it benefits us.
Now, there are those that say we would lose in the long run if we didn't mettle in other countries business like we do. Really? Prove it. 😐
They cite that it is an overall net increase in homeland security if we are up the asses of other nations all the time. I submit to you that if we withdrew all foreign troops, bases, etc., pulled them all home, fired half of them, and put the rest up for home defense and other domestic projects, our national security would increase tenfold and our military costs would significantly decrease.
And why shouldn't we? "We owe them this..." or "we owe them that" etc. As Schecter doesn't like to "hear", "f**k 'em." We have our own shit to worry about. How can we send thousands of our own young men to certain death when we have tens of thousands dying domestically when the mitigation of those domestic deaths are of almost linear ease?
If everyone would employ their "humanitarianism" domestically instead of abroad, then wouldn't life here improve so drastically that our abundance could then be spread, at the whims of the people and only the people, to foreign projects.
I guess this is what I'm REALLY trying to say:
The people should care more about their own country than other's and the government should only help other nations if all problems are virtually nonexistent. If our problems are virtually nonexistent, then we should aide* in only beneficial ways**.
Sometimes, shitty things happen. Sometimes, atrocious shit happens like genocide. Should we turn a blind eye to that? SURE! Only IF turning a blind eye doesn't affect us. Hoooooray!
*This is a Freudian slip, as it's called. I still have a nostalgic hard on for the medical world and really wish the stars would have aligned properly for a medical career...so I probably slip up more often than that: making subconscious references to the medical world, without knowing it.
**Beneficial could be something like...building an irrigation system in a foreign nation. Educating those that want it. Being doctors, engineers, etc., to those nations or communities that want it.
Lord Zenkai,
I think we agree on a vast majority of things. Do you see my perspective better now? Do you see the points illustrated and agree on some level?
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
You do realize they ask for help right? They ask for U.S. money, food, and aid. So we're supposed to give them all of that without sending in military forces to protect those assets? And the reason the U.S. usually interferes is to try and stabilize an area. We like to have people we like in charge so that it serves our interest.
Sure, I agree. We should help.
But only when we can afford it and it isn't taking away bread, literally, off of the table of our own people.