Current U.S. Budget

Discussion in 'Politics' started by waggie945, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. The current U.S. budget does not contain any money towards the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Yet, the Congress has been notified that $160 billion dollars will be needed in order to wage this war, money that has not been earmarked from the current budget.

    Can you imagine what this Country could do inside of its borders to fight the war on terror, instead of trying to promote democracy over in Iraq?
  2. TraderC



    You're not smart enough. The reason we are fighting this war is because Iraq is a potential threat to a little friend of ours in the Mid-East. Who in the right mind would believe Iraq is a threat to US?

    How about democracy in North Korea? Isn't that worth fighting for?

    In addition to the cost of the war, you forgot to mention that we are also giving BILLIONS in military and economic aid each year to our little friend in the Mid-East. We also made sure that the Germans and Swiss are paying their share.
  3. BVM88



    I also share your views on the degree of influence that our friend in the Middle East has over US foreign policy and with how detrimental and costly an impact all this has had on the entire world.
    Although tempted many a time, I have however never expressed any views in this regard on a public forum in order to avoid inflaming all the brainwashed supporters of our friend in the Middle East. I therefore take my hat off to you Sir for having made this point.

    Waggie, you also have a good point: the 160 billion is much better spent in the US than IRAQ.
  4. I almost forgot about Bush's speech the other night!

    Yeah, we have millions and millions of troops to spread across the globe, building one "Nation-State" after another with a constitution and a democratic form of government.

    We already have 370,000 troops spread across 120 countries, and another 120,000 or more in Iraq. At this point, we only have 100,000 left to go into North Korea or Iran and help them with their democracy development as well.

    Let's try and be realistic here.

    A.) We don't have the military resources to go into other countries and the fact that we didn't go into Iraq with enough troops in the first place is reflective of this.

    B.) Every world power in history has weakened itself and fallen apart to its demise when it was in the business of "Nation-State" building. Just think about that one for a moment.
  5. jasper6


    I am heartened to see that I am not the only one who recognizes what the war in Iraq is REALLY about.

    Anyone who wasn't too seduced by the uber-patriotism, lockstep media and state propaganda over the past few years had to ask themselves why we were invading Iraq when we had, according to the official version, been attacked by Saudi Nationals. How did we make the transition from pursuing the alleged perpetrators of 9/11 to "regime change" in Iraq?

    I believe that thinking taxpayers could only conclude that this war is about protecting oil supplies, making the world safe for Israel and/or the financial health of the military/industrial complex. Anything but terrorism.

    It is undeniable that the war in Iraq is the brainchild of hardcore, neocon Zionists such as Wolfowitz and Perle. It is also undeniable that these neocons are closely allied with the Likud government in Israel and with the Israeli lobbies (JINSA, AIPAC) in Washington.

    Personally, I think we are backing the wrong horse in the middle east. If all the money and arms we have given to Israel had gone to the Palestinians instead, 9/11 would never have happened and we wouldn't be bogged down in the $160 billion quagmire that is Iraq.

    Disclosure: I am a registered Libertarian and detest Republicans and Democrats equally.
  6. vak


    well that war you're waging over there could have
    made some sense from an paper investment point of view a year ago, fighting a faltering dictator would have seemed to be a cheap way to both run a oil-serving colony and a military base in the middle east....
  7. But if we pull our troops from all over the earth back to usa then how will we protect our corporations interest. Globalization might slow down a wee bit. If usa didnt patrol the persian gulf would other nations pick up the tab and send there own ships to ensure there oil interest were defended. We make sure china gets all the oil they need at no cost to them. If usa corps werent so sure the factories they build werent one day taken over or nationalized then perhaps they would build them here. Heck were still smarting from when cuba took usa corps interest in cuba.
  8. "Who in the right mind would believe Iraq is a threat to US?"

    ....How can you say a country like Iraq cannot be a threat to the US? You get 1 terrorist that wants to harm the US, and you get a country with suspected GW, CW, and other WMD that hates the US, you get a problem.
  9. Last time I checked, Iraq had no Navy or submarines with ballistic missiles . . . nor did Iraq get one freaking plane off the ground during our recent invasion of their country. Yeah, they are one helluva threat to the U.S.

    As for 911, Osama bin Laden is still free to roam 2.5 years later, and in case you didn't know . . . 16 of the 19 hijackers from September 11th were Saudi nationals.

    Given your logic, we should have nuked North Korea and Iran a long long time ago . . . So much for the theory of "Nation-State" building and spreading democracy across the Globe.
  10. "In the Summer of 2002, Bush approved $700 million worth of "prepatory tasks" in the Persian Gulf region such as upgrading airfields, bases, fuel pipelines and munitions storage depots to accommodate a massive U.S. troop deployment. The Administration funded the projects from a supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Afghanistan and old appropriations, keeping Congress unaware of the reprogramming of money and the eventual cost."
    #10     Apr 17, 2004