Can anyone tell me what is very wrong with this?

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

looks like 3 trillion to me, that is an expected number when all is said and done.

 

per washington post.

 

Why would we spend 5 times more in the next 12-16 months than we have already? I dont think so.

 

Currently we have spent around or just under 600 billion.

 

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

http://anupkaphle.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/money-spent-on-iraq-war-could-buyso-many-things/

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/543_236_299_998_Spent_on_Iraq_as_of_4_22_pm_CST_Today

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Noone said helping the enemy is cool. Just because Hamas is controlling the area doesn't mean all the people there are evil. That is like saying every Iraqi is evil because of Saddam. Come on, that's stereotyping. You basically are writing their refugees off because according to you they don't have a fighting chance? You are real compassionate.

 

You're reaching. I don't care who is President, the spending in Iraq is ridiculous. The amount that will be built up is unheard of. It would definitley help our economy to have not footed the whole bill. There is a huge difference in the bill we are building every second in Iraq and 20 million for refugees to survive. We provided aid for Iraqis after we started the invasion.

 

People will give up info on Bin Laden and have. We knew he was in the mountianous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan for quite some time and chose to spend our time and efforts in Iraq while sending a lot less force in that region. The info we got by the way from informants there.

 

You try to dispute every ounce of things I say but you are reaching for excuses. I'm not buying!

 

Very wrong, for 1 thing getting bin laden would only be a feel good victory, it wouldn't amount to a lot outside of a moral victory itself in matters of stopping al queda. But more than that the U.S. has had the very best troops there are, Army special forces, navy SEALs and the British sas and Australian sas, along with the CIA, doing everything possible to kill al queda and their training camps there in those remote areas for years, at the cost of numerous lives from those who serve in those units, but these are the foothills of the himalaya's and it's been like looking for a needle in a haystack for bin laden himself, that region of pakistan is a tribal region controlled by fanatics, not pakistan itself, they aren't or haven't had any intentions on giving info on al queda or bin laden up.

The thing about the mountainous border region there, this isn't a place where armored divisions or common infantry can be used, so it's never been a case about Iraq preventing success there along the afghan pakistan border.

That's a job for special ops and elite infantry and they've been hard at it since '01.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

The biggest concern in all this is the key word "migrate" as in migrate to the U.S., if I were doing word association and someone said "hamas", I would say "terrorist". It's very foolish and reckless to bring any of these people to the U.S., they hate Israel and America and are committed to the destruction of Israel, and any of their allies.

[fieldgeneral 10]

When are you gonna learn? Hamas doesnt control an "area". They control the country. Secondly, the US has always supported Israel. Tell me the money Obama sent them. Why hasnt he sent money then?

 

They may control the area, but why is supplying aid for refugees an awful thing? Why are they expendable to you? The US has always supported Israel and they have funded them and still do for different things. These refugees aren't getting help from their "leaders." That is why we help them.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Why would we spend 5 times more in the next 12-16 months than we have already? I dont think so.

 

Currently we have spent around or just under 600 billion.

 

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

http://anupkaphle.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/money-spent-on-iraq-war-could-buyso-many-things/

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/543_236_299_998_Spent_on_Iraq_as_of_4_22_pm_CST_Today

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

 

Whether my numbers or yours are correct, are irrelevant concerning the total. My comparison is the amount spent in Iraq and we've not spent 1/4 that on counter terrorism at least for our country. I compared that 20 million in aid to your 600 billion for the war. We were told WMDS and 50-60 billion. Both were BS.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Very wrong, for 1 thing getting bin laden would only be a feel good victory, it wouldn't amount to a lot outside of a moral victory itself in matters of stopping al queda. But more than that the U.S. has had the very best troops there are, Army special forces, navy SEALs and the British sas and Australian sas, along with the CIA, doing everything possible to kill al queda and their training camps there in those remote areas for years, at the cost of numerous lives from those who serve in those units, but these are the foothills of the himalaya's and it's been like looking for a needle in a haystack for bin laden himself, that region of pakistan is a tribal region controlled by fanatics, not pakistan itself, they aren't or haven't had any intentions on giving info on al queda or bin laden up.

The thing about the mountainous border region there, this isn't a place where armored divisions or common infantry can be used, so it's never been a case about Iraq preventing success there along the afghan pakistan border.

That's a job for special ops and elite infantry and they've been hard at it since '01.

 

It would be more than a moral victory. This man is the leader. As long as he evades us, he is supreme to us in their eyes. I find it hard to believe that the number of military personell that we've used in Iraq including special ops and so forth that if used to find and eliminate the terrorist groups that are responsible for 9-11, simply ridiculous. I am proud of our men and women doing the job handed to them. I just wish the people in charge would have used them to do the task at hand, not going on a witch hunt for Saddam.

 

He's a six foot arab rumored to be in bad health at one time. I can't beleive as advanced as we are with intelligence , and special ops, that we cannot find this guy.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Whether my numbers or yours are correct, are irrelevant concerning the total. My comparison is the amount spent in Iraq and we've not spent 1/4 that on counter terrorism at least for our country. I compared that 20 million in aid to your 600 billion for the war. We were told WMDS and 50-60 billion. Both were BS.

 

You simply refuse to accept that there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there were many materials used for them located by u.s. troops, they simply never located any major completed weapons. You wrote that it would be impossible for the u.s. not to have located such weapons through all these years, but it was expected that they would have simply been shipped into syria in the weeks the invasion was stalled waiting on the go ahead.

You refuse to acknowledge the long list of democrats who stated exactly what republicans and Bush did about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction even in '98 under clinton, statements about saddam and Iraq being a credible threat that had to be stopped.

 

Big difference between the controversial bill and iraq, democrats agreed to Iraq to, they only changed their minds after they saw the war was being presented as unpopular by the media after the going got tough. Typical liberals they turned and ran from the fight after it was started.

 

The policy in the subject isn't simply about assisting refugees, it's about relocating people who are anti u.s. and are some of the more radical terrorist fanatics there are to the u.s..

But they should adjust easily in this newer terrorist friendly u.s..

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

It would be more than a moral victory. This man is the leader. As long as he evades us, he is supreme to us in their eyes. I find it hard to believe that the number of military personell that we've used in Iraq including special ops and so forth that if used to find and eliminate the terrorist groups that are responsible for 9-11, simply ridiculous. I am proud of our men and women doing the job handed to them. I just wish the people in charge would have used them to do the task at hand, not going on a witch hunt for Saddam.

 

 

He might be a leader but they aren't fools, there's lots of very intelligent individuals on their side, many of them very capable leaders themselves, they're very well planned for outlasting the u.s., you can be certain there is someone ready and prepared to step in in the event bin laden is captured or killed.

Educate yourself on the actually goals and meaning of the "taliban" or the al queda movement, you'll see it's not as much as group as it is a school of example for terrorist fanatics fighting the jihad. This isn't some organized crime family or gang.

 

 

"He's a six foot arab rumored to be in bad health at one time. I can't beleive as advanced as we are with intelligence , and special ops, that we cannot find this guy."

 

You and all your liberal friends are welcome to step in and show the best America has the error of their way and how it's done then.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

It would be more than a moral victory. This man is the leader. As long as he evades us, he is supreme to us in their eyes. I find it hard to believe that the number of military personell that we've used in Iraq including special ops and so forth that if used to find and eliminate the terrorist groups that are responsible for 9-11, simply ridiculous. I am proud of our men and women doing the job handed to them. I just wish the people in charge would have used them to do the task at hand, not going on a witch hunt for Saddam.

 

 

He might be a leader but they aren't fools, there's lots of very intelligent individuals on their side, many of them very capable leaders themselves, they're very well planned for outlasting the u.s., you can be certain there is someone ready and prepared to step in in the event bin laden is captured or killed.

Educate yourself on the actually goals and meaning of the "taliban" or the al queda movement, you'll see it's not as much as group as it is a school of example for terrorist fanatics fighting the jihad. This isn't some organized crime family or gang.

 

 

"He's a six foot arab rumored to be in bad health at one time. I can't beleive as advanced as we are with intelligence , and special ops, that we cannot find this guy."

 

You and all your liberal friends are welcome to step in and show the best America has the error of their way and how it's done then.

[BigD4VT 11]

You simply refuse to accept that there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there were many materials used for them located by u.s. troops, they simply never located any major completed weapons. You wrote that it would be impossible for the u.s. not to have located such weapons through all these years, but it was expected that they would have simply been shipped into syria in the weeks the invasion was stalled waiting on the go ahead.

You refuse to acknowledge the long list of democrats who stated exactly what republicans and Bush did about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction even in '98 under clinton, statements about saddam and Iraq being a credible threat that had to be stopped.

 

Big difference between the controversial bill and iraq, democrats agreed to Iraq to, they only changed their minds after they saw the war was being presented as unpopular by the media after the going got tough. Typical liberals they turned and ran from the fight after it was started.

 

The policy in the subject isn't simply about assisting refugees, it's about relocating people who are anti u.s. and are some of the more radical terrorist fanatics there are to the u.s..

But they should adjust easily in this newer terrorist friendly u.s..

They aren't relocating anyone to the U.S. The money is for humanitarian aide and it came from "The U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund"

[dawgs05 10]

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Obama has no idea what he's doing. Like a mindless sheepie, he's being led right to the slaughterhouse.

 

 

To say that is ridiculous.....He's been president for less than a month and you already know how his 4 years in office will go?? Sounds like we elected the wrong man for the job.

 

Obama will do just fine as our President......and the best part is, even if he doesn't do well....its not hard to follow in the footsteps of the WORST president in US history

 

Bush ran our country, our respect, our status and our integrity into the ground because he's a mindless fool.

 

Somebody should've told Bush that this wasn't a rodeo

 

Mission Accomphished??? Mission Accomplished would've been a rebuilt Afghanistan, think of how strong Afghanistan would be after 7 plus years we've spent there. A captured or dead Bin Laden.

 

I disliked Saddam as much as the next guy but if stopping genocide, going after countries with WMDs, regime change, and basically going to war because we dislike someone then the US has a long fight ahead of them.

 

Iraq should still be run by Saddam because we should never have went there and Afghanistan should be a blooming democracy in the middle of an Islamic sea.

Edited February 16, 2009 by dawgs05

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

They aren't relocating anyone to the U.S. The money is for humanitarian aide and it came from "The U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund"

 

Not what I've read elsewhere.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

To say that is ridiculous.....He's been president for less than a month and you already know how his 4 years in office will go?? Sounds like we elected the wrong man for the job.

 

Obama will do just fine as our President......and the best part is, even if he doesn't do well....its not hard to follow in the footsteps of the WORST president in US history

 

Bush ran our country, our respect, our status and our integrity into the ground because he's a mindless fool.

 

Somebody should've told Bush that this wasn't a rodeo

 

Mission Accomphished??? Mission Accomplished would've been a rebuilt Afghanistan, think of how strong Afghanistan would be after 7 plus years we've spent there. A captured or dead Bin Laden.

 

I disliked Saddam as much as the next guy but if stopping genocide, going after countries with WMDs, regime change, and basically going to war because we dislike someone then the US has a long fight ahead of them.

 

Iraq should still be run by Saddam because we should never have went there and Afghanistan should be a blooming democracy in the middle of an Islamic sea.

 

Wrong on many counts. But the basic being comment I'm responding to is about afghan and democracy, that would have gone over much worse in Afghan, 1 of the big reasons Afghan hasn't had as much violence against u.s. troops or resistance is because the u.s. cause there has never been about interfering with the Afghan ways, the u.s. doesn't even attempt to stop their opium trade. If it were a different type of war the u.s. would actually be fighting a much tougher war against the types of resistance the soviets faced.

..

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

To say that is ridiculous.....He's been president for less than a month and you already know how his 4 years in office will go?? Sounds like we elected the wrong man for the job.

 

Let me ask you this, what has he done well in this short month?

[BigD4VT 11]

Not what I've read elsewhere.

Propaganda works both ways. Do a google news search. The truth is there if you want to find it.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Let me ask you this, what has he done well in this short month?

 

I've got nothing, TBQH.

[fieldgeneral 10]

There are many different views on a lot of this and you and I can spin it any way we want to. The truth is that the President acted quicker to help people in a bad place being ran by bad people than the former President acted to help those affected by Katrina. But I'm sure that it was too dangerous and those other excuses you use. It's amazing all the backlash that you and your buddies throw at a President trying to work his way out of a hole left for him. I'm sure you'll find something wrong with President Obama trying to get healthcare for children who don't have it.

 

It looks like the President is looking at sending more troops to Afghanistan, I guess that you and your little buddies think that is a bad idea too.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Ill ask it again, what has Obama done well in the last month?

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Propaganda works both ways. Do a google news search. The truth is there if you want to find it.

 

According to who? I'm the 1st to agree that granted people on different sides read into things differently, but this administration has been very big on hidden agendas and details concealed as best as possible, in cases of foreign policy the president has started out catering to the muslim world in a reckless way. They haven't earned either my trust or the benefit of the doubt, and doubtfully they ever will.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

There are many different views on a lot of this and you and I can spin it any way we want to. The truth is that the President acted quicker to help people in a bad place being ran by bad people than the former President acted to help those affected by Katrina. But I'm sure that it was too dangerous and those other excuses you use. It's amazing all the backlash that you and your buddies throw at a President trying to work his way out of a hole left for him. I'm sure you'll find something wrong with President Obama trying to get healthcare for children who don't have it.

 

It looks like the President is looking at sending more troops to Afghanistan, I guess that you and your little buddies think that is a bad idea too.

 

Obviously you dont keep up to date with recent news stories. First off, the Gaza Conflict has been going on for months. A cease fire started on Jan 28th. The conflict began in December. In actuality, Bush acted in hours, Obama waited a month from entering office. Anyways this is a dumb argument to have and base your opinion on, especially since you reasoning has faulty facts.

 

Obama always knew we would have to increase troops in Afghanistan, he said that since his campaign. But what you say above is wrong, he promised increased troops and spending in Afghanistan, but now is looking to back out. Promises, Promises.

 

Read about it here since you obviously havent yet: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14campaign.html

 

Recently: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jfZtELu90vQnhcUJQd6BcKTrKBbQ

[BigD4VT 11]

"The State Department announced on Friday that President Barack Obama has authorized the use of $20.3 million from the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) Fund to meet the urgent needs of the Palestinians.

 

From this, $13.5 million will go to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), $6 million is allocated to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and $800,000 to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

 

The money will be utilized for providing emergency assistance for food, medicine, and temporary shelter, creating temporary employment, and restoring access to electricity and potable water to the people of Gaza."

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

They haven't earned either my trust or the benefit of the doubt, and doubtfully they ever will.

 

They don't even care if you do or Obama trusts them, heck extreme muslims don't even want to talk to Obama.

 

They won't talk to him until he withdraws troops from all of the middle east and apologizes for all the US has done, as well as the threats and lies directed towards Iran. Oh, another little thing like claim support for Pakistan in the Gaza Conflict.

 

It never was whether we would negotiate with Iran, its whether they would meet with us.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

There are many different views on a lot of this and you and I can spin it any way we want to. The truth is that the President acted quicker to help people in a bad place being ran by bad people than the former President acted to help those affected by Katrina. But I'm sure that it was too dangerous and those other excuses you use. It's amazing all the backlash that you and your buddies throw at a President trying to work his way out of a hole left for him. I'm sure you'll find something wrong with President Obama trying to get healthcare for children who don't have it.

 

It looks like the President is looking at sending more troops to Afghanistan, I guess that you and your little buddies think that is a bad idea too.

 

We realize that you think Bush hates minorities and acted in a manner that intentionally forced people to be hungry and thirsty for a few days amidst a major crisis but you've never realistically considered the pros and cons of it.

As for the president, the people in gaza have been putting their lives back together for a few weeks now, he hasn't provided them with anything to this point, I'm thinking that's quite a lot slower than Bush's response to the hurricane. Throwing $s at places such as that, and africa, don't do much anyhow, the provisions or $s will go to those in power.

 

As for afghan, he's been president for how many weeks, talk about someone who's not doing what they should for those who are in need, the president campaigned on the notion of putting an emphasis on afghan, but he's yet to reach any conclusion on the matter while the military's been waiting and have made what they've needed known for months. They might and they might not get the numbers they're requesting at that. But the decision's long overdue in this situation, but the presidents been more concerned with the muslims of the world in his 1st month.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

"The State Department announced on Friday that President Barack Obama has authorized the use of $20.3 million from the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) Fund to meet the urgent needs of the Palestinians.

 

From this, $13.5 million will go to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), $6 million is allocated to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and $800,000 to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

 

The money will be utilized for providing emergency assistance for food, medicine, and temporary shelter, creating temporary employment, and restoring access to electricity and potable water to the people of Gaza."

 

I realize what is says the intentions are, it says as much in different ways in the post I posted at the start, but there's many who expect differently.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Obviously you dont keep up to date with recent news stories. First off, the Gaza Conflict has been going on for months. A cease fire started on Jan 28th. The conflict began in December. In actuality, Bush acted in hours, Obama waited a month from entering office. Anyways this is a dumb argument to have and base your opinion on, especially since you reasoning has faulty facts.

 

Obama always knew we would have to increase troops in Afghanistan, he said that since his campaign. But what you say above is wrong, he promised increased troops and spending in Afghanistan, but now is looking to back out. Promises, Promises.

 

Read about it here since you obviously havent yet: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14campaign.html

 

Recently: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jfZtELu90vQnhcUJQd6BcKTrKBbQ

 

we basically wrote the exact thing, I hadn't read your post or I wouldn't have bothered.