The cost of the war. Will Obama continue funding it?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 9, 2008 | 11:29 PM
  #1  
wittom's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
The cost of the war. Will Obama continue funding it?

How much should be spent on this losing war?

How long should the fight continue?

Should Obama continue funding a losing proposition?

When will some one talk about an exit strategy?



Originally Posted by Right Truth-War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results
While a nuanced interpretation of the evidence may identify a few positive returns on our “investment,” we have a right to expect a lot more for a trillion dollars a year.
Right Truth-War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results
 
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2008 | 11:34 PM
  #2  
s2krn's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Obama is going to **** of the Liberals he pandered to for so long because he can't follow through on his promises made concerning the war. He's been "briefed" now and realises the things he was not allowed to know as a Senator concerning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2008 | 11:35 PM
  #3  
wittom's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
Excuse my confusion (I read too much)...
Or, not enough.
 
Reply
Old Nov 9, 2008 | 11:43 PM
  #4  
birddog_61's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Graham TX
He is screwed, if he pulls the troops like he promised Iraq will go to hell, after we have managed to turn it around and it will be his fault. If he leaves them in they will hate him for it. I suspect he will leave the troops there until they complete their mission.
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 12:00 AM
  #5  
khanvalescent's Avatar
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by s2krn
Obama...has been "briefed" now and realises [sic] the things he was not allowed to know as a Senator concerning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Care to share the details of said shadowy "things" that a US Senator can be kept unaware of, but somehow an online message board user is privy to?
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 12:17 AM
  #6  
s2krn's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by khanvalescent
Care to share the details of said shadowy "things" that a US Senator can be kept unaware of, but somehow an online message board user is privy to?
Never said I was privy to it. He is now privy to things a US Senator is not. The President is briefed on world affairs that are top secret. Things no one else will ever know about. As President Elect he is now being briefed on these events, persons, etc.
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 12:27 AM
  #7  
alomar's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
From: Arizona
Maybe he is privy to and will divulge area 51 also!!!
 
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Nov 10, 2008 | 06:54 AM
  #8  
Tumba's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 1
From: >wwOwww<
Obama's first mistake is thinking you can talk to these people.
It's just not possible. If we pull out now, this will be happening here as the things of the past. IMO


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/..._mi_ea/ml_iraq
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 07:12 AM
  #9  
wittom's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
I guess no one read my original post.
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 07:19 AM
  #10  
wittom's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
So, what you are saying is that in reality an Obama administration will have had little to nothing to do with the agreement to withdraw US troops from Iraq?

There's one campaign promise Obama doesn't have to concern himself with. One down, _______ to go.
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 07:47 AM
  #11  
Tumba's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 1
From: >wwOwww<
Originally Posted by wittom
I guess no one read my original post.
I wnet back and read the link you provided. With that said. I very much believe that, welfare recipients are going to be in for a surprise. I know campaign talk is just that. But, if you consider O'bama's roots. He may give a little tough love there. That is one of the thing that has been needing work for a long time. It's a big problem, with no fix, but maybe there can be some repairs.

As far as the cost of the War, A lot of the weapons used there, we have and need anyway as a deterent. The cost of them is added to the war because we actualy use them there. Now they will not have to be destoyed and replaced.

Edgeing the subject, a good example would be how we incenerate old chemical weapons right here in Arkansas. They were built not intended to be used, and that is what makes us prepared in the event we need them.

WWII. The Japaneese didn't think we'd respond as we did, they had seen training films of the U.S. Army training with broomsticks. That is what hapens when you are not prepared with power, to match power.

The current situation in the World. I pray, the new management doesn't cut our military budget
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 07:57 AM
  #12  
Raoul's Avatar
Certified Goat Breeder
25 Year Member
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Originally Posted by wittom
How much should be spent on this losing war?
The range seems to be 160 billion(minimum for sure) to 360 billion(max).

How long should the fight continue?
The Bush administration and Iraq have a timetable of 2011.
Obama campaign promise was 16 months.
Iraq govt appears to prefer the Obama plan.
Bush had said we would stay as long as the Iraq govt wanted.

Should Obama continue funding a losing proposition?
FY09 defense funding is in place.
At least half of FY10 Iraq funding is within the Obama promise even at full operations. Downsizing would allow full FY10 funding.

When will some one talk about an exit strategy?
FY11 funding (exit) is on the table, that's where to look.
Right now it's Obama = out.
Bush admin/Iraq agreement = in.
Iraq renege on agreement = out.

Any reasonable person would agree the conditions at the time will need consideration and no one can see into the future.

Interesting that for five years, the most Evil word in the English language was timetable.
When it became apparent Obama had a 16 mo. timetable under his arm and was taking the Whitehouse,
the Bush admin suddenly decided a timetable wasn't such a bad thing and struck a deal for the best timetable they could get.
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 08:11 AM
  #13  
FX4_2003's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
We are only told what the media wants us to know... There is some kind of conspiracy going on and we may never know.. I am about sick of it all... My company pays over 11,000 dollars a year in taxes... , I dont care what obama thinks he is doing . spend my tax money in the USA.. Help people in the USA that need it... Help People that cant afford to eat in the USA.. Help people keep there homes and send their kids to good schools in the USA...
as far as foreign countries if they cant take care of their own shame on them, My responsibility is for the USA..

all the money spent to save a worthless Islamic dieing nation could have saved American's in the form of health care , research, and hurricane planning and development for the coastal regions... MAN ( Mr Obama ) you want to be a hero ... Save The USA.. Spend our money here , Help out the people in the USA.. If Iraq can't take care of their own problems (SHAME ON THEM )
 
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 12:58 PM
  #14  
FX41's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,273
Likes: 2
From: Bronco Country
I personally think that it doesn't matter when we pull out, with all the terrorist safe-havens around the middle easy we could pull out in 2020 and it would still go to hell by 2021.

The UN (USA) needs a foward operating base in the middle east, it sucks, but that is the only way that there will ever be peace in that region.
 

Last edited by FX41; Nov 10, 2008 at 06:00 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 10, 2008 | 05:56 PM
  #15  
wittom's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
So, there isn't anyone interested in dicussing what I'd originally started this thead about?

Originally Posted by Right Truth-War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results
No, it’s not the War in Iraq—it’s the War on Poverty. Incredible as it may seem, Americans transfer more than a trillion dollars each year to low-income families through a bewildering variety of programs, all in the name of fighting poverty and inequality. That’s about seven times the cost of the Iraq war.
I understand that people are concerned about spending up to 360 billion of our tax dollars in Iraq. You've got yOur-bama. He's going to fix that for you, he says.

What about the trillion a year that's spent here at home. A trillion EVERY YEAR, on entitlement programs that people have become accustom to. It's their way of life. No one has a problem with a trillion of our tax dollars being spent this way every year? Is that something that is going to go unchanged with the incoming administration?
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM.