Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Army Warns Rumsfeld: We're Billions Of $$$ Short

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
df1

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
In an unprecedented move Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is protesting by withholding a required 2008 budget plan from Rumsfeld and the Pentagon leadership after congress and the white house implemented an array of cuts in the Army budget request the preceding month. The general does not believe that the Army can carry out its assigned duties in Iraq without a 41% increase in funding over last years budget.
 



www.latimes.com
WASHINGTON — The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.

The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

"This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.

Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I oppose the military interventionist policies of this administration, however I am not in favor of leaving our troops in harms way because of inadequate funding. It has been reported that the Army is working with DOD to iron out a compromise, but I fear the only things that will be compromised are the lives of american soldiers.

This administration went into iraq unprepared for the consequences of their action and american soldiers paid the price. Now the inevitable financial problems which have long been predicted by military experts are on DODs door step and soon will result in more dead soldiers. Up next will be the shredding of the entire US economy.

Does anyone in the house, congress or the white house have the courage to address these problems directly and honestly? Ive seen no evidence of such courage from either party.


[edit on 25-9-2006 by df1]

[edit on 25-9-2006 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
how can your armed forces be billions short?
the united states spends the worlds most amount of $$$$ on military and so forth



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Maybe...it is because they spent over $530 billion on just the US embassy there in Iraq, the WORLDS biggest embassy! It takes up the same rough area as a city block or four, depending on the city compared with.

That just may have a tad to do with it all, huh.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Don't forget all the graft and corruption among military contractors. The $500 hammer and the $600 toilet seat of the past have become the reclaimed water and out of date food sickening our troops of today via KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton.

Who knows how many $billions have gone to line the pockets of corrupt officials and contractors? I bet Rove and Cheney do.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The thing is that our government had the report since April on the short comings with the military been underfunded.

But now we got the real scoop as how bad realy is.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
You know why they ar short is because they spend $300 million for one jet fighter that is going to be out of date by the time they come online in a couple years.

The military has paethetic regulations on its spending taking virtually no obligation to justify it. The fact that the budget is so big is it own undoing in that it has no reason to operate effieciently or with smart investment. So instead it becomes a political tool to go with weapons plans that have no place in our current role with the war on terrorism or even a full out war with Iran and the greater middle east.

So it the poor soldier who gets caught in the middle and pays the consequence. While our tax dollars are wasted.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
If the military wants to think of itself as a corporation then it should be held to the same standards, not saying giving full disclosure of projects but held to its own on spending and funding.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
The Bagdad ambassy will cost 1 trillion, as much as the new World Trade Center. What a waste of money during people die. We say that lives have no cost, but this administration seems to think otherwise.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
1 trillion and 500 billion where are u getting this information from that the embassy will cost this much, it will be the most expensive structure/compund in the history of mankind.

Please I am not dissmissing you but give me a link or source, the more mainstream the better, or at least highly reliable.

Thanks in advance



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I remember about the outragous spending on toilet seats and hammers but is this something that is still going on even today i thoght with that press it would be put to an immediate stop.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
Please I am not dissmissing you but give me a link or source, the more mainstream the better, or at least highly reliable.



Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
You know why they ar short is because they spend $300 million for one jet fighter that is going to be out of date by the time they come online in a couple years.




No you just didn't, sorry you first. Good try but no go this time, don't go asking others to do what you havn't done your self.

[edit]
posted below in new reply

[edit on 26-9-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
An increase to a $400 Billion dollar defence budget??

Would any Americans here prefer to see that money spent on the "Health System"?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
As to what I was saying a couple posts above, let me just clarify, when I say the cost of the embassy, I am actually refering to the war. The embassy is just the first material investment we will permanently have in their land. The cost of that is going the be more than money can pay for.

I suppose, I'll just have to continue leading by example.
Of course I'm being super critical, but I'll provide the requested source as was so nicely asked. Just two though, based on their caliber I doubt more are required, enjoy.




NOT TO BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORS

"expenditures to surpass $500 billion"
(they all ready have)

[edit on 26-9-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Please I am not dissmissing you but give me a link or source, the more mainstream the better, or at least highly reliable.




No you just didn't, sorry you first. Good try but no go this time, don't go asking others to do what you havn't done your self.

[edit]
posted below in new reply

[edit on 26-9-2006 by ADVISOR]

No your right, I should have provided an article a little hypocritical maybe, I dunno well here is what I was talking about.




The F-22 was conceived two decades ago to take on the Soviets. Even though that threat disappeared, the F-22 program dragged on for years as the plane's design was altered to take advantage of the latest technologies. As result, the number of planes the Pentagon could afford dropped and the price tag rose


Funny thing is that in all other aspects of life and civilization technology usually get less expensive as time goes on (even new tech once its started to be implemented). Notice also that it was concieved 20 years ago for a threat that no longer exists.




The F-22 has also suffered from a number of embarrassing glitches. Earlier this year, an F-22 pilot got trapped in the jet and had to be rescued from his cockpit with chainsaws. Landing gear failed in another instance, causing the aircraft to fall on its nose. Structural cracks have also been reported


Getting our moneys worth on them at least


Now heres the kicker for me, Im not to familiar with this business but this seems obscene.




The plane's "fly away" cost, equivalent to the sticker price on a car, is $130 million. If development costs are included, which are the costs to the Pentagon for designing the plane, that cost rises to $350 million a plane.


Hows can development costs be so high compared to the actual price of the jet especially spread out over the number that there are.

F-22 350 million, JSF aprox 45 million like we really need all that difference fighting terrorists or even Iran



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   


From the article
Schoomaker has been vocal in recent months about a need to expand war funding legislation to pay for repair of hundreds of tanks and armored fighting vehicles after heavy use in Iraq.


Tanks cost money.
Dead soldiers cost nothing.

Yey, capitalism.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I HAVE A GREAT IDEA!

lets allow our own military to compete for these high paying contracts that are presently farmed out to friends of the president, and vice president?

How much does it cost to have a government contractor skin a potato?
How much does it cost the military to stub the latee riser with potato duty?

how much does it cost the US to have a contractor set up camps, and latrines?
how much would it cost the army?

My friends... what used to be free is now a profitable contract for a third party...

lets have the army doing more of its own cooking, cleaning, and construction...
and then there would be plenty of money to even give raises to the standard pay...



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I HAVE A GREAT IDEA!

lets allow our own military to compete for these high paying contracts that are presently farmed out to friends of the president, and vice president?

How much does it cost to have a government contractor skin a potato?
How much does it cost the military to stub the latee riser with potato duty?

how much does it cost the US to have a contractor set up camps, and latrines?
how much would it cost the army?

My friends... what used to be free is now a profitable contract for a third party...

lets have the army doing more of its own cooking, cleaning, and construction...
and then there would be plenty of money to even give raises to the standard pay...





EXCELLENT idea!!!!!

Wadda concept.

Let the military do its own work, instead of blowing the budget on mercs, private military corporations, and other admin buddies.

Not that I support even the idea of war.





posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Well,
it does reduce the pressure from the military industrial complex to go to war, if it would be far less profitable for them...

but yes, as agreed...

War is bad bad bad...
but sometimes neccessary,
is this really one of those times? is it really?

if you think so, then watch "Why We Fight" a documentary that spells out the whole big business of war...

it also predicted that the regular army would be broke from the war... because that was the point...

drain, drain, drain, until there was no more blood to draw...
then they fold up shop for a few years, and wait for the next christmas for the "MIC"



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Mark my word our excessive spending (and damned fool privatizing) of the military is going to bankrupt this nation. According to Clambers Johnson in his book "The Sorrows of Empire" describes a U.S. Base in Kosovo built for us by (guess who?) Halliburton that is so overstocked with furniture that they had to build a warehouse to store it all and is so over staffed that the offices and bathrooms get cleaned 4 or 5 times a day.

According to NPR though the big problem is a lot of the material we have was built to last 20+ years in peace time is falling apart from constant use and redeployment in 3 to 4 years instead and that is what is eating up so much money.

Whatever fool thought a war could be fought on the cheap should be tarred and feathered and then drawn and quartered.

And I am no supporter of this presidency or this war BUT I am a veteran. We will do what you need us to but damnit do right by us and keep us well stocked and take care us injored ones afterwards.

And this administration does neither and tries to blame others for its failures...well Bubba its 6+ years into this presidency and at this late date it has got to start accepting responsiblity for its failures and stop blaming Clinton and the Democrats.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
The Bagdad ambassy will cost 1 trillion, as much as the new World Trade Center. What a waste of money during people die. We say that lives have no cost, but this administration seems to think otherwise.


Oh please. Like someone said, post a source. The only way the embassy will cost 1 trillion dollars is if they make it out of gold!






top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join