It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Big war boost [$33B] clears Congress, despite Afghan leak

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:04 AM
Our idiot Congress is at it again supporting needless wars of choice. What's another $33 billion dollars, right?

Despite or because of might be a better question.

WASHINGTON — The House on Tuesday sent President Barack Obama a major war-funding increase of $33 billion to pay for his troop surge in Afghanistan, unmoved by the leaking of classified documents that portray a military effort struggling between 2004 and 2009 against a strengthening insurgency.

The House voted, 308-114, to approve the spending boost for the additional 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Other non-war provisions brought the total bill to nearly $59 billion.

From Obama on down, the disclosure of the documents was condemned by administration officials and military leaders on Tuesday, but the material failed to stir new anti-war sentiment. The bad news for the White House: A pervasive weariness with the war was still there — and possibly growing.


Ah well...

See this VERY related thread, because it sounds like we're going to NEED this money. Afghanistan is getting very angry about the leaks. Very angry. And so is Pakistan.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

Like I said awhile ago.

posted on 11/30/2009
Now that the Democrats are in Power "War is good"!

A great statesman, something we need more of instead of the lying politicians like Obama and Bush, Ron Paul said it best in this speech.

Just a bad dream?

War is peace don't you know.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link a lot of people have been doesn't matter what's virtually one party.

Dems were "in power" and did the same freaking thing during the Bush years...passed billions and billions in war bills.

So which makes more sense? Dems all of a sudden flip-flopping and supporting war or you being fooled by the illusion that there is actually a difference in parties or that party matters?

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

So which makes more sense? Dems all of a sudden flip-flopping and supporting war or you being fooled by the illusion that there is actually a difference in parties or that party matters?

I hope "you" were using you in the format of including everyone out there in internet land.

There are a few in the Repub party that I would still vote for. Paul being one.

As for the Dems, Kucinich would have gotten my vote except for a few flip flops he did over the past year and a half.

Now there is a Dem lady I think in Ohio that would get my vote. I would have to research if it was Ohio or another state. As for my state, been helping the Libertarians not the Repubs.

Yeah, I am fooled, Not.

Find where I have pushed the Repubs.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:01 AM

Congress doesn't want to extend unemployment benefits to help Americans, but has no problem coughing up billions to continue fighting wars on the other side of the world. We know full well that some of that money will wind up financing the enemy over there, and a lot of it we have no idea where it will go.

George Lucas needs to sue the US Government. They've obviously ripped off the plot from the second Star Wars trilogy and are using it for our foreign policy.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Yes, sir...the collective you.
Maybe that's why the Southerners invented y'all? No wait...that's the same thing.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link's another related one. Wonder how this will do in the Senate.

US House defeats resolution for removal of US troops from Pak

But hey, they had the first-ever Wikileaks debate over it!

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by VictorVonDoom

Well at least they also did extend the unemployment benefits. Seems like this clearly takes priority though, doesn't it?

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:19 AM
$33 billion precious dollars is a lot of money, more so could they?.....

Another massive surge, they call it, against disorganised nomadic herdsmen with little military training for the past 10 years.

A massive surge in kickbacks to the Industrial Military complex...
A massive surge in sacrifice of our precious innocent young again...
A massive surge into a country that is only a border away from another country that speaks of developing nuclear arms.

Will this $33 billion end the war, or start a new one, with more pleas for funds later?

All I know is that the Industrial military complex and the corrupt gets to line their pockets and upkeep their kinglike status with taxpayers funds while thousands lay dead in the desert sands....

How could they? Was there no other way?.....

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:41 PM
They are going to squeeze every last penny out of this country, any way they can, and through other countries by proxy if necessary China. If China wises up...

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:55 PM
I guess we've become immune to billions being tossed away.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:28 AM
Money isn't entirely the issue. If it is truly useful and can stop the war or more wars, and is the only option left, even I would gladly give up what I have and make a stand with the courageous soldiers with a rifle in my hands to protect my loved ones.

Once peace reigns, money can always be earned back.

But it had been 10 years now, the war had continued, so had terrorism, trillions that could have helped and saved lives spent with no end in sight in such wars.

What is more critical is the amount of precious lives lost, lives maimed, and lives emotionally tortured - the innocent civilian men women and children, the american soldiers and the naive young defenders of their homeland, beside the few radicals killed.

To TPTB and those who profit from wars, such deaths are statistic. But to a parent, a patriot from both sides, the dead means something precious to someone, and is a great loss. Take the life experience of this new member Red_xi from his post, if he had not turn around his life, he would have been packed off to wars, and what would societies had lost?

Was it worth it?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 06:29 AM
and of course the number is 33...
(As in the number having occult significance, 33. degree mason etc.)

I was skeptical of the whole numbers thing at first but when you start to pay attention it just pops up waaay to much to be just random.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by VictorVonDoom

So who is Emperor Palpatine? Pelosi? LOL

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what this means to most of us. You think we're bemoaning the money? No. I certainly am not. I'm bemoaning what it will be used for and how and whose pockets it is going to wind up in to that end.

top topics


log in