Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

News Article

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama will ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned - a request that could be an especially hard sell to some of the administration's Democratic allies.

The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.

Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public.

For those of that voted for Obama, is this the change that you believe in? For those of you like myself that did not vote for Obama, do you feel he is managing the wars well?

Personally, I think these wars must be won, but Obama has politicized them too much. If you want to win, listen to the commanding officers in the field. Instead Obama weighs all of the political opportunities as more soldiers and civilians die. Then he gives the commanders less than they ask for which guarantees a more protracted war, and more deaths.





[edit on 13-1-2010 by johnny2127]

reply to post by johnny2127


If this is true the american people should demonstrate on the streets agains it....WHAT.....revolt against it...........how can the people agree with such a outragous request....not just because for what it is used but also for the waste of moneys that are beter used to restore the economic health of the US. Or just use it for helping people who lost their homes or for a thousend other...better reasons.

This request does.....should.... remind the people who Obama is working for.
When will the citizens of the US say...THIS IS ENOUGH !!?

[edit on 13-1-2010 by zatara]

reply to post by johnny2127

johnny2127,

Now i know it is not my president and i really have no say in the matter but i would really like to add my thoughts on this....

Just say no to the good man. No you can't!!!

Peace

Edit: there seems to be a lack of stars and flags......let me assist.

[edit on 13/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]

Makes a complete mockery of the title 'Nobel Peace Prize'

Who ever said Americans don't do irony?

Good point..... what a mockery this shows the Nobel Peace Prize to be. Such a crock.

I really cannot fathom how all those that voted for Obama are not furious at him. He has turned out drastically different than he campaigned. He's breaking campaign pledges left and right, while at the same time moving far left even though he campaigned with the rhetoric of a moderate. Many of my friends that voted for him are very very disappointed in him. Not enough to join me in my conservative beliefs, but instead to admit that Obama should never have become President. How quickly all the 'hope' and optimism has dissipated......

Has anyone researched to see if it was the Onion that gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe he is on MTV's Punk'd.

i wonder how that poor deluded lady is feeling now who thought obama would pay her mortgage off for her...

probably trying her hardest to convince herself she hasnt been had...

Why doesn't he make a simple deal that the terrorists might not want to refuse?

ie, we (Americans) will pull out of all muslim countries in return that you (the bad guys, the terrorists) no longer target American interests.
We (Americans) will not touch anything related to oil in exchange that you, the 'terrorists' don't take control of the oil.

Boy, that was tough writing that, just got up, coffee still taking effect, but anyway, however flawed my treaty proposal is, you can get my point.

What are the 'terrorists' mad about, address that issue, and negotiate.
Weapons and occupation make poor negotiating tools and only create retaliation.

Have weapons and war solved the 'terrorist' problem, NO! Like pouring gasoline on a fire hoping to smother the flames.
Will making a deal work? Yes, maybe, depending on how beneficial the treaty is to all parties involved.

America is broke, hopelessly in debt, ordinary Americans are hurting for it, and they want to spend a record amount of $$$ next year fighting a losing battle?

reply to post by johnny2127


Sorry Johnny but reality needs to be taken into account, Bushes and Cheneys war was for "profits" they created this war wagged them and all the money went to the hands of the profiteers of this wars, while the economy was left to fall into the chaos that we are now in.

Now you expect Obama to hurry up and win the war and end the war?, Bush and cheney could not accomplish this in 6 years Reality check, it was not the intention of Bush and Cheney to ever get out of the middle east.

Now we are on for a long very expensive and no as profitable for the American tax payer war and invasion, that will span for many years to come regardless of Who party president is next.

But of course negotiations will not happen for the reasons that marg6043 specified.

Forgot about that, the 'terrorists' are just a nuisance and an excuse for being there.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Sorry Johnny but reality needs to be taken into account, Bushes and Cheneys war was for "profits" they created this war wagged them and all the money went to the hands of the profiteers of this wars, while the economy was left to fall into the chaos that we are now in.

Now you expect Obama to hurry up and win the war and end the war?, Bush and cheney could not accomplish this in 6 years Reality check, it was not the intention of Bush and Cheney to ever get out of the middle east.

Now we are on for a long very expensive and no as profitable for the American tax payer war and invasion, that will span for many years to come regardless of Who party president is next.

My commentary said absolutely nothing about me expecting Obama to win this war quickly. My commentary was purely pointing out that a huge portion of Obama's supporters were people that thought he would get the country out of the wars. Additionally, I was saying that if you want to win the wars, you need to take the advice of the officers on the ground and act in an expedient manner.

So my question to Obama supporters was if you are happy with how Obama is handling these wars and if what he has done is the change you hoped for? Then to non-Obama supporters, many of whom support the wars, if they agree with how Obama has handled the wars.

I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't agree with how he is running these wars, but it could be worse. Additionally as a side note, I also did not agree with how Bush managed these wars either. My criticisms are not restricted to one President or political party.

One thing that I think would help is if we stopped using the words billion and trillion,and wrote the #s out in actual value like
708,000,000,000=708 billion
or
1,200,000,000,000=1.2 trillion
just a thought

Obama was a democrat with naive ideas about how to end the war that was started by the Bush family and company. He was an idealistic fool with a gift for oration....That's what got him elected. That, and there could have very well been a civil war had McCain and Palin been shoved into the White House against the wishes of the public. The public doesn't have such a lax attitude towards blatant corruption now that their mortgages are defaulting and their children are coming home in boxes in record numbers. People voted for Obama because they were sick of being lied to by the so-called "republicans." Obama represented a man with common sense. His so-called "actions" since assuming the title of presidency are the same things the "Republicans" were criticizing him for during his campaign. "He is going to pull out prematurely." "He is going to eliminate funding for the wars." Now that it's obvious we aren't going anywhere, and we are about to spend more on the wars than we ever have before, and have even committed more troops, "Republicans" say that he still isn't doing enough, and are laughing at the people who voted for him, calling them idiots. So, Johnny....What would Obama have to do in order for you to call him a good president?

Originally posted by genius/idoit
One thing that I think would help is if we stopped using the words billion and trillion,and wrote the #s out in actual value like
708,000,000,000=708 billion
or
1,200,000,000,000=1.2 trillion
just a thought

Its a big number

Going to get Bigger yet, US boots will be on the ground soon in Yemen.

Then a few false flags, and Somalia will be next .

Remember where you heard it first

I never get tired of this

reply to post by genius/idoit


And........

What does that prove?

Some people are stupid, its been proven before.

Originally posted by thenothingorchid
Obama was a democrat with naive ideas about how to end the war that was started by the Bush family and company. He was an idealistic fool with a gift for oration....That's what got him elected. That, and there could have very well been a civil war had McCain and Palin been shoved into the White House against the wishes of the public. The public doesn't have such a lax attitude towards blatant corruption now that their mortgages are defaulting and their children are coming home in boxes in record numbers. People voted for Obama because they were sick of being lied to by the so-called "republicans." Obama represented a man with common sense. His so-called "actions" since assuming the title of presidency are the same things the "Republicans" were criticizing him for during his campaign. "He is going to pull out prematurely." "He is going to eliminate funding for the wars." Now that it's obvious we aren't going anywhere, and we are about to spend more on the wars than we ever have before, and have even committed more troops, "Republicans" say that he still isn't doing enough, and are laughing at the people who voted for him, calling them idiots. So, Johnny....What would Obama have to do in order for you to call him a good president?

Understandable post, although I do disagree with many of the viewpoints. I view Obama as having lied as bad, if not worse than the republicans. Although I would not support any liar, regardless of party. Obama has gone back on many campaign promises, most of the ones that actually got the moderates to vote for him, and sadly also the ones that I also hoped he would actually follow through on. Sadly he has turned out to be like most politicians.... say whatever it takes to get elected, then do whatever you want the first couple years, then go back to the middle with the rhetoric as the next election approaches. Exactly what he has done so far and what I am assuming he will do.

So to answer your question about what he would need to do for me to consider him a good President. Reduce the size and spending of govt, stop borrowing as much money, stop serving the special interests and the banks, listen to the public on health care and cap and trade, don't just say you will listen to the military officers, actually do it, and enact actual job creating policies, instead of signing the pure pork stimulus package Congress sent him. All of those are accomplishable and not the Republican playbook. I do not expect him to have won the wars within his first term. I do not think he is a bad President. I just think he is a naive President with a huge ego that is learning as he goes, at a time in which we cannot afford such a thing. Realistically, Hillary should have been the Democrat nominee and Obama should have gotten actual experience for another 4-8 years and then run at that time.

this is just more of the same old sh*t. Obama is a nobel peace prize war monger. its a farce he won the award. he is no different than bush.

reply to post by Sean48


It doesn't prove anything other than his "stash" might be low.

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by Sean48

 

It doesn't prove anything other than his "stash" might be low.

His stash is actually a loan from Vinny the loan shark (China), and the Vig is running......