$1B in One week goes to Russia and Syria. Guess what US CITIZENS get????

[Wiseone]

I saw a lot of hinds in the junkyards around Iraq.

I am sure we can mimic the hind and sell it to them. We talk about creating jobs...700m creates a lot of jobs.

Sure it would be possible, but it would cost a lot more to make the helicopters, firstly because no factory in the US is designed to built Hind Helicopters, it would require the building of a whole complex to build this one product this one time. That'll drive up the cost. It would also violate international patents, something the US is currently trying to get other nations not to do.

And no contractor is going to support the Afghan Army if they are flying "boot leg" helicopters and even if they were to sell them parts, and assuming we copied the design perfectly so they worked, they certainly aren't going to give a warrenty on something they didn't build.

 

[Blue_State]

Sure it would be possible, but it would cost a lot more to make the helicopters, firstly because no factory in the US is designed to built Hind Helicopters, it would require the building of a whole complex to build this one product this one time. That'll drive up the cost. It would also violate international patents, something the US is currently trying to get other nations not to do.

And no contractor is going to support the Afghan Army if they are flying "boot leg" helicopters and even if they were to sell them parts, and assuming we copied the design perfectly so they worked, they certainly aren't going to give a warrenty on something they didn't build.

I get where you are coming from and it is a great point. We should make part of the deal that a portion of the production happens on US soil.

We talk jobs a lot in this country. Sending 700m to another country doesn't seem like the best answer. We should encourage that money to stay in the US.

 

[blaxshep]

What is the difference?

USA is not supposed to go to war without a Declaration of War from congress. The Authorization to Use of Military force is the new way of going to war unconstitutionally.

Not having a formal declaration of war has allowed for a very loose definition of whom the enemy would be. In the Authorization of Force in Iraq, we have defined the enemy as "terrorists". This is troubling because of the loose definition of what a terrorist is. A formal declaration would require a definition of the actual group of people with whom we are going to war. The also opens the door for and endless Authorization of force. Additionally, without a formal declaration, we are able to fund the war "off the books".

More importantly a formal declaration of war imprints the seriousness of armed conflict in the minds of people. This in turn makes them question the need to actually go to war. Can you imagine easy acceptance of Congress actually proclaiming "we the people have decided to go to war with Iraq!" when they had not attacked us? It somehow sounds much more clear, unsettling, and serious than "enforcement of UN resolutions". Formally declared wars are likely to end faster for this reason, as public sentiment will be against it. As Dr. Paul says "Fight it. Win it. And get it over with."

There is also issues of active reserves and the draft which are avoided by "Authorization" which led to a shortage of troops requiring enlistment extensions which actually violates the military contracts signed in good faith by those in active military.

 

[Blue_State]

USA is not supposed to go to war without a Declaration of War from congress. The Authorization to Use of Military force is the new way of going to war unconstitutionally.

Not having a formal declaration of war has allowed for a very loose definition of whom the enemy would be. In the Authorization of Force in Iraq, we have defined the enemy as "terrorists". This is troubling because of the loose definition of what a terrorist is. A formal declaration would require a definition of the actual group of people with whom we are going to war. The also opens the door for and endless Authorization of force. Additionally, without a formal declaration, we are able to fund the war "off the books".

More importantly a formal declaration of war imprints the seriousness of armed conflict in the minds of people. This in turn makes them question the need to actually go to war. Can you imagine easy acceptance of Congress actually proclaiming "we the people have decided to go to war with Iraq!" when they had not attacked us? It somehow sounds much more clear, unsettling, and serious than "enforcement of UN resolutions". Formally declared wars are likely to end faster for this reason, as public sentiment will be against it. As Dr. Paul says "Fight it. Win it. And get it over with."

There is also issues of active reserves and the draft which are avoided by "Authorization" which led to a shortage of troops requiring enlistment extensions which actually violates the military contracts signed in good faith by those in active military.

I was unaware that there was such a significant difference. Thanks for the info.

 

[notquiteright]

Ah I see. So when Bush war-mongers, he's a monster, but when Obama war-mongers, it's all good. I tend to think both warlords are pieces of ****. Maybe we should worry about the problems in our own country.

Ummm where has Obama presented 'yellow cake' or secret meetings between al-Queera and whoever? Where is his centrifuge tubes that are really 122mm rocket bodies? Point to the people in his cabinet who gave aid and comfort to whoever you think Obama is mongering now. Point to the speech where VP Biden says if there is a 1% chance of a nation being a threat to us we reserve the right to attack them preemptively and unilaterally.

BushII was not a monster, he was an idiot who bought into a neo-con fantasy. He then tried to pray away the fray. BushII was no warlord, more like a sock puppet...

I don't see both as the same when it comes to war mongering.

 

[Spriggs05]

Its about sustainability, American military helicopters cost more to purchase and to maintain than Russian helicopters, especially in that part of the world.

It makes sense since Russia/Former Soviet Bloc countries are closer than America, cutting down shipping costs for body and parts. The Russian equipment is meant to be rugged and hardy rather than high tech, perfect for 3rd world/ developing countries

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Ummm where has Obama presented 'yellow cake' or secret meetings between al-Queera and whoever? Where is his centrifuge tubes that are really 122mm rocket bodies? Point to the people in his cabinet who gave aid and comfort to whoever you think Obama is mongering now. Point to the speech where VP Biden says if there is a 1% chance of a nation being a threat to us we reserve the right to attack them preemptively and unilaterally.

BushII was not a monster, he was an idiot who bought into a neo-con fantasy. He then tried to pray away the fray. BushII was no warlord, more like a sock puppet...

I don't see both as the same when it comes to war mongering.

I don't know who Al-Queera is, or have any idea what you're talking about with the other things. Obama has shown he is just as reckless with spending as Bush, and cares just as little for the constitution and world peace.

Sorry to bash your idol.

 

[blaxshep]

I don't see both as the same when it comes to war mongering.

Yea, Just because they are both doing the same thing doesn't mean anything.

 

[notquiteright]

I don't know who Al-Queera is, or have any idea what you're talking about with the other things. Obama has shown he is just as reckless with spending as Bush, and cares just as little for the constitution and world peace.

Sorry to bash your idol.

He ain't my idol and you didn't bash him, just made a few vague unsupported statements.

WAR MONGER- you brought it up...BushII and his cronies played fast and loose, which is polite for lied like rugs, with the 'facts' leading to invading Iraq. THAT is war mongering. Show us where Obama has done the same?

Spending ain't war mongering.. :roll:

What is obama doing that hurts world peace?

What is he doing that shows he cares as little as BushII about the Constitution?

vague arm waving don't cut it.... eace

 

[blaxshep]

He ain't my idol and you didn't bash him, just made a few vague unsupported statements.

WAR MONGER- you brought it up...BushII and his cronies played fast and loose, which is polite for lied like rugs, with the 'facts' leading to invading Iraq. THAT is war mongering. Show us where Obama has done the same?

Spending ain't war mongering.. :roll:

What is obama doing that hurts world peace?

What is he doing that shows he cares as little as BushII about the Constitution?

vague arm waving don't cut it.... eace

Afghanistan is war mongering and just as much a violation of the constitution as Iraq was.

As for hurting world peace try reading this on Afghanistan alone, everything after 2008 are Obama civilian casualties:

Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001

 

[notquiteright]

Afghanistan is war mongering and just as much a violation of the constitution as Iraq was.

As for hurting world peace try reading this on Afghanistan alone, everything after 2008 are Obama civilian casualties:

Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001

I don't think I can twist my head enough to see BushII attacking Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring the mastermind of 9-11 was given safe haven there on the same plane as deciding to attack Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. They are 'as' by any means.

I suppose Obama is in the same place Nixon was after LBJ got us into Vietnam. How to get out with any sort of prestige left. If we race right out after the election the Taliban would have filled the vacuum quickly, bloodily and the 'conservatives' would be beside themselves decrying how we abandoned an ally like they do the fall of Siagon in '75. frankly if it was a Republican in office now I doubt the cries about staying in Afghanistan would be from the right at all. More like 'finish the job' 'stay the course' 'dont cut n run'... :roll:

I personally don't see how world peace is being affected by Afghanistan, an out of the way nation that few even knew about before 9-11. World Peace was far more affected by a war in an oil rich region and crippling a protective buffer state like Iraq so Iran could grow more powerful in the region.

Fighting in Afghanistan was seen as revenge for 9-11, in Iraq as a war on Muslims and a grab for Muslim oil.

Now according to the UN 14% or so of the casualties are from NATO forces. last year approx 200 civilians died in NATO battles/airstrikes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think drones are solving more problems than they create, I just don't see them as unConstitutional.

Now WAR MONGERING would be if President Obama suddenly started producing 'evidence' of yellow cake in Damascus, or centrifuge parts intercepted in Europe. If he suddenly had a stream of 'witnesses' claiming to see Syrian government troops looting new born hospital wards and throwing babies in the ground (do you remember the false testimony a Kuwaiti Girl gave before Congress before Gulf War I???)

You have an odd definition of war mongering.... eace

 

[blaxshep]

I don't think I can twist my head enough to see BushII attacking Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring the mastermind of 9-11 was given safe haven there on the same plane as deciding to attack Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. They are 'as' by any means.

I suppose Obama is in the same place Nixon was after LBJ got us into Vietnam. How to get out with any sort of prestige left. If we race right out after the election the Taliban would have filled the vacuum quickly, bloodily and the 'conservatives' would be beside themselves decrying how we abandoned an ally like they do the fall of Siagon in '75. frankly if it was a Republican in office now I doubt the cries about staying in Afghanistan would be from the right at all. More like 'finish the job' 'stay the course' 'dont cut n run'... :roll:

I personally don't see how world peace is being affected by Afghanistan, an out of the way nation that few even knew about before 9-11. World Peace was far more affected by a war in an oil rich region and crippling a protective buffer state like Iraq so Iran could grow more powerful in the region.

Fighting in Afghanistan was seen as revenge for 9-11, in Iraq as a war on Muslims and a grab for Muslim oil.

Now according to the UN 14% or so of the casualties are from NATO forces. last year approx 200 civilians died in NATO battles/airstrikes.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think drones are solving more problems than they create, I just don't see them as unConstitutional.

Now WAR MONGERING would be if President Obama suddenly started producing 'evidence' of yellow cake in Damascus, or centrifuge parts intercepted in Europe. If he suddenly had a stream of 'witnesses' claiming to see Syrian government troops looting new born hospital wards and throwing babies in the ground (do you remember the false testimony a Kuwaiti Girl gave before Congress before Gulf War I???)

You have an odd definition of war mongering.... eace

Well you are either for war or against it, if Obama really was the peace prize winning humanitarian he pretends to be he would have closed gitmo and brought the troops home regardless of what the right said about it. You may call it an odd definition but the reality is there is not much of a line between "producing evidence" and making excuses to escalate. Like it or not Obama has spent a full percentage point of GDP more perpetuating the wars bush started and then, in fact, starting more.

 

[notquiteright]

Well you are either for war or against it, if Obama really was the peace prize winning humanitarian he pretends to be he would have closed gitmo and brought the troops home regardless of what the right said about it. You may call it an odd definition but the reality is there is not much of a line between "producing evidence" and making excuses to escalate. Like it or not Obama has spent a full percentage point of GDP more perpetuating the wars bush started and then, in fact, starting more.

Again you have a funny way of looking at things... for or against, just like BushII after 9-11. It isn't for or against war. Some wars like WWII are thrust upon you and some are ones you decide to launch and will say/do anything to make it happen. BushII had no business trying to turn Afghanistan into a nation building project. A nice new school doesn't mean girls will attend it.

I am not pro war, but when my turn came I went even if not a 'popular' war. Oh you are naive or just outright being fake as a hooker's smile to think Obama could 'just bring the troops home'. Yeah Gitmo is a disappointment, it should have been closed.

Give me a place to see where Obama has escalated the wars BushII started, I can't find anyone claiming that...... but you. What new wars is he starting?

 

[Born Free]

Again you have a funny way of looking at things... for or against, just like BushII after 9-11. It isn't for or against war. Some wars like WWII are thrust upon you and some are ones you decide to launch and will say/do anything to make it happen. BushII had no business trying to turn Afghanistan into a nation building project. A nice new school doesn't mean girls will attend it.

I am not pro war, but when my turn came I went even if not a 'popular' war. Oh you are naive or just outright being fake as a hooker's smile to think Obama could 'just bring the troops home'. Yeah Gitmo is a disappointment, it should have been closed.

Give me a place to see where Obama has escalated the wars BushII started, I can't find anyone claiming that...... but you. What new wars is he starting?

Obama bombed the crap out of Libya for oil. Hows that. And it was he that escalated the war in Afghanistan, not stop it as he promised. How's that? He also promised to close Clubgetmo the worst recruiting tool AQ ever had according to the left. So I guess it's still the biggest recruiting tool for AQ. But you never hear that anymore, from the left

 

[notquiteright]

Obama bombed the crap out of Libya for oil. Hows that. And it was he that escalated the war in Afghanistan, not stop it as he promised. How's that? He also promised to close Clubgetmo the worst recruiting tool AQ ever had according to the left. So I guess it's still the biggest recruiting tool for AQ. But you never hear that anymore, from the left

Bombed the crap out of Libya for oil... where is that oil? Last I heard there was plenty of crap still in Libya...

But I can't find where our planes bombed any targets in Libya, perhaps a few air defense facilities but no massive bombing raids like 'Shock and Awwww' of the Invasion of Iraq. But do tell...

Escalated Afghanistan... perhaps you mean put enough troops in FINALLY take the fight to the insurgents rather than the 19,000 BushII left stranded to go invade for oil Iraq. but do tell us how many are still there?

Now please tell me how many troops are still in Iraq, that hot mess BushII was talked into by the Neo-cons...

And yes Gitmo should have been closed years ago. (It never should have been opened)

 

[Born Free]

=notquiteright;1061948967]Bombed the crap out of Libya for oil... where is that oil? Last I heard there was plenty of crap still in Libya...

Your right where is that oil? But better than that why did we spend a dime to do anything in Libya? Obama wars for oil.

But I can't find where our planes bombed any targets in Libya, perhaps a few air defense facilities but no massive bombing raids like 'Shock and Awwww' of the Invasion of Iraq. But do tell...

Yeah do tell

Escalated Afghanistan... perhaps you mean put enough troops in FINALLY take the fight to the insurgents rather than the 19,000 BushII left stranded to go invade for oil Iraq. but do tell us how many are still there?

Are you kidding me, Obama lost the war in Afghanistan, even with is extended war with more troops. Obama is a failure, Putin tell Obama what to do as well as everybody else. At least Bush handed Obama a war that was won and Obama ****ed that up.

Now please tell me how many troops are still in Iraq, that hot mess BushII was talked into by the Neo-cons...

I repeat, Bush handed Obama a won war in Iraq and he ****ed it up to the point it's now a slaughter house.

And yes Gitmo should have been closed years ago. (It never should have been opened)

Well of course, instead of taking prisoners, Obama kills them. He captures no one for intel but kills them instead of sending them to Clubgetmo. And while he kills them he also kills civilians, yes innocent people, Obama murders. Of course to you liberals murdering people, even innocent people is more humane than taking them prisoner and getting intelligence.

Try this from one of Obama's mentors

Bill Ayers: Try Obama for war crimes

 

[notquiteright]

Your right where is that oil? But better than that why did we spend a dime to do anything in Libya? Obama wars for oil. Yeah do tell Are you kidding me, Obama lost the war in Afghanistan, even with is extended war with more troops. Obama is a failure, Putin tell Obama what to do as well as everybody else. At least Bush handed Obama a war that was won and Obama ****ed that up. I repeat, Bush handed Obama a won war in Iraq and he ****ed it up to the point it's now a slaughter house. Well of course, instead of taking prisoners, Obama kills them. He captures no one for intel but kills them instead of sending them to Clubgetmo. And while he kills them he also kills civilians, yes innocent people, Obama murders. Of course to you liberals murdering people, even innocent people is more humane than taking them prisoner and getting intelligence.

Try this from one of Obama's mentors

Bill Ayers: Try Obama for war crimes

I love how twisted you are on this. The Neo-cons claimed they could plant seeds of democracy in the desert and have the 'host nation' pay for it with oil... NOT Obama.

Again where did the USofA bomb the crap out of Libya? 'yeah do tell' isn't a place on the map!

BushII didn't win any war. He bribed the Sunnis long enough to get out of office, one thing the 'conservatives' fail to mention is the 'surge' was also a surge of money into the Sunni enclaves. your 'logic' is the same as saying Nixon lost Vietnam...

There was no way any foreign army was going to 'win' in Afghanistan, no outside force ever has. 'Conservatives' ignore history to cuddle with their sense of exceptionalism.

Most in gitmo are not intel assets to our fight, they are wrong place wrong time men who have no information to give. Many were rounded up on some warlord's say-so. you should read 'Fear Up Harsh' by an army intel soldier stationed in Iraq. our 'system' of intel gathering was as useful as a broken clock. Plenty of actionable intel was taken over Osama's dead body as could have been extracted from him. Computer records and hard drives.

Funny how 'conservatives' shrug off civilian dead when their guy is in office but it is murder when their guy leaves... same as quoting Ayers who has been called an American terrorist, having him not happy with Obama should please you... but nothing seems to do that.

I have said repeatedly I believe the drone program causes more problems than it solves. I also don't think Seal Team 6 can pull a dozen rabbits out of the hat and be successful if we went to many more snatch raids. The pictures of Dead Seals being hung up and burned will not help our cause.

When it comes to who will be judged a war criminal I'll leave it at President BushII, VP Cheney, DoD Rumsfeld all seem afraid to leave the US for fear they will be arrested in other countries for war crimes. I don't think President Obama will be so restricted.

 

[Born Free]

I love how twisted you are on this. The Neo-cons claimed they could plant seeds of democracy in the desert and have the 'host nation' pay for it with oil... NOT Obama.

And why is Obama still in Afghanistan after all these yrs with more troops than ever?

Again where did the USofA bomb the crap out of Libya? 'yeah do tell' isn't a place on the map!

Are you saying Obama did not invade Libya?

BushII didn't win any war. He bribed the Sunnis long enough to get out of office, one thing the 'conservatives' fail to mention is the 'surge' was also a surge of money into the Sunni enclaves. your 'logic' is the same as saying Nixon lost Vietnam...

Of course he did and he handed it to Obama on a silver platter and Obama ****ed it up. Period

There was no way any foreign army was going to 'win' in Afghanistan, no outside force ever has. 'Conservatives' ignore history to cuddle with their sense of exceptionalism.

You should have told Obama that. But instead he added 30,000 troops to loose a war, that you say he could never win. Your right he lost this war and all the lives of our US men and woman fighting in Afghanistan.

Most in gitmo are not intel assets to our fight, they are wrong place wrong time men who have no information to give. Many were rounded up on some warlord's say-so. you should read 'Fear Up Harsh' by an army intel soldier stationed in Iraq. our 'system' of intel gathering was as useful as a broken clock. Plenty of actionable intel was taken over Osama's dead body as could have been extracted from him. Computer records and hard drives.

Most in Getmo were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just like Obama killing innocent people with his drones, people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Funny how 'conservatives' shrug off civilian dead when their guy is in office but it is murder when their guy leaves... same as quoting Ayers who has been called an American terrorist, having him not happy with Obama should please you... but nothing seems to do that.

Let me repeat you are the one that said Bush and his war crimes now you have one of Obama's brothers saying he should be tried for war crimes. But you libs just shrug it off

I have said repeatedly I believe the drone program causes more problems than it solves. I also don't think Seal Team 6 can pull a dozen rabbits out of the hat and be successful if we went to many more snatch raids. The pictures of Dead Seals being hung up and burned will not help our cause.

Tell that to your Obama.

When it comes to who will be judged a war criminal I'll leave it at President BushII, VP Cheney, DoD Rumsfeld all seem afraid to leave the US for fear they will be arrested in other countries for war crimes. I don't think President Obama will be so restricted.

Not according to Bill Ayers, it is Obama that is the war criminal killing innocent people and killing people rather than taking them captive and giving them a trial. No according to you libs murder is more humane that taking a person captive.

It always amazes me how you criticize Bush, but your Obama has done exactly the same thing, but he has taken it to a higher level. But as long as he does it, it's all OK. The hypocrisy.

 

[notquiteright]

And why is Obama still in Afghanistan after all these yrs with more troops than ever? Are you saying Obama did not invade Libya? Of course he did and he handed it to Obama on a silver platter and Obama ****ed it up. Period You should have told Obama that. But instead he added 30,000 troops to loose a war, that you say he could never win. Your right he lost this war and all the lives of our US men and woman fighting in Afghanistan. Most in Getmo were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just like Obama killing innocent people with his drones, people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Let me repeat you are the one that said Bush and his war crimes now you have one of Obama's brothers saying he should be tried for war crimes. But you libs just shrug it off Tell that to your Obama. Not according to Bill Ayers, it is Obama that is the war criminal killing innocent people and killing people rather than taking them captive and giving them a trial. No according to you libs murder is more humane that taking a person captive. It always amazes me how you criticize Bush, but your Obama has done exactly the same thing, but he has taken it to a higher level. But as long as he does it, it's all OK. The hypocrisy.

The USofA is finally leaving Afghanistan. That it took so long is more a function of 6 years of poor BushII management of the war, a very illconceived 'nation building' program and extremely low troop levels and priority. Iraq sucked the air out of our mission in Afghanistan.

The USofA didn't invade Libya.

BushII handed Obama Iraq on the graves of 4,488 good American soldiers, it wasn't a sliver platter. Again you are saying Nixon lost Vietnam because he ended the crap deal LBJ started.

I never got a chance to tell President Obama my views on the drone program, but in fairness President BushII never asked me either.

The true comparison is the shrug BushII supporters gave 'collateral damage' from the airstrikes done before Obama took office to the rather shrill calls of murder now. :roll:

It is odd to hear claims of an overly restrictive ROE AND murder caused by airstrikes called in by the troops. If President Obama was to end all airstrikes imagine the howls from the Right. Remember President Obama doesn't approve each air strike, the US Military in Afghanistan does.

Actually many more in much higher positions around the world are saying the BushII and his immediate cabinet should be tried for war crimes. Let's get THAT straight, it doesn't matter if my mom's first born or bill Ayers says something, it matters if the World Court is willing to try BushII and his staff. (And BushII and his running buddies seem aware of that difference because they travel the USofA rather freely but seem to be avoiding going outside of borders for fear of arrest and trial.)

See the difference?

 

[blaxshep]

See the difference?

The only difference is you blame one and praise the other for the exact same thing.

 

[notquiteright]

The only difference is you blame one and praise the other for the exact same thing.

More Right Wing spin. First you claim President Obama is spending more on wars than BushII, which is false. Care to guess what dept doubled in spending from 2005 to 2011? try the VA with a doubling from 70.1 B in 2005 to 141.4 B in 2011. That's paying for all the wounded veterans left behind in BushII's war of choice in Iraq.

Next the retrieval of all the equipment being withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan is expensive, what dribbled into those countries as the need for better protected equipment caused a log jam, now must be flown out of Afghanistan because it is a land locked nation.

Throw in the repair and replacement of equipment worn out by constant use and harsh conditions and you are beginning to see Obama and the American people have a heavy bill to pay cleaning up after BushII.

Now you claim I praise President Obama for drone strikes??? Point to where I did that??? The problem with some on the Radical Right is they invent an opposing position to argue against. I never praised Obama for drone strikes. :doh

But what is keeping BushII and his team on American Soil isn't drone strikes, it is the war of choice launched against Iraq. Iraq had nothing, I say again ZERO, to do with 9-11 or al-Queera.

But I am a fair man, if Obama starts ginning up half truths and outright lies about Syria trying to get the American people behind a massive invasion of Syria by USofA troops. If he sends the SoS to the UN with garbage 'intel' trying to convince the UN to sanction the invasion. If he sends his war mongers on Sunday Morning Talk Shows calling anyone opposed to the invasion a surrender monkey, unpatriotic, or part of the 'Hate America First' crowd...

Then I will denounce him like I did BushII BEFORE the Invasion of Iraq... yes I was one of those vets.

 

[blaxshep]

More Right Wing spin. First you claim President Obama is spending more on wars than BushII, which is false. Care to guess what dept doubled in spending from 2005 to 2011? try the VA with a doubling from 70.1 B in 2005 to 141.4 B in 2011. That's paying for all the wounded veterans left behind in BushII's war of choice in Iraq.

Next the retrieval of all the equipment being withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan is expensive, what dribbled into those countries as the need for better protected equipment caused a log jam, now must be flown out of Afghanistan because it is a land locked nation.

Throw in the repair and replacement of equipment worn out by constant use and harsh conditions and you are beginning to see Obama and the American people have a heavy bill to pay cleaning up after BushII.

Now you claim I praise President Obama for drone strikes??? Point to where I did that??? The problem with some on the Radical Right is they invent an opposing position to argue against. I never praised Obama for drone strikes. :doh

But what is keeping BushII and his team on American Soil isn't drone strikes, it is the war of choice launched against Iraq. Iraq had nothing, I say again ZERO, to do with 9-11 or al-Queera.

But I am a fair man, if Obama starts ginning up half truths and outright lies about Syria trying to get the American people behind a massive invasion of Syria by USofA troops. If he sends the SoS to the UN with garbage 'intel' trying to convince the UN to sanction the invasion. If he sends his war mongers on Sunday Morning Talk Shows calling anyone opposed to the invasion a surrender monkey, unpatriotic, or part of the 'Hate America First' crowd...

Then I will denounce him like I did BushII BEFORE the Invasion of Iraq... yes I was one of those vets.

The facts don't lie the numbers are in Obama is spending 1% of GDP MORE than Bush did get over it.

Who said anything about drones?

 

[notquiteright]

The facts don't lie the numbers are in Obama is spending 1% of GDP MORE than Bush did get over it.

Who said anything about drones?

And partial facts never tell the whole story, but then again the entire story doesn't work for the partisan Right crowd now does it???

I have noticed you don't really say much but vague accusations that when researched tend to fall apart... :2wave:

 

[blaxshep]

And partial facts never tell the whole story, but then again the entire story doesn't work for the partisan Right crowd now does it???

I have noticed you don't really say much but vague accusations that when researched tend to fall apart... :2wave:

President Obama's first defense budget, for fiscal year 2010, was $685.1 billion, if we include the "supplemental" funds for Afghanistan and Iraq (a budget gimmick he had promised not to use.) This was 3 percent higher than in the previous year.

The Obama administration upped the ante again for FY 2011, requesting a base budget of $548.9 billion, plus $159.3 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq, for a total of $708.3 billion.

The President has requested "only" $670.9 billion for fiscal year 2012 -- but the Department of Defense baseline request was actually raised from $548.9 billion to $553.1 billion. The overall decrease comes from a projected cut in operational costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yet, according to the Congressional Research Service, Afghanistan will still cost $113.7 billion compared to the $43.5 billion spent in 2008, President Bush's last year. Iraq will be much cheaper than before, but this decline was already in the works. In late 2008, President Bush signed an agreement setting the Iraq drawdown in motion. If anything, Obama has slowed down the withdrawal, and is now petitioning Iraq to stay past 2011.

The price of Obama's wars - Times Union

 

[notquiteright]

President Obama's first defense budget, for fiscal year 2010, was $685.1 billion, if we include the "supplemental" funds for Afghanistan and Iraq (a budget gimmick he had promised not to use.) This was 3 percent higher than in the previous year.

The Obama administration upped the ante again for FY 2011, requesting a base budget of $548.9 billion, plus $159.3 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq, for a total of $708.3 billion.

The President has requested "only" $670.9 billion for fiscal year 2012 -- but the Department of Defense baseline request was actually raised from $548.9 billion to $553.1 billion. The overall decrease comes from a projected cut in operational costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yet, according to the Congressional Research Service, Afghanistan will still cost $113.7 billion compared to the $43.5 billion spent in 2008, President Bush's last year. Iraq will be much cheaper than before, but this decline was already in the works. In late 2008, President Bush signed an agreement setting the Iraq drawdown in motion. If anything, Obama has slowed down the withdrawal, and is now petitioning Iraq to stay past 2011.

The price of Obama's wars - Times Union

Again you bring apples to a citrus festival. :roll:

Afghanistan should have been our one and only conflict, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and by going there BushII allowed Afghanistan to slid away. My opinion is Obama was too late to fix the mess, but if he didn't try the Republicans would say he just cut and run. So the cries of 'war monger' are a poor substitute for what the radical right wanted to chant.

The rise in spending should not shock you, BushII shorted Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. An increase was inevitable. 2011 was the high water mark, the end of our active fight and a transition to the Afghans securing their country. it borders on vulgar to claim Obama is a warmonger when the goal has always been to stand up the Afghans and stand down our troops. That BushII decided not to do that but starve USofA forces in Afghanistan isn't on Obama, he at least tried to correct the shameful neglect BushII engaged in so he could plant seeds in the deserts of Iraq.

You really should use sources more up to date, this is an opinion piece from 2 years ago.

Honestly the bitter Right really wanted President Obama to cut and run as soon as he was elected. That he didn't has some twisting reality until it snaps. Trying to accomplish the mission after so long a delay that the Taliban could recover, the warlords establish control of a new opium market and control of the countryside outside of Kabul. what hesitant gains in moving to the West have been rolled back not by the Taliban but by the Afghan government itself!

delays are deadly in combat. BushII delayed in Afghanistan. Face it the right would scream no matter what Obama did.