$2.7 Trillion to Protect America

Unless someone can show me what we have accomplished.

Ok…
Saddam has been captured. …but Osama Bin Laden is still walking and what does Saddam has anything to do with 9/11?

Iraqis voted for the first time, but it was all a front when the ‘president’ was already chosen in D.C. or do you think they would have risked for any insugents to become the president?

Soldiers still die in Iraq and not to mention all the civilians. Insurgents are still fighting with full force. Besides the votes, NO I have’t seen any progress.

This is year 2006! I definitely expect much more results than this.

Besides all that, we are, at this point, ‘occupying’ Iraq based a reason that is totally different from the initial reason when we first invaded Iraq.

And now we are talking about another possible Iran invasion. Really though, what does all this have anything to do with terrorists. All I see is the government is getting away with things by telling so-called facts to people to believe in so they could have our support.

WOW! With this type of spirit, you all should join the military. They sure could need you. There is no reason to recruit low-income kids fresh out of high school to go die in Iraq. I’m serious sign up tomorrow!

I think there was a thread on this…or similar to it.

They’re cutting social welfare programs and dumping money into the armed forces. Typical Republican administration, with the neocon emphasis on the military. Hopefully they’ll be gone soon.

I don’t agree with anything they are doing here. I understand your points Brown Sugar…even agree with a good many. You just have to realize that many of these things have been hashed out time and again…the bashing you’re taking from the conservatives on this site doesn’t represent everyone.

I think I argue politics so much that sometimes I can’t help much on threads like this. What certain guys refer to as “funding lazyness” is just a basic idealogical difference in the way the government should function, and exactly what it responsibilities are. Alot of times that can’t be worked past around here.

Brown Sugar: What do you think our budget should be? We’re a nation of 300 million dollars with a 11 trillion+ dollar economy. IT IS GOING TO BE MASSIVE.

Dont get me wrong, i think we’re spending way too much, but our budget is going to be absolutely staggering no matter what we do.

Most of the money is for MAKING AMERICA RUN.

BS:

You keep trying to say this is a war in Iraq about 9-11. You are wrong.

It happen that after we ousted the dictator, the terrorists cam in.

Simple truth here is that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us there.

The focus turned from ousing the dictator and establishing a peoples government to fighting terrorism and establishing a peoples based Govt.

This is where we are at and has nothing to do with 9-11, but you all need something to bitch about, so there it is.

I’m with Brown Sugar on this one.

I’d rather die in a terrorist attack (or die trying to stop one as a civillian) than live in a Police state.

Besides - there wouldn’t BE any terrorist attacks on the US if we didn’t insist on occupying and meddling with every friggin’ middle east affair.

Why did we lose in Vietnam? us = fighting because we were told to. them = fighting for something they believed in so strongly that they didn’t care if they died, or how much they had to lose to get it.

when someone’s got nothing to lose, they’re a VERY dangerous enemy. the “war on terror” is a fucking joke.

[quote]Diomede wrote:
Brown Sugar: What do you think our budget should be? We’re a nation of 300 million dollars with a 11 trillion+ dollar economy. IT IS GOING TO BE MASSIVE.

Dont get me wrong, i think we’re spending way too much, but our budget is going to be absolutely staggering no matter what we do.

Most of the money is for MAKING AMERICA RUN.

[/quote]

what our budget should be spent on??? Are you serious?!?!

Let me put in this term since people tend to love the word ‘WAR’:

War On Poverty

War On Illiteracy

War On Corrupted Voting System

War On Global Warming

War On getting back social security fund

War On White Collars stealing from people

War On ‘Chimp’

Whatever you name it. America has enough domestic problems. As I said, budget for defending the country is neccessary, but so is other stuff as well.

Ever wonder why no one ever want to fuck with Canada, Australia or any other countries in Europe!?

Mentioning Europe, damn, the EUROS are kicking US Dollars ass! You know, soon petrochemicals will traded in Euros? Talking about we are hurting right now. …I’m not talking about Bush and his friend Halliburton, but us…normal people like us.

[quote]knewsom wrote:
Besides - there wouldn’t BE any terrorist attacks on the US if we didn’t insist on occupying and meddling with every friggin’ middle east affair.

“war on terror” is a fucking joke.[/quote]

You live in fantasyland? Berkely maybe?

9-11 happened BEFORE we occupied anything. Your point has no validity.

If you think this is a joke then I’m truly upset that you are US citizen.

Dammit, put that money in healthcare where it belongs. What is wrong with you people.

And legislate that all schools must sell Grow! bars. Invest in future health of the nation

[quote]Brown_Sugar wrote:
Diomede wrote:
Brown Sugar: What do you think our budget should be? We’re a nation of 300 million dollars with a 11 trillion+ dollar economy. IT IS GOING TO BE MASSIVE.

Dont get me wrong, i think we’re spending way too much, but our budget is going to be absolutely staggering no matter what we do.

Most of the money is for MAKING AMERICA RUN.

what our budget should be spent on??? Are you serious?!?!

Let me put in this term since people tend to love the word ‘WAR’:

War On Poverty

War On Illiteracy

War On Corrupted Voting System

War On Global Warming

War On getting back social security fund

War On White Collars stealing from people

War On ‘Chimp’

Whatever you name it. America has enough domestic problems. As I said, budget for defending the country is neccessary, but so is other stuff as well.

Ever wonder why no one ever want to fuck with Canada, Australia or any other countries in Europe!?

Mentioning Europe, damn, the EUROS are kicking US Dollars ass! You know, soon petrochemicals will traded in Euros? Talking about we are hurting right now. …I’m not talking about Bush and his friend Halliburton, but us…normal people like us. [/quote]

Ha ha…this is funny.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
BS:

You keep trying to say this is a war in Iraq about 9-11. You are wrong.[/quote]

BUT wasn’t this what our president used as a reason to invade Iraq?! Iraq was seen as a threat to world peace. Iraq has WMD. Iraq has a link to terrorism and whatever else they want to us to believe.
You don’t recall? How could you forget?

If I was right, according to you, the president lied to us. but I guess in your book it is ok.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

It happen that after we ousted the dictator, the terrorists cam in.[/quote]

uuuhhh…huh???..came in?! came in where? Iraq?? The Shiites have always been there and so other insurgent groups. Saddam was, simply put, keeping all of them in check.

And has anyone ever thought about how you would react if some other country invade America or whatever you are from? wouldn’t grap a gun and fight them off your country?!

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Simple truth here is that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us there. [/quote]

Says who? FOX news?! Have you been to Iraq?

Really though, if they really want us there, why are we still having this war?

[quote]Rockscar wrote:The focus turned from ousing the dictator and establishing a peoples government to fighting terrorism and establishing a peoples based Govt.

This is where we are at and has nothing to do with 9-11, but you all need something to bitch about, so there it is.[/quote]

No, we are there because of OIL! OIL OIL OIL and OIL.

Not because of WMD(fukkit N. Korea admitted to produce nuclear weapon, but ummm…yeah, all of a sudden we need to be doplomatic about it) or because of freeing Iraqis. If you believe this ish, sorry, Cinderella is probably real for you.

Civilian Iraqi people are pretty much in the same boat as the 9/11 victims and their family. The boat that no one gives a fukk about.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
knewsom wrote:
Besides - there wouldn’t BE any terrorist attacks on the US if we didn’t insist on occupying and meddling with every friggin’ middle east affair.

“war on terror” is a fucking joke.

You live in fantasyland? Berkely maybe?

9-11 happened BEFORE we occupied anything. Your point has no validity.

If you think this is a joke then I’m truly upset that you are US citizen. [/quote]

I just want to intercede here. Pete Hamill wrote this article in January of 2001 (he is a famous writer/journalist from NYC).

Pete Hamill on the Bush Presidency
Published in Letras Libres

January 2001

The coming presidency of George W. Bush should fill intelligent people with fear and trembling. It was one thing to have presidents stained with illegitimacy in the 19th century; it is quite another to have an illegitimate president in full possession of the mightiest military machine in the history of the world. Rutherford B. Hayes, a mediocrity who lost the popular vote and became president in 1888, did not have the hydrogen bomb.

The bizarre circumstances that brought Bush to the White House will be examined by historians for many years. But we should all be worried right now, in present time. Here is the basic problem: Bush will try to be president in circumstances that make almost all domestic movement impossible.

The Congress is split almost exactly in half. The Republicans ? the only true ideologues in the 21st century United States ? will be frustrated in their attempts to impose fundamentalist Christian beliefs on a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation. The Democrats ? who still believe in the ability of a nation to repair its social inequities – will be unable to move any of their own mildly liberal agenda .

The imams of the Republican Party from the South and Midwest will continue to see the presence of the Great Satan among the Democrats. And many Democrats will continue to be unforgiving for the vicious Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton. The result: impasse.

Bush will then be tempted to do what most American presidents do when they can?t make anything happen at home. He will look beyond the borders of the United States. That is, he will try to find some small nation to beat up, wrap the assault in flowery idealistic language, and thus try to look presidential.

He will talk about sacrifice and honor, and the brave American fighting man. He will try to force unity upon the fractious Congress. He will cite his rise in public opinion polls as proof of his wisdom and his ?courage?.

In that spirit, John F. Kennedy ? who won his 1960 election by a mere 100,000 popular votes ? allowed the Bay of Pigs operation to go forward, and sent the first substantial numbers of troops into Vietnam. Ronald Reagan was content to beat up Grenada while creating and funding (illegally) the Contra War in Nicaragua.

Bush the Father went after Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War and killed 2000 human beings in Panama to arrest Manuel Noriega in the bloodiest drug bust in world history.

It?s unlikely that George W. Bush will be more prudent than his predecessors. Many Americans, led by cartoonists and comedians, believe that Bush ? in spite of degrees from Yale and Harvard ? is a bit of a dunce. During the campaign, his advisers wisely kept him away from reporters who might ask tough questions; they packaged him shrewdly, preventing all possibilities of spontaneity.

In the 36 uncertain days after the election, he looked more uncertain than ever, while Daddy?s Boys (James Baker, Dick Cheney and others) showed up to handle the tough battle over Florida. In fact, George W. looked eerily like an American Dauphin, a forlorn rich kid in over his head, eyes blinking anxiously in his few public appearances like a POW in the Hanoi Hilton sending secret messages in Morse code.

The basic message seemed to be: ?How do I get out of this??

In a sensible nation, Bush would be forced to create a coalition government, dumping Cheney (who has had four heart attacks) for a Democrat, forming a cabinet with Democrats in some of the most important jobs. Again, this is unlikely. The Republican ideologues would abandon him; the Democrats want him to fail.

So we should be prepared for armed melodrama. Bush is not a worldly man. His father was head of the CIA, ambassador to China, and president of the United States. The son stayed home. During the Vietnam War, he hurried into the Texas National Guard, defending the skies over Houston.

He has visited only two foreign countries, one of them Mexico (the other seems to have slipped his mind). He was the first presidential candidate in memory who needed briefings about geography.

But he knows where Iraq is, and is completely aware of what his father failed to do in that country: remove Saddam Hussein. A son in rivalry with a father can be a very dangerous man. To show “leadership”, the new President Bush might defy the European allies of the United States, and risk another oil crisis, by seizing on some slight -?real or imagined ? to finish off Saddam Hussein.

He would thus force his father to admire him and get a boost in the public opinion polls.

Bush could also let his eyes drift to our own hemisphere. He is the tenth president to deal with Fidel Castro (an incredible fact in itself). Under pressure from the Cuban exiles of Miami, who helped him ?win? Florida, he might be tempted to step up the pressure, fund an internal revolt (in the style of the Contra War), and then step in militarily to support the ?forces of freedom?. But Cuba is not the only possibility.

Much more dangerous is Colombia. Bush would be able to tell his domestic audience that the alliance of the FARC and the narcotraficantes ?will not stand.? He would blame Colombian Marxists ? the perfect opponents – for the drug problem in the United States, rather than those millions of American who insist on paying money to get stupefied on cocaine. (It is widely believed that among those millions of cocaine users was the young George W. Bush).

Instead of initiating a vast drug rehabilitation program in the U.S., he could expand the war in Colombia. He would be told my his advisers that such a war would unite his fractured country; drug rehabilitation would end up on page 17 of the newspaper.

Alas, an expanded war in Colombia would almost certainly lead to an Andean War, with guerrillas rising everywhere, driven by nationalism rather than Marxism. As should have been learned from Vietnam, nothing unites a people more effectively than the presence of foreign soldiers.

An Andean War could be a calamity for everyone in the region. American troops would be back in Panama to ?protect the Canal?, and to deny refuge to guerrilla cadres (and the narco-bankers). Peru is already shaky; the military could be tempted to get rid of democracy ?because of the emergency?. Every nation in the hemisphere, starting with Mexico, would be pressured to take sides.

I hope none of that happens. I hope Bush resists all such temptations. But in 2002 the United States will have Congressional elections. The Democratic Party, bitter over the presidential election, will turn out every possible vote in order to seize control of Congress. The Dauphin will be under intense pressure from his advisers to do something dramatic. We should all be prepared for the sight of corpses.

http://www.petehamill.com/

This man has watched politics since the 1940s, and he is incredibly smart. Actually Rockscar, you would probably like his memoir, A Drinking Life, its phenomenal (no politics in it either).

Anyway, its humourous how the “War on Terror” has followed suspiciously just like the course that Hamill laid out. This was written pre- 9/11 also…I remember reading it long ago and not thinking that any of it could happen.

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I’m with Brown Sugar on this one.

I’d rather die in a terrorist attack (or die trying to stop one as a civillian) than live in a Police state.

Besides - there wouldn’t BE any terrorist attacks on the US if we didn’t insist on occupying and meddling with every friggin’ middle east affair.

Why did we lose in Vietnam? us = fighting because we were told to. them = fighting for something they believed in so strongly that they didn’t care if they died, or how much they had to lose to get it.

when someone’s got nothing to lose, they’re a VERY dangerous enemy. the “war on terror” is a fucking joke.[/quote]

GOOD OR BAD is objective. For them , we might as well be their terrorists and the AXIL of EVIL.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
9-11 happened BEFORE we occupied anything. Your point has no validity.

[/quote]

hello!!! Have you heard of the term ‘STEPPING STONES’???

On top of what Hamill said, the recent events in Bolivia are even closer to what he predicted.

The US wants to burn out the cocoa fields, and a true grassroots populist movement elected Eva Morales, a leader of the farmers and the candidate of the Movement Towards Socialism Party (EAS). He is extremely anti-Washington.

All I am saying is that it is not only the Middle East that looks at us as imperialists. Radical Islam may be one of the greatest threats to freedom that men have ever seen.

But when secular leftists take over South America, in defiance of what Washington wants, and in order to piss them off- we have a problem here.

EDIT- For those of you who are new to the politics forum, I am a secular lefist also.

[quote]Brown_Sugar wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
BS:

You keep trying to say this is a war in Iraq about 9-11. You are wrong.

BUT wasn’t this what our president used as a reason to invade Iraq?! Iraq was seen as a threat to world peace. Iraq has WMD. Iraq has a link to terrorism and whatever else they want to us to believe.
You don’t recall? How could you forget?

If I was right, according to you, the president lied to us. but I guess in your book it is ok.

Rockscar wrote:

It happen that after we ousted the dictator, the terrorists cam in.

uuuhhh…huh???..came in?! came in where? Iraq?? The Shiites have always been there and so other insurgent groups. Saddam was, simply put, keeping all of them in check.

And has anyone ever thought about how you would react if some other country invade America or whatever you are from? wouldn’t grap a gun and fight them off your country?!

Rockscar wrote:
Simple truth here is that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us there.

Says who? FOX news?! Have you been to Iraq?

Really though, if they really want us there, why are we still having this war?

Rockscar wrote:The focus turned from ousing the dictator and establishing a peoples government to fighting terrorism and establishing a peoples based Govt.

This is where we are at and has nothing to do with 9-11, but you all need something to bitch about, so there it is.

No, we are there because of OIL! OIL OIL OIL and OIL.

Not because of WMD(fukkit N. Korea admitted to produce nuclear weapon, but ummm…yeah, all of a sudden we need to be doplomatic about it) or because of freeing Iraqis. If you believe this ish, sorry, Cinderella is probably real for you.

Civilian Iraqi people are pretty much in the same boat as the 9/11 victims and their family. The boat that no one gives a fukk about.
[/quote]

I’ll come back to this later, I’m going home, anyone care to fill in for me?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
On top of what Hamill said, the recent events in Bolivia are even closer to what he predicted.

The US wants to burn out the cocoa fields, and a true grassroots populist movement elected Eva Morales, a leader of the farmers and the candidate of the Movement Towards Socialism Party (EAS). He is extremely anti-Washington.

All I am saying is that it is not only the Middle East that looks at us as imperialists. Radical Islam may be one of the greatest threats to freedom that men have ever seen.

But when secular leftists take over South America, in defiance of what Washington wants, and in order to piss them off- we have a problem here.[/quote]

interesting point!

[quote]Brown_Sugar wrote:
Diomede wrote:
Brown Sugar: What do you think our budget should be? We’re a nation of 300 million dollars with a 11 trillion+ dollar economy. IT IS GOING TO BE MASSIVE.

Dont get me wrong, i think we’re spending way too much, but our budget is going to be absolutely staggering no matter what we do.

Most of the money is for MAKING AMERICA RUN.

what our budget should be spent on??? Are you serious?!?!

Let me put in this term since people tend to love the word ‘WAR’:

War On Poverty

War On Illiteracy

War On Corrupted Voting System

War On Global Warming

War On getting back social security fund

War On White Collars stealing from people

War On ‘Chimp’

Whatever you name it. America has enough domestic problems. As I said, budget for defending the country is neccessary, but so is other stuff as well.

Ever wonder why no one ever want to fuck with Canada, Australia or any other countries in Europe!?

Mentioning Europe, damn, the EUROS are kicking US Dollars ass! You know, soon petrochemicals will traded in Euros? Talking about we are hurting right now. …I’m not talking about Bush and his friend Halliburton, but us…normal people like us. [/quote]

you do realize that the 2.77 trillion is FOR EVERYTHING THAT MAKES THIS COUNTRY RUN, right?

How is this stuff NOT necessary? As for not fucking with Europe…heard about the shit in spain? the bombing in london? the bali shit(affected australia?).

You sound like a very, very ignorant person. I think you need to educate yourself on something.

[quote]Brown_Sugar wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
9-11 happened BEFORE we occupied anything. Your point has no validity.

hello!!! Have you heard of the term ‘STEPPING STONES’???
[/quote]

Osama said 9/11 happened because we were in the holy land. We were in Saudi Arabia AT THEIR REQUEST to fight against iraq in 1991…a UN war.

as for minding our own business? When the rest of the world can live in fucking peace, maybe.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I think there was a thread on this…or similar to it.

They’re cutting social welfare programs and dumping money into the armed forces. Typical Republican administration, with the neocon emphasis on the military. Hopefully they’ll be gone soon.
[/quote]

Hang on a sec, Irish. I think you and I both know that the problem with the “headlines” on things these days is you will hear something like “MEDICARE TO BE CUT TO FUND DEFENSE!” which is a pretty loaded statement. What exactly are they discussing cutting?

It reminds me of something I was reading today where the new House Majority Leader, John Boehner, was criticized because of a plan he supported which “cut funding to student loans”.

At first blush it sounds like he wants to screw students trying to pay their way through schools, when in reality it was a cut to subsidies given to private banks to entice them into providing loans to students through the federal programs (something that is no longer needed given the amount of competition these days in the loan market).

Just a thought.