4 BILLION A MONTH!!!! What a worthless waste!

by ashitaka 37 Replies latest social current

  • ashitaka
    ashitaka

    This pisses me off so badly. Here I am, struggling just to survive and pay my bills, and they're wasting money on this worthless occupation. I have trouble buying my bread, I'm thinking of getting a pizza delivery job at night, and I'm a working professional who already leaves at 6 and gets home at 6, and they're spending FOUR BILLION dollars on this. I'm so pissed off.

    ash

    Rumsfeld: Iraq costing U.S. nearly $4 billion a month

    Senators question attacks on troops

    Wednesday, July 9, 2003 Posted: 6:07 PM EDT (2207 GMT)

    alt

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S.-led war and occupation of Iraq is projected to cost the Pentagon an average of nearly $4 billion a month through September, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate committee Wednesday.

    U.S. spending on Iraq has averaged $3.9 billion per month since January, a period that includes the invasion that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said he did not know if the Bush administration expected those figures to go up or down in the next fiscal year.

    "I don't know what the administration intends to propose to the Congress by way of funding for that," he said.

    The Defense Department is spending another $700 million a month in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still hunting remnants of the al Qaeda terrorist network and trying to stabilize an interim government after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, Rumsfeld said.

    Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks, the former commander of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, told senators that U.S. troops are fighting off continuing attacks by Iraqis opposed to the American-led occupation "in an orderly and forceful fashion."

    And despite highly publicized struggles to restore some basic services in Baghdad, Iraqis are better off since April's ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Rumsfeld said.

    "The residents of Baghdad may not have power 24 hours a day, but they no longer wake up each morning in fear wondering whether this will the day that a death squad would come to cut out their tongues, chop off their ears or take their children away for questioning ... never to be seen again," he said.

    Franks, who is on the verge of retiring from the Army, said the 145,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are not sitting around waiting to be attacked, but are out hunting down armed remnants of Saddam's Baath Party regime in a triangle around Baghdad.

    "I suspect we are seeing increased violence in some of these areas because we are out looking for it, because that's our charter," Franks said.

    He said no additional U.S. troops were needed, but the current force is likely to remain "for the foreseeable future."

    "That footprint appears to us on the operational side to be about what that footprint needs to look like," Franks said.

    Several committee members pressed Rumsfeld on efforts to bring more international troops into Iraq to take over peacekeeping duties. An estimated 12,000 such troops, mostly British, are in Iraq now, and that number is expected to grow to 20,000 by the end of the summer with the addition of a Polish-led division.

    Rumsfeld said the United States has asked more than 70 countries to help provide troops to stabilize Iraq -- even Germany and France, which opposed the war.

    "Our goal is to get large numbers of international forces from lots of countries, including those two," Rumsfeld said.

    Rumsfeld and Franks faced several questions from the committee about ongoing attacks on U.S. troops and when they would be coming home.

    Rumsfeld said all three brigades of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which led the advance on Baghdad in March and April, should be back home by September. Some soldiers from the division have been in the Persian Gulf region for more than nine months.

    And he said the Pentagon is studying ways to cut back on its reliance on National Guard and reserve units for peacekeeping duties, saying, "We can't keep calling the same people up four, five, six times."

    "We don't have enough of the right people in the active force to do those kinds of things," he said. "We will be coming forward with proposals in a relatively short period of time to see if we can't get the people portion of this right."

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money.

    I'll take just 1/100th of that and be very happy for the rest of my little life.

  • Kingpawn
    Kingpawn
    Rumsfeld said the United States has asked more than 70 countries to help provide troops to stabilize Iraq -- even Germany and France, which opposed the war.

    I'd think that countries that opposed the war would be the most eager to contribute troops to help in pacifying the region. The faster basic services can be restored, the quicker the US, England, and others can be out. Since France and Germany didn't want us there to begin with....

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    A waste? Tell that to the families of Saddam's victims...tell that to the millions of Iraqis now able to voice their discontent, even with the American presence. Tell that the the constitutional convention that just formed in Iraq, whose first measure was to declare the day Saddam's statue fell a national Holiday. Tell that to the American soldiers over there now...their families...and those of the soldiers that have given the last full measure of devotion.

  • ashitaka
    ashitaka
    Tell that to the American soldiers over there now...their families...and those of the soldiers that have given the last full measure of devotion.

    George W wasted those young men's lives. He took his own ambition and put it above the love for his own people. He says, "Bring it on," taunting the enemy, and they're growing bolder and killing more of our boys. It's all a waste.....the money is just one part of it.

    If that four billion was distributed among a string of communities in the deep south, or in the slums of citys, or in the old steel/coal mining towns of the midwest, then maybe a few extra kids would have the things they need to not only get a good education, but be able to have some privilidges that their more weathly counterparts enjoy on a regular basis. This is what's known as a long-term investment. Preventing those kids from becoming criminals or degenerates, giving them hope that they too can go to a university and explore their potential. 4 Billion. If that four billion was given to kids for college, accepting that college would be around 100,000 for four years on campus, then 40,000 underprivilidged kids could go to university. 40,000. After just one month of not wasting money in just one country we have our boys in. Amazing.

    George W, will all of his wonderful liberation, has forgotten about the little guy. That's why our boys will stay in Iraq, and keep dying, not just because of a stubborn enemy, but because of a stubborn President, unwilling to admit his wrongs, taunting the enemy into attacking.

    ash

  • Hamas
    Hamas

    Yerusalyim, you are so stupid man.

    One day you will wake up and see that US foriegn policy stinks. One day you will wake up and see how much money the US wastes on crap like this.

    I can't understand your mentality.

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    "We don't have enough of the right people in the active force to do those kinds of things," he said. "We will be coming forward with proposals in a relatively short period of time to see if we can't get the people portion of this right."

    I wonder what the Jackass meant by saying that?

    Ash, you are completely right on....what a worthless waste.

    Yeru, I like you alot (as you well know), but I cannot understand your position on this.

    Robyn

  • obiwan
    obiwan
    Tell that to the American soldiers over there now...their families...and those of the soldiers that have given the last full measure of devotion.

    George W wasted those young men's lives. He took his own ambition and put it above the love for his own people. He says, "Bring it on," taunting the enemy, and they're growing bolder and killing more of our boys. It's all a waste.....the money is just one part of it.

    And why do you think he wanted it so bad....OIL, and not just the oil they are pumping now but the oil fields in the future. Thier is one particular oil field that is said when properly developed it will be the biggest oil field in the region. And what do the Bushes have almost all of thier investments in....OIL

    And people wonder why I won't serve this military, not because of jw's and thier teachings but the constant lies and twisting of words by this government. I'll die for family and friends but not for someone else's pocket!

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Ashitaka,

    I believe that USA did the right thing taking out Saddam Hussein's government. WWII also cost a lot of money and created great hardship and shortages during and post war.

    What many Americans fail to realize is that there are many millions of radical Islamic people who want ALL Americans dead ... e.g. 9-11 and the destruction of the WTC. Iraq has WMDs as has been found already, and more will be found. The price to me is worth the political risk, and the net suffering of struggling financially myself.

    I would rather pay now, than see these people eventually nuke us ... for the cost then would be far greater than $4 Billion a day ... it would be astronomical ... and the loss of life and heavy suffering would be so terrible that we would greatly regret doing nothing.

    Next on the list is Iran and N. Korea ... these nations are even more dangerous because they already have nukes ... so taking out Iraq and Afghanistan was a safe way to send a serious message.

    We are in a war of cultures, of civilizations ... a milestone in history ... and I want the USA to win this one, and will gladly go in place of any young soldier ... the middle east has too much evolving do to before they can ever be trusted with serious weapons ... this is the only way. - Jim W.

  • Spartacus
    Spartacus

    This is why America's Star Wars program must be a success because two bit dictators and fascists can obtain and produce Nuke weapons. Technology has surpassed human responsibility and now any fool can destroy millions of people. The world is filled with people who hold philosophy that will allow dictators and fascists to build Nuke bombs and proliferate them around the world. These pacifists will get us all toasted!

    I agree with Amazing 100%!

    I believe that USA did the right thing taking out Saddam Hussein's government. WWII also cost a lot of money and created great hardship and shortages during and post war.

    What many Americans fail to realize is that there are many millions of radical Islamic people who want ALL Americans dead ... e.g. 9-11 and the destruction of the WTC. Iraq has WMDs as has been found already, and more will be found. The price to me is worth the political risk, and the net suffering of struggling financially myself.

    I would rather pay now, than see these people eventually nuke us ... for the cost then would be far greater than $4 Billion a day ... it would be astronomical ... and the loss of life and heavy suffering would be so terrible that we would greatly regret doing nothing.

    Next on the list is Iran and N. Korea ... these nations are even more dangerous because they already have nukes ... so taking out Iraq and Afghanistan was a safe way to send a serious message.

    We are in a war of cultures, of civilizations ... a milestone in history ... and I want the USA to win this one, and will gladly go in place of any young soldier ... the middle east has too much evolving do to before they can ever be trusted with serious weapons ... this is the only way. - Jim W.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit