Posted on 12/27/2007 7:27:57 PM PST by canuck_conservative
The latest estimate of the growing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide battle against terrorism -- nearly $15 billion a month -- came last week from one of the Senate's leading proponents of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. "This cost of this war is approaching $15 billion a month, with the Army spending $4.2 billion of that every month," Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said in a little-noticed floor speech Dec. 18. His remarks came in support of adding $70 billion to the omnibus fiscal 2008 spending legislation to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, as well as counterterrorism activities, for the six months from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31 of next year. While most of the public focus has been on the political fight over troop levels, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported this month that the Bush administration's request for the 2008 fiscal year of $189.3 billion for Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and worldwide counterterrorism activities was 20 percent higher than for fiscal 2007 and 60 percent higher than for fiscal 2006. Pentagon spokesmen would not comment last week on Stevens's figure but said their latest estimate for monthly spending for Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism was $11.7 billion as of Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We have been fighting in Iraq for five years, but asking when the United States is going to leave opens the questioner to the self righteous labeling of the self proclaimed 'super patriots'.
No one arguing for 'cutting and running' since there is no one to cut and run from.
The reports from Iraq show that organized resistance has virtually ended.
That is what the surge was suppose to accomplish, and that is why Bush has started putting plans into place for U.S. withdrawal.
Americans have the right to ask what the cost is going to be for maintaining the military presence in Iraq after combat actions are over.
But to the 'my country right or wrong' crowd, American's are not allowed to question government foreign policy, we are just to suppose to come to attention and say 'yes sir'
“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946202/posts
Yup, said by the late great Ev Dirkson during the mid-sixties when a dollar was worth about five times what it is today and the idea of a three trillion dollar federal budget seemed absurd.
I can provide my own healthcare. I cannot provide my own national defense. Thank you, President George Bush.
You got it. He conveniently forgets oil and we can thank Democrats for getting us in this fix. Republicans need to be hammering RATS for preventing us from producing our own oil and making us vulnerable.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if these really were our choices? Suppose we just pull out and come home? Then what? I'm sure these radicals will just go about minding their own business and leave us alone. (sarcasm)
If you believe this, you're deluding yourself. Radical Islam is looking for their own country--preferably with nukes. Iraq is stragetic and necessary. We must be able to defend ourselves from Iran and now Pakistan and their nukes are thrown into the mix.
All of which is getting past on to the next generation as debt.
Correction: That should be 'passed' on, not 'past' on.
And how long is this going to go on?
Till terrorist are dead. Small investment for living and enjoying freedom.
###
Iraq still isn’t stable, neither is Afghanistan
Al Qadah being beaten in Iraq has made them unwanted everywhere else, that’s a good return.
###
At $180 billion every year, how long before the US goes effectively bankrupt?
Infinite time horizon, we are going to have win at some time , or there will be no future.
###
that they can hold off what, 40,000 well-fed, well-armed, well-provisioned Western troops in Afghanistan?
Are you keeping up on the war on the ground or the New York Times?
###
It’s been over 6 years now - and Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and al-Zarkawi STILL aren’t dead/captured. Why?!
They can still surrender, but they are being hunted by the best hunters in the world, it’s only a matter of time, and patients on our part. I would have went nuclear on them without regard for anything else, historians will have to give Bush credit with being respectful of civilian casualties and infrastructure.
Plus, it should be noted that Afghanistan isn’t the drain — Iraq is.
It should also be noted Saddam no longer fires at our pilots, like he did for 8 years under Mr. Clinton, a lousy commander who did little to nothing, like Blackhawk Down in Somalia, to protect Troops being attacked. Clinton, 8 years of Presidential Quackery. Satisfaction of getting even with Saddam, priceless.
Of course. After the initial invasion, the Iraqis would just come flowing out of our their homes, joyously welcoming us as liberators and there'd be no dissension, and the milk, honey, and oil would flow! Recall what Sec. Rumsfeld replied when George Stephanopoulos pointed out that some had suggested we could have rougher times than that rosy assessment, and the costs could be as high as $300 billion: "Baloney!"
Recall the slapping down of And please, show me how much military history you know: How many wars have gone on much longer and cost much more than initial estimates?
You mean that competent leaders should realize that their rosy estimates might be very low? Uh, that's my point. See Sec. Rumsfeld's comment above.
People whought the Civil War would be over in a few months, and the British people were sure their troops would be home from France by Christmas of 1914.
And they were wrong.
This is an amusingly bizarre argument you are making. Are you trying to convince me of the competence of McDowell, Cameron, McClellan...?* So you're trying to convince me that the mismanagement of this situation doesn't mean Sec. Rumsfeld was incompetent because other incompetents have mismanaged the war? Sorry, but that doesn't follow logically.
*I recognize that it was mainly others who thought the war would be over soon, but it still doesn't make sense. You can put the incompetence on Lincoln, who pushed McDowell and McClellan, but it doesn't help the argument.
Recall the slapping down of ...
...Gen. Peter Pace.
How is that relevant? Would it mean we should fund the troops any less?!?
Ugh!
I'm in exile from New York State...and my possessions and I cannot return without me becoming some dangerous person. My rifle became an "assault weapon" along the line. It's sad that I cannot return in peace to the land that my ancestors settled nearly two centuries ago.
Sad...like how the right to bear arms is infringed when you want to visit the Liberty Bell.
AKA, "The Fighting 1st FR Ostrich Brigade"
“My rifle became an ‘assault weapon’ along the line.”
Funny you should mention that. Husband and I had a $50 Cabela’s Gift Card to use up. We bought ammo, LOL!
And, one of my stock boys at work just purchased his first “assault weapon,” an AR-15. (He leaves for Marine Corp Basic next summer after graduation.) I couldn’t be more proud of him. :)
But yes, WI has no CC laws. We can defend ourselves in our own homes after cowering under the bed for a while, but that’s about it. *Rolleyes*
That chart uses GDP, which doesn't make a very consistent comparison between WWII and now, and also doesn't clearly demonstrate the current impact. For example, GDP doesn't account for any of the input from the much greater percentage of women who stayed at home back then (no offense meant to J. Howard Miller, but not all women were "Rosie the Riveter").
You're also not considering that in WWII, there were 2.4 wounded for every GI killed. Protection for the troops has increased so much that there's a much higher ratio of wounded to killed...and although this is a good thing, it does mean that we now have a higher percentage of long-term costs for care of the wounded.
Finally, if you think that we are facing an enemy that is anywhere close to the short-term threat posed by the Axis of WWII, then I think you're wrong. If WWII had been prosecuted the way this war has, then the "Windsors" could have gone back to "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha."
True, Defense is the legimate role of government, but the citizens have a responsiblity to make sure that the money is being spent wisely.
Defense spending is still government spending and has to be paid for by tax payers.
Too much and you won't be able to pay for your own health care, or at least your children won't.
Now, getting the U.S. off of dependence on foreign oil by more U.S. production is something we can all agree on.
It was the UN sanctions that dried up Iraqi oil on the world market (helping OPEC) the same sanctions that the Russians ignored.
None of their missles can reach the U.S., so the only way they can hit us is by getting their terrorists into the United States.
That was how they hit us before, by avoiding the INS!
So, the first step in stopping attacks on the U.S. is controlling our own borders, which isn't being done yet.
That means revoking all student visa's from Islamic led nations.
Second, Pakistan is being held in check by India and Iran would be held in check by Israel.
The Islamic leadership may be willing to send out suicide bombers to die, but they aren't willing to do the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.