AP Exclusive: Obama wants $33 billion more for war

[laststeamtrain]

Source: AP/WP

AP Exclusive: Obama wants $33 billion more for war

By ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 12, 2010; 8:22 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.

The administration is also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.

The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans through 2015.

The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and and expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/12/AR2010011203181.html

[MichiganVote]

1. Guess he better call up his friends at Goldman Sacks the American Public.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLAprogressive]

2. ignore this and focus on the Harry Reid nontroversy.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. That is one deep chess game he's playing there.

Mate in 37.

[TheEuclideanOne]

75. Check in 2010

Mate in 2012

[WinkyDink]

168. And the victor?

Not Obama.

[TheEuclideanOne]

184. Yep

Sadly, that is where I was going with that.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. He'll have to ask the Chinese we can't afford a single payer health system

so we can't afford a war

[Patchuli]

19. Yup!

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

33. +1000% . . .. and oops I just somehow slipped into LARGE FONT????

Anyone have a clue on that?

[ima_sinnic]

46. are you on Mozilla?

I found myself in small font the other day and finally figured out hitting View, Zoom, Reset

[Occulus]

61. that's a feature

Hold CTRL and scroll the mouse wheel. Voila.

[ima_sinnic]

88. thx

I think that was what accidentally happened when it went small

[defendandprotect]

110. Thanks . . . finally figured it out . . .

didn't know about that one -- !!

Usually the control is under "view" but I found it under "page" this time!!!

Thanks again -- !!

[Jax]

85. Love you, k&r a zillion trillion bazillion

quardifillion zackaquadrizillion.

Rosa gets it, love you.

Alyce

[StarfarerBill]

5. The Pentagon: a blank check; the American people: the finger.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Hell no! That's $33 billion that could go for Single Payer health care, and then some

Four more years of war, according to OP. So much for an Afghan withdrawal in 2011.

[clear eye]

9. "Four more years"

:banghead:

[IndianaGreen]

17. QDR goes through 2015

QDR provides the blueprint for the DOD budget. Per the OP, that's "four more years" of war being budgeted.

[DollyM]

43. why is is that the money can be found for war . . .

but not for health care for all American's? I fear ending up in the hosptial with no way to pay more than I do being attacked by a terrorist. Our quality of life is rapidly declining in America, shouldn't we be less concerned with funding a war and more with improving the quality of life for people who are ending up without health care, adequate food, heat, etc.? I don't want a Republican back in office but neither do I want my Democrat President to have the priorities of a Republican president!!! I feel we are trapped with no where to turn.

[golfguru]

190. Cuz the MIC's contribute heavily to politicians,

the common folks not enough. Just follow the money.

[midnight]

7. k&R.

[Newsjock]

8. Define "winning"

We'll talk only once you've done that. Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Ignis]

117. I'm beginning to think it's like Stewart's definition of pornography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

Don't ask questions, Citizen. We'll let YOU know when the war is won! :patriot:

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Gee ..... that's less than the banksters plan to give themselves in bonuses.

[flyarm]

11. give us single payer first!! and keep your hands off our health insurance policy's!

get the hell out of these wars..and help Americans get the health care they need!

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. That is thirty three THOUSAND million dollars

It boggles the mind to consider what 33 billion dollars could do for Americans in America.


660 million per state for jobs programs, training and the like.

How many young folks could get free college educations?

How far could we go to free ourselves from fossil fuels if that money was allocated towards research and green energy projects?

This is a national tragedy! We have become the Roman Empire shortly before the fall.

[Hubert Flottz]

13. Repeal the Bush tax cuts.

Our bridge is falling down. How about we fix it?

[valerief]

39. Repeal the freakin' REAGAN tax cuts!!!! nt

[Mithreal]

111. enthusiastic +1

[PSPS]

14. We can only hope that this will be bush's last term.

[scentopine]

15. Now let all the centrists make their case for our war president...

empowered and engorged to slaughter people in poverty while propping up a narco state dictator with billions and billions. It just makes perfect strategic sense. The smell of death, the flair of nostrils, the burning on the loins of centrists called to duty to order our men and women to live and die in the most important country in the world - Afghanistan.

But here at home against the Wall Street crooks? Obama is 100% flacid.

Not quite the stud after all is he.

[StarfarerBill]

23. You ain't heard the spin yet; it'll be a marvel of gyrating denial and rationalization.

[Mithreal]

24. But he's transformative, confounding the masses with what it means to be a Dem

and introducing all of us to New Dem Principles.

This really irritates me because I got into an argument with a WA state Republican party bigwig who was arguing about Obama promising not to continue supplementals for the war and I had to tell him that Bush was the one who wouldn't include the costs of the wars in the regular budget but Obama was different and was just trying to make up for Bush's incompetence and the 2009 budget was given to Obama, he was not responsible. Maybe there is more nuance here, but my argument is now dead. I hate being made a liar, it is really getting under my skin.

[nightrain]

40. yep. You said it!--the words, "New Dem Principles"--we all certainly need

to know more about the "muscular foreign policy" the "New Dems" support.

This is NOT what I voted for in Nov 08.

It's all so very sad.

I see very little posting/commenting from the BOGers. Please chime in, seriously... how's this sitting with you?

[Caretha]

25. you should write poetry

that about sums it up Walt :)

[HughMoran]

189. Have you ever posted without using the word 'centrists' as a pejorative?

:crazy:

[BlueJac]

16. Fuck him

watch the crumbling of America on the history channel.....wtf IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE


Obama this is not the time for the good old boys club, wrong time, wrong era, wrong politics!!!!!

[salguine]

41. DOUBLE Fuck Him. You know, I've never been registered to any political party

in my life—always independent—because I never believed in allying myself with a party before a candidate or a principle. I'm going to re-register as a Democrat for the first time in my life just so I can vote for ANYBODY else in the primaries; hopefully they'll have one. If it came down to a choice between Obama and a barrel of vanilla pudding, I'll vote for the fucking pudding. FUCK him.

And if anybody feels like screeching about "You have to vote for Our President blah blah blah", fucking spare me.

[OhioChick]

18. Hell no. n/t

[Nite Owl]

20. Well they are going to have cut something else from

the DOD budget. We can't contribute to the deficit, not one dime!
Fair is fair.

Will anyone in Congress repeat those words to him?

[pscot]

21. Fuck that shit

Get it from the rich.

[Skittles]

22. disgusting

[dflprincess]

26. This doesn't sound "deficit neutral"

has he explained how he plans to pay for this?

[Robb]

27. He wants 5% more than already planned for? Shocking. nt

[galileoreloaded]

28. $33B?? How about $133 B. Who's counting. n/t

[closeupready]

112. Congress has actually done that before.

Remember when even the Pentagon was saying, "look, guys, we appreciate it, but this is embarrassing - you've given us so much money, we've run out of things to buy."

[defendandprotect]

29. And we thought Bush was outrageous? THIS is sickening --

A betrayal of the American voter by the Democratic Party!!!

[Demeter]

30. NOT A BRASS FARTHING!

To quote My Fair Lady

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hollowdweller]

34. Will there be a cadillac tax on military families to pay for it?

Maybe they could just tax officers.

[Sherman A1]

97. Agreed

[harun]

35. Better create a tax on defense contractors and weapons sales to pay for it!

[frylock]

36. fucking awesome

[scytherius]

37. All we did was elect a smart George Bush

What a DISASTER Obama is. I worked hard on his campaign, I donated money, I voted, etc. My family and I are DONE> Nothing more . . .ever . . for the Dems. (And it goes without saying we'd rather be thrown off a bridge than vote for the GOP).

NO MORE MONEY FOR WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[valerief]

38. Money for WAR, none for JOBS. nt

[salguine]

42. Where's the "it's only been a year" crowd? The "he inherited a mess" bunch? *chirping crickets*

[DollyM]

44. no, I think he created this mess on his own . . .

I supported Obama too, but this is simply too much. I feel we have been used and abandoned.

[pjt7]

45. NO

Anybody who votes for it, should be voted out.

[Ishoutandscream2]

47. Shit!

Just shit! I'm done, ya'll.

[bikingaz]

174. BS - Come 2012 most of you in here will vote for him again

If the choice between a GOP and Dem, most DUers will vote for the Dem guy, whether or not he / she is any good. The DLCC they know that & they have most of you by you know what.

What we really need is to vote ALL incumbents out - President, Senate & House as well as the state governments. If the replacements don't do our bidding, we vote them out too.

[New Dawn]

48. And this 33 billion is only the beginning of what they want too.

Get ready for a lot more of these. Where is the strangely silent anti-war movement?

[ima_sinnic]

49. The Nobel Peace Prize war president, bankrupting the country

watch the "fiscal conservatives" say squat about it. their own bottom lines are also enriched by war.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. No Shit?

Good we elected a Democrat.

[clear eye]

63. Did we? n/t

[madrchsod]

51. when are we going to march on washington?

[Mari333]

57. March 20 2010. seriously. anti war march in DC.

[madrchsod]

154. thanks!

[Jefferson23]

52. Hey, why not? The U.S. is soo very good at keeping war going on.

Those fucking pilotless drones need to end!

[gorfle]

53. What a bunch of BULLSHIT!

Can't give any money to homeowners for mortgage relief, but hey, we have $33 billion for war.

Can't have single-payer health care, but hey, we have $33 billion for war.

Congress should cut the fucking pursestrings on this shit.

[tomm2thumbs]

54. +1

[Amonester]

80. Congre$$ should cut it but you know they won't.

Remember 2006? They're just bought and sold to the MIC and BigOil EVIL corporations, just like they R sold out to the HealthInsurance cartel and BigPharma rip-offs.

They really think we're all idiots to who they can catapult the 'win these wars' (that cannot and will not be 'won' EVER) propaganda oveR and oveR, so they can just continue to cash in a few more millions for themselves.

Only a nation-wide hunger strike would end it.

[Ter]

55. Obama was hand selected by the CIA

People need to wake up and stop supporting the establishment. Believe it or not, the Shadow Government was more afraid of McCain. They knew Obama would do their bidding 100%.

[Fearless]

59. You work under the premise that people are intelligent. I rather the premise that people are stupid

[grahamhgreen]

71. The premise of america is that people are smartest as a whole group, not singular entities.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopinko]

169. oh, puleeze. np

[katkat]

56. "four more years" WTF

Excuse me, are we supposed to be getting out of Iraq? Oh, I guess that was just another lie.

WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF "winning" the current wars? How do we find these idiots who think unwinnable wars are going to be won if we just pour more lives and billions into them.

This time is somewhat unique, however, since Obama'll destroy the U.S. as well by driving it into bankruptcy.

And Rahm thinks we're going to vote for this disaster in 2012?

[Fearless]

58. Too damn bad. I want health care that works.

[Gamey]

60. Makes me wonder what Hillary would be doing?

[Mithreal]

64. Irrelevant

[liberation]

87. At least Obama was smoking pot in his college years...

Hillary was the president of the motherf*cking College Republicans chapter at her Alma Mater.

So basically, looking at the final front runners from both parties, our choices in this last electoral run were: two batshit insane republicans, a former republican, and a guy who wants to be a republican. So me thinks we would have ended up with a republican no matter what.


See what the whole evil of the two lessers system gets us every four years for Christmas? I am voting with my conscience next time, and those who don't like can go suck an egg. My vote is my own business, not something to which Rahm and the whole gang of too-chickenshit-to-register-republican-themselves DLCer... should feel entitled any longer. This whole walking, talking, and quacking like a republican while trying to get liberal and progressive votes is looking more and more like a joke on us every passing day.

[katkat]

94. Hillary would be doing the same thing

Didn't you listen to her in the campaign? The only difference between the two is she was upfront and he wasn't. Remember the debate where she came out for mandates and he opposed them?

[Arctic Dave]

62. Obama and the military can go fuck themselves.

I am sick and and tired of both of their shit

[Hawkowl]

68. A flying fuck at a rolling donut

Obama is a king sized cowardly ASSHOLE.

[emald]

65. No, goddamit, NO NO NO NO

No healthcare, no war. Simple. We can't take care of health we cant' afford war. Stupid is as stupid does. We live in a stupid country.

[Prometheus Bound]

66. G W Bush 2008 - $564 billion / B Obama 2010: $738 billion

What's going on?

[Robb]

100. Your numbers are off. But

...The same thing that's always been going on.

[Robb]

102. Excuse me, I stand corrected

Your numbers are accurate; mine are adjusted to FY2000 dollars.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. I'm done. This is it.

:cry:

[MissDeeds]

170. Me too

I'm not sure I can even get psyched about a primary challenger for 2012. I am so sick and tired of all the lies, distortions and spin...how can we trust or believe in any of them? I had huge concerns about Obama, and I wanted desperately to be proven wrong. Sadly, he's worse than I ever imagined he could be.

[nomaco-10]

69. How in the hell did we all get so duped by this man.....

Even now, I'm still in denial. There is still something about him I like at times, and I can't even help myself.

I find myself even thinking about a clinton presidency, and then find myself slapping myself back into reality. pumas and hails of gunfire in bosnia sealed that deal.

What a bitter disappointment. All I can say, is he's a damn sight better than a mccoot and palin presidency. At least some little measure of comfort at this point.

[grahamhgreen]

70. Oh! So that's why we had a bullshit CIA terror attack.

[lib2DaBone]

72. But Not a friggin dime for health care or job creation........

.. the rat bastards.... the whole stinkin house of cards is going to come crumbling down... soon..

[juno jones]

74. I am sitting here with something torn in my knee

I've been having to work on it for two weeks (6-8 hours a day), just managed to see a community clinic doc today, because it ain't getting better. She said nothing could be ascertained without an MRI, but I can't afford it, even with sliding scale. I couldn't get pain meds, because as we all know, poor people aren't to be trusted with such things. At least she gave me some flexeril and offered to write me a note to get out of work for two weeks-which I can't do because I am the only person in the fam working right now.


AND they thought I was nuts when I asked about physical therapy. That's right, my community clinic will refer me to a surgeon (if I could afford it) but told me to look up PT's my own damn self. And I wonder what will happen if I need joint replacement surgery (like my grandma did) down the line, especially now that having talked to a doc about my knees makes it a 'pre-existing' condition. (Or may I say, tried to. I am worried my knees going out every few years is indicative of a family weakness that needs investigation, and they are just involved in triage, basically, patch me up so I can go back to the front...)

Fuck him, fuck the war, fuck our government sideways with a chainsaw.

And may all of the cheerleaders wind up with community clinic healthcare. It'll be all they deserve.

[chimpymustgo]

83. So sorry for your troubles. I wish you the best, as we all try to get ourselves out of this

mess. Obama is a cruel disaster.

[juno jones]

86. Thanks,

:hug:

[juno jones]

115. Thanks.

:hi:

[katkat]

95. juno

I am so sorry.

Is there anything you can do with exercises you can find on the web? Carefully, in case they make it worse? I would try places like the website for the Mayo Clinic and see if they have helpful ideas.

For what it's worth, my brothers have bad knees, but none of their kids do.

[juno jones]

114. Thanks.

The wife of my current chef just had knee surgery and also has a friend who is a PT. She has a bunch of excersises that were printed out for her that I will be borrowing as soon as I can.

The real ironic thing is that my mom was a PT. I wish she was still around to advise me. :)

[GreenTea]

76. Corporations will get billions of that money- health care, they want to tax us

so more more can go to war profiteers (weapons makers, and over two hundred other corporations making huge amounts of money off the war) ALL coming from our tax dollars and the insurance corporations are already getting billions of our tax dollars each year....And how much did Obama really fight for a public option...not tooth & nail as was needed.

[winyanstaz]

77. not one more dime for war!!!!

I am writing my representitives...again.
I want them to stop voting for war and for spending money!
This is insane..
No money for public health care but 33 billion more for war?
Why not spend that money on America for a change?

[bugisbug]

78. It is becoming more and more obvious

that, at the top, at the higher seats of government, it is all one party, all one agenda.

At the local levels, Dem. and Rep., and the ideals they represent can be quantifies. You see the officials at the grocery store (I often do) and you can talk to them, face to face in the cereal isle, and they are held accountable for what they do. At the national level - except for a very small group - they are all the same. At this point, there are no Democrats or Republicans. Hell, there aren't even very many democrats or conservatives. What we have are Corporatists and I don't know, let's call them Assholes, who bed down about Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex. And they will do what will benefits their bottom line and some skewed idea of "we know better " than the masses. If you really look around and talk to people, whatever party they cotton to, you'll find that most of us have the same concerns, the same hopes, and the same basic needs. What the Media and the Government do is put us all at odds - turn every election into a WWF match - an old serial adventure with guys in white hats fighting guys in black hats. If they turn us against each other, we have no time to look, really look and pay attention to what is going on.

I admit that I got caught up in the last election. I really pinned my hopes on Hope and Change. And as a student of History, I am quite ashamed of myself. I let myself go. I allowed myself to get caught up in the rhetoric, the fight, the excitement of it all. I am not saying that McCain would have been a better choice. But I am not so sure that he was really so different a choice. Really. I know the Pres. doesn't write the laws, but he can influence them. And with a Dem. Pres and Dem. majority in the House and Senate, what do we have? What progressive, pro-people thing have we achieved? A fucked-up, pro-industry health insurance (not health care) bill in the works, continuation of secret renditions, no real transparency in government, huge amount of our money given to banks with no accountability or regulations, no clear end to the wars we are currently fighting, no fight for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, threats on a woman's right to choose, escalation of war and, now, almost a promise of future wars, no prosecutions of war crimes or even a peeking into that closet. But, you know what? That's all okay because Big Brother is going to make it so we don't have to sit on a plane on a runway for more that 3 hours without an extra bag of peanuts. Is our Government not kind?

It is so blatant now, at the top levels of government, who they work for. And as long as we all, here and around the world just sit and watch our Super Bowls, World Cups, American Idol, bullshit movie of the month - or if we are in a very bad way spend our time trying desperately to feed and house our families - and don't pay attention, it is done - over, finished, gone. If we don't do something now, how much harder do you think it will be to set things right in 5 years? 10? 20? They are relying on our complacency and our acquiescence.

After awhile, you start to wonder if a New World Order isn't in the works. A new Feudalism. I don't want to believe it, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. I sure as hell know I won't be fooled again.

I don't know anymore. I'm not giving up - I wouldn't for myself, and I damn sure won't for my children.

But as of late, I have begun to think, how bad is it, how much have we allowed ourselves to be caught up in the drama and hoodwinked when the headlines of the day in the MSM, on DU, on MSNBC start to mirror and converge with the rantings of theorists like Alex Jones? I try to listen to everything from the mundane to the "tin foil hat" crazy, and when they start to come together, oh shit.

This has just been bumping around in my head for a while, and I had to get it out - to take the pressure off of my husband. So do with it what you will.

Oh, and isn't this request coming from the guy who just won a fucking PEACE prize?

[Turborama]

79. What a difference a year makes

Just under a year ago...

Wed Feb-18-09: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3744794">Obama commits 17,000 more US troops to Afghanistan (12 replies)

Thu Feb-26-09: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3756892">Obama sees war costs totaling $140 bln this year (4 replies)

Fri Feb-27-09: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3757298">Obama seeks $75.5 billion for Iraq and Afghan wars 2009 (10 replies)

Where was all the outrage then? :shrug:

Where was everybody's attention during http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation=afghanwar_tmln_us_redirection_of_forces_to_iraq">the previous 8 years of disastrous policies that http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation=afghanwar_tmln_economic_reconstruction">led us to the mess we are in in Afghanistan?

[Mithreal]

81. Basking in the glory of his newness, faith was in fashion

[Turborama]

84. Everybody has had 8 years to be angry about the Afghanistan war

I find it difficult to respect those who have only recently become concerned about what's going on in Afghanistan. Sitting back and watching the window of opportunity close is what led us to where we are now. If anyone's got links to lengthy threads complaining about Busch's inaction in Afghanistan, I'd be interested to see them.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/0410-lost-year.htm">Bush's Lost Year for example only had 5 responders when http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x74393">papau posted it in 2004. Seems like Rhiannon had to keep kicking to try and engender some interest when she http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x73932">posted it.

Another one, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?_r=1">How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad only had three responders when http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1568104">Swag posted it in 2007.

[liberation]

89. You must have a point there somewhere...

Are you implying a lot of people here were supporting the war in Afghanistan during Bush and only changed their opinion once Obama got in office, just to make him look bad?

[Turborama]

91. Nope

The main thing I'm saying is that it looks like until recently people either haven't been paying attention or didn't care. Personally, I was angry at Bushco for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failure in Afghanistan that followed (see the last sentence in post #79). I made a genuine request for links to lengthy threads because I'd like to see previous discussions on what was going on in Afghanistan over the 8 years we've been there. I've made a few searches and came up with the results I've posted.

I suspect the reason why there's a lot of anger about Obama's Afghanistan policy is because there's been a lot more media coverage about Afghanistan now than before the McChrystal "leak" in September last year. Leading up to that "leak" there had been little to no media coverage of what's been going on in Afghanistan and virtually any post about Afghanistan rapidly dropped off page 1 (see post #79).

I'd like to be proved wrong because if I'm right it's a real shame that only now people are suddenly concerned about what's going on there.

[Prometheus Bound]

92. I believe you're right. But better late than never.

Your lack of respect for people who are finally angry seems a bit extreme.

[liberation]

Well, there has also been far more coverage of Afghanistan because it was deemed the "good war"

and I assume the new administration wanted to prolong the same military policy, without having to use the already tarnished brand of the Iraq war franchise for al this "war on terra" nonsense. Thus the current focus on all things Afghanistan, sure people stopped talking about Iraq... so me thinks their marketing campaign is working like a charm.

The only meaningful change I have seen with this admin is regarding their marketing approaches, because their product surely reeks of the same crap as the past 8 years (from a war on a concept stand point).

[liberation]

166. Dupe

Dupe

[Prometheus Bound]

93. Perhaps this is why Americans weren't too upset -- 2,050 US troops in Afghanistan in 2006

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2506719#2506823

Iceburg
Sep-12-06 08:45 PM
12. Then Ms. Rice please explain to me why ...

the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada EACH have more troops in Afghanistan than the USA who started the invasion, destruction and occupation of this country?

NATO-LED FORCE (ISAF) in Afghanistan

Total troops: 18,500
UK (command): 5,400
Germany: 2,600
Canada: 2,500
Netherlands: 2,300
US: 2,050
Italy: 1,250
France: 1,000
Contributing nations: 37
Numbers show contributions as of 21 Aug. Troop numbers on the ground fluctuate.

[Turborama]

106. According to the response to your post there were actually more than 20,000 there at the time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2506719&mesg_id=2506879">The US has another 18,000 troop under US command

There are more than 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan at the moment, but only around 2,000 of them currently under Nato command.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5330772.stm

You posed a good question, though. "Why did the US "hit and run?""

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation=afghanwar_tmln_us_redirection_of_forces_to_iraq">Timeline of US Redirection of Forces from Afghanistan to Iraq

Obama Shifts the Foreign Policy Debate
Candidate Moves Focus From Iraq To Broader Issues

By Karen DeYoung and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 23, 2008

=snip=

McCain's judgments are based on "what he thinks makes the most sense," Obama said. But his own judgments, "in speaking with Afghans and Iraqis, the U.S. military and civilians," he said, led him to conclude that there is a need to "seize this moment to make America more secure" by focusing on "broader challenges."

Chief among them, he said, are the "need to refocus attention on Afghanistan and to go after the Taliban, including putting more troops on the ground, and to put more pressure on Pakistan to deal with the safe havens of terrorists."

Admiral Mike Mullen, Staff Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that while the situation in Afghanistan is "precarious and urgent," the 10,000 additional troops needed there would be unavailable "in any significant manner" unless withdrawals from Iraq are made. However, Mullen stated that "my priorities . . . given to me by the commander in chief are: Focus on Iraq first. It's been that way for some time. Focus on Afghanistan second."

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202942_pf.html

[Mithreal]

104. The Iraq Occupation was the focus of the people and the Bush regime

And is it any wonder now that people know more about the AfPak War they hate it more than they did.

Obama and McCain both took it off the table of the debates. Dems called it a good war and a lot of people went along because there was infinite insanity in attacking and occupying Iraq.

Hell, people I knew were always more worried about our and Israel's attacking Iran next than they were about Afghanistan. But Obama escalates in Afghanistan and to other countries on some list we were not aware of until recently and increases mercenaries in all of our occupations, calls our Iraq presence a withdrawal, splits the baby and calls himself Solomon.

Our attention has been focused, even manipulated.

[Turborama]

107. The Iraq Occupation was the focus of the media and the Bush regime.

Just because the media were focusing on Iraq doesn't mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)">the war in Afghanistan wasn't going on and whatever the media was focused on doesn't excuse anyone for taking their eyes off the ball. That's the point I was making, either people weren't paying attention or didn't care. My focus wasn't manipulated, I have continued to feel the same way about Afghanistan as http://www.c-spanvideo.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8303750">Joe Biden did prior to the invasion.

Re: "Obama and McCain both took it off the table of the debates".

Obama & McCain debate Afghanistan @ Oxford, Mississippi. September 26 2008

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO2uA2t9e-I

(84 views here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x199403)

Transcript:

LEHRER: Do you think more troops -- more U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?

OBAMA: Yes, I think we need more troops. I've been saying that for over a year now.

And I think that we have to do it as quickly as possible, because it's been acknowledged by the commanders on the ground the situation is getting worse, not better.

We had the highest fatalities among U.S. troops this past year than at any time since 2002. And we are seeing a major offensive taking place -- al Qaeda and Taliban crossing the border and attacking our troops in a brazen fashion. They are feeling emboldened.

And we cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan.

So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan.

And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front -- that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

So here's what we have to do comprehensively, though. It's not just more troops.

We have to press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people. And I've said this to President Karzai.

No. 2, we've got to deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded over the last several years.

No. 3, we've got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.

And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.

LEHRER: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: First of all, I won't repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.

And the result over time was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can't ignore those lessons of history.

Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you're going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you'd better be prepared to pull the trigger.

I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.

We've got to get the support of the people of -- of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.

Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.

Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.

I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes.

And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.

And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with al Qaeda and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.

And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don't want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.

So we've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I'm confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops -- and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.

So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.

OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.

And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.

And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."

And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.

That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

From: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

[Mithreal]

109. My perception was that there was very little difference on Afghanistan

so it was essentially not up for debate. I stand corrected to some extent, my memory is imperfect, but didn't intend to mean that it was never mentioned.

Are you really blaming DUer's and Americans in general for not being more against wars and occupations sooner? Average American people are abused and have some sort of Stockholm syndrome to our ravenous and rapacious empire. Our 6 year Peace Vigil lost half of our members when Obama came into office. The ones who left indicated they were against Bush, but not Obama's mighty intellect applied to warcraft.

It is the way of things for some to be out front on ideas. And you are.

Except for those against American murder and mayhem in general, think there is sufficient outrage over Yemen or is it going to take time for it to sink in before all of us are outraged over that escalation of these terror wars?

Thank you for posting what you did. Asking where the outrage was directed at hypocritical Republicans is especially appropriate but I see no reason to call fellow progressives out for not having a better understanding of Afghanistan sooner. It seems a strange shaming.

[Ignis]

116. That's probably why we voted for Brand Change in '08.

Unfortunately, "Change" at this point rings about as hollow as "New and Improved!"

[riverdale]

185. Analogy of Obama winning to Iraq war

It's like when we invaded Iraq. There was a bit of a lull at first. The people there were generally giving us the benefit of a doubt that we would do the right thing. Once it became obvious what the occupation was about, the shit started to hit the fan.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alp227]

82. Every time Obama announces such a thing decreases my chance of voting for him in 2012.

Seriously, he's still spending more on "unpopular" wars? Vote for the Peace & Freedom Party in 2012 if Mr. Change still wants to pander to deranged McCain voters.

[apimomfan2]

90. Bankrupting America & the Middle Class

Makes it so much easier to install that Theocracy the C Street Cult wants. There's your "change."

[Xicano]

98. Psssst..... Hey Obama listen up.

Take your fucking war mongering request and stick it up your ass! you fucking traitor!! You got some fucking nerve you know that. Fucking wall street asshole.


:argh:

[saigon68]

99. kicking this outrage

Time to photo shop this little guy

"BRING EM ON"

[Bragi]

101. By Your Predetors and Reapers Ye Shall be Known

The iconic image of US foreign policy under Bush was that of a 19-year-old corn-fed Iowa youth dressed to the nines like a Death Borg busting into your living room, terrifying your women and children, and rounding up the men to be sent to secret torture prisons.

Looks like the iconic image for the next while will be that of drones operated from trailers in comfy American suburbs raining down anonymous death onto villages on the other side of the world.

That should fix things for sure.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

105. go ask for the money from your friends

[earth mom]

108. Is there any doubt now that Obama really believes War is Peace?

:puke:

[FiveGoodMen]

164. None.

There's no room left to believe anything but that Obama is one of them, not one of us.

[inna]

113. Deficit spending is for important things only.

Such as wars and bankster bailouts. x(

[villager]

118. Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

Source: AP

Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

By ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – 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.

The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.
The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans through 2015.

<snip>

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obama_war_funding

---

Plus ca change!

[Desertrose]

119. So, if we "win" these wars...what is it we really "win"?

The prize better be damn good to make it worth so many lives.....

[zogofzorkon]

152. The prize was already received

gives peace a whole new meaning. What's won in the wars is new riches for the war industry.

[DrDan]

120. that headline is a bit misleading - not all $700B is for war

most is for military defense

[rurallib]

121. Wars are extra.

[No Elephants]

128. Defense against what? Besides, aren't the wars supposedly defensive actions against

terra.

I could justify putting almost any expense in either the war column or the "defense" column, so I don't know how meaningful and sharp the distinctions are in reality.

[DrDan]

131. there are some areas that overlap - but I think the distinction is fairly clear

[PacerLJ35]

140. Most of the increased budget is to replace worn out/broken stuff

For example, the airplanes I used to fly are now 49 years old, with wing cracks and all...and they were used extensively in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Before you criticize, these airplanes aren't just used for war...the very same crews I flew with in Iraq/Afghanistan are now preparing to fly to Haiti to deliver aid.

[grahamhgreen]

142. If they'd done that instead of wasting trillion in Iraqistan we'd have the new gear already.

[PacerLJ35]

151. Not exactly

Prior to Obama, the money to fund the war was done through emergency supplementals...in other words, the normal budget used for daily operating and procurement wasn't enough to buy new stuff. Even before the war, most of the Air Force's aircraft were very old and worn out...B-52s were all built in the early 1960s, the KC-135 tanker fleet was built from 1955-1964, and most of the older C-130E transports were built from 1961-1964...newer C-130H aircraft were delivered from '72-'74. That's just the tip of the iceberg, and only one branch. The fighters that non-military folks have taken for granted as being the best and most advanced were all designed in the late 1960s/early 1970s and delivered from 1975 and through the 1980s...those airframes take a beating with high aerodynamic loadings, and wear out faster. Most of the F-15s were cracking before 9/11 even. Iraq and Afghanistan only accelerated the issue.

It's going to get to the point where we either have a larger budget to modernize and replace worn out stuff, or we accept that we're sending our sons and daughters to war (and disaster relief...ie, Haiti, etc) in airplanes with wing cracks and corrosion issues, etc. In another 10-20 years, our Air Force will be like North Korea's...just a really large military airplane museum.

[NeoConsSuck]

173. 700 BILLION

is not a 'defense' budget. It's an 'offense' budget.

[DrDan]

182. it is offensive - I will grant you that

but much of it is targeted for strictly national defense - vs the known wars

[OhioChick]

122. $708 billion for wars, defense, etc. yet how many kids go to bed hungry? disgusting. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

123. "Change" we should run from at top speed.

[earth mom]

124. SEVEN HUNDRED & EIGHT BILLION. Let that soak in people.

Just jawdropping.

All to kill people who haven't done shit to any of us and who just want to live their lives like we want to live ours.

Obama needs to give that peace prize back because it's worthless and meaningless. :puke:

[No Elephants]

129. Numbers have lost their impact anymore. A quarter of a trillion? Pffft. So last year.

[earth mom]

135. Exactly-the only time the numbers matter is when we're talking universal health care. nt

[Frisbee]

145. A little quick math in my heads says...

They're spending about $2000 for every man, woman and child in the US. Somebody remind me, what letter followed his name during the campaign? I could have sworn it was a "D", but I'm sure I must be mistaken.

[democrank]

125. See reply #5

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[David Zephyr]

126. Unbelievable. George W. Bush must be proud.

.

[bvar22]

132. Actually, George and the Republicans are jealous.

"They" could have NEVER gotten away with so much.

[earth mom]

137. And that's why * & Co are so happy with Obama. nt

[bossy22]

127. not surprising

in fact alot of this spending is due to the clinton/bush "procurement holiday" in which for a span of about 12 years the US never really got new equipment or spent money upgrading their equipment. Now we are left with aging platforms that have to be upgraded/replaced. In fact the perfect example is the US navy with their aging Perry Class frigates and no true suitable replacement for them in shallow waters.

[No Elephants]

130. Good point. Thanks.

[bossy22]

134. you are welcome :)

i should have posted this above but the best way of looking at the situation the military is in is comparing it to ownership of a car. It's like having a car and never brining it in for routine service, then one day you bring it in and you get a bill for $5,0000

i blame bush more than i blame clinton (bush II). Clinton atleast was working off the assumption that we had such excess from the cold war that we didnt need any more, but bush increased the demand on the military with out really supplimenting it. With bush it was just a clear lack of judgement (which is not surprising)

[Scruffy1]

148. You mean the Pentagon Yacht Club

Time to quit pissing money down this drain. Give em row boats. The US Navy exists merely to make profits for contractors. It is by far the most inept branch of the service with the worst mangagemenyt.
But they do know how to spend money.

[bossy22]

155. you are wrong and right

you are right that the navy has inept management and that they know how to waste money but their are quite possible our most important branch. The navy is one of our foremost forms of power projection. If any branch of service needs to be well-funded- it would be the navy. the navy needs new leadership and a better shipbuilding plan.

[tammywammy]

179. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7456367


:eyes:

[progressoid]

133. Woo hoo!

:woohoo: AMERICA! :woohoo: AMERICA! :woohoo: AMERICA! :woohoo:




:banghead:

[scytherius]

136. So when is George Bush's term REALLY over?

Never voting again. I'll vote on Prop issues (like against a Prop 8) but that is it. no more time, no more money, no more votes. I hope the Dems are decimated in 2010. Give it to the GOP. They will destroy America, finally, and then we can either split into 2 or 3 different countries or maybe we can start over again. The united States is DONE. Absolutely 100% DONE.

[earth mom]

138. Yep, it's just like * never left isn't it?

And I totally agree with the rest of your post. The only worry I have about the GOP getting back in power is Palin and I don't think they are that stupid to let her and her whack beliefs totally wreck the place.

But then again, nothing really surprises me anymore.

[RedCloud]

139. Peace through war. War against the non conformists with resources.

[grahamhgreen]

141. "But it must be revenue neutral", said the president - NOT!

Someone needs to take away his keys. Like a drunk at a bar. The guy has lost his mooring.

[BP2]

143. Somewhere beyond the grave, Reagan sits back in a big leather chair and

smiles :banghead:

[Illuminated]

150. Man I am glad a repuke didnt get in....

Wait, what?

[Vinca]

144. It's really outrageous. More people die from lack of healthcare

in this country than from anything remotely resembling a terrorist attack. If this is change, I've got a tower in Paris to sell you.

[madmax]

146. Oh fuck this!

Stop the wars, I want to get off! When wil this shit end? When will the US realize that we CAN NOT continue this path.

I have no problem with our country helping an impovrished nation like Haiti but, these wars for oil are bullshit and we're going to pay the price sooner rather than later. Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia will have to hire merc like Blackwater to defend and protect them from the Taliban and Saddam's of the middle east.

[Scruffy1]

149. send the thirty three billiom to Haiti

It will do some good there. Oh I forgot It's for "defense" of corporate profits.

[Rapier09]

147. Looks like we're gearing up for an invasion

It is going to be quite interesting to see where the US military ends up in the years ahead.

[bossy22]

156. we are gearing up for a refit

just look at the age of some of platforms....some are going on 40 yrs!!!! Our aircrafts are nearing the end of their operational life spans, our fleet is shrinking and rusting, and the marines are still using equipment from vietnam

[PacerLJ35]

171. Spot on post...

Up until recently I was flying the C-130E...and the tail numbers we flew were built from 1961-1964. The B-52 was built in the early 1960s. Many of the tankers were built in the mid- to late-1950s. The fighters were designed during Vietnam and fielded in the late 70s and early 1980s. We bought a few attrition examples a few at a time into the 1990s, but after that we stopped. The average fighter is over 20 years old. The B-1 is 25 years old. Our Navy has gradually pulled ships off the line and scrapped them or sold them because they are too old and difficult to maintain, and the dozens of ships have been replaced with a small handful of new vessels. Army aviation is operating updated versions of aircraft designed and built in the 1960s and 1970s. Not a single aircraft in the US Army fleet was designed entirely new post 1970s. CH-47...1960s design, most were built in the 70 and a few in the 80s. UH-60...designed in the 1970s, and many were built and delivered from mid-70s on. OH-58...designed in the 1970s, updated in the 1980s. Even the AH-64 Apache was designed in the 1970s.

Our equipment is wearing out...the recent conflicts have only worsened this. I have flown aircraft with KNOWN wing cracks. Engineers and maintenance personnel impose a few restrictions, tell you to not be rough on the controls, and good luck. Imagine if your son or daughter had to fly something like that...I hope that when and if my children become adults, the military won't be full of equipment that's very dated, worn out and approaching the status of being dangerous.

For what it's worth, I love it when people tell me it must be cool to fly the most advanced aircraft in the world, and they are simply stunned when I tell them we still use navigation radios that must be tuned with a crank, and date from a WWII design.

[blueworld]

153. Then why doesn't he tax the military? A Reinforced Humvee tax?

They can set up a Bronze tank tax, a Silver Hummer tax, a Platinum Aircraft Carrier tax...

It isn't a perfect plan but it will finance the greatest number of soldiers and the ladies in NJ won't have to continue bake sales to buy their sons Kevlar.

Start at the Pentagon. They can compare benefits provided by the Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force tot up the cost & check the high-level accomodations at the VA hospitals.

Just think of all the things we can finance with this nifty approach!

[PacerLJ35]

157. People in the military already pay taxes

[change_notfinetuning]

158. Now that's audacity. Where's the hope and change?

[katty]

159. Hey Banksters get our your ATM cards hand it over!

I am sick of paying for wars!

[RoccoR5955]

160. WHY WHY WHY is there ALWAYS money to kill people,

but there is NEVER EVER money to help people?

Damn him if he asks us to pay for this damn war.

[ShortnFiery]

161. President Obama is carrying on BushCo's American Crusade 2001+

But NOW, it's President Obama's occupations and continued warmongering finances for armaments a dn pretty weapons that we are supporting with our tax dollars. :(

[Fearless]

162. I want healthcare that works!

[PuraVidaDreamin]

163. Peace of the Action!!! Tell Mr. Obama what you think about this

We will clog the streets of DC. Starting this spring. CHECK OUT the New website
for Peace of the Action. It Freaking Rocks!

http://peaceoftheaction.org/

[Baclava]

165. No blood for poppies!

Can't we leave these poor fuckers alone?

[DisgustedInMN]

167. Never seems to be any shortage of funds when it comes to...

... killing people and bombing the crap out of "them," does there?

But we sure can't find any money to put Americans to work doing positive things or to provide decent health care.

Thanks Barack, another helping of "Change you can believe in!", I guess.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

172. The nerve of him to ask for billions for the wars

when the people of this country are living on food stamps and don't have healthcare. I don't want to hear any shit about suppoerting
our military. These troops are making good incomes and receiving huge bonuses. They can afford to buy $300-$400 thousand dollar
homes. Yep, killing innocents has become a lucrative business. Wonder how much they're paying the Black Water Ops.

[PacerLJ35]

175. Huh? We can afford $400,000 homes?

I'm an officer and I can't afford a home like that...not even close. So imagine being enlisted...you're quite a bit off the mark. And bonuses? Well, if you're lucky to be in a shortage career field, you can get a bonus. But many aren't eligible for bonuses. And those that do get the bonus make up for it by being in said shortage career field (ie, they work a lot and get deployed a lot).

[EmeraldCityGrl]

176. Two of my son's friends came back

from overseas with thousands of dollars. One of them bought a $300,000 condo in Seattle.

I also watch several real estate shows and often the buyers are young couples with the
husband in the military, stay at home mom. The Houses they're buying are in the $250-$400
thousand dollar range.

We have a lot of military families living in The Pacific Northwest. I like going to open houses
on the Islands and peninsula, and many of the waterfront and upper end homes are owned by
military retired and active.

Not sure what the difference is between your career path and theirs, but many are doing quite well.

[PacerLJ35]

178. Career path doesn't matter

You get paid the same regardless. In fact I make more than most other people my rank because I fly and get paid flight pay. I am in the process of buying a $250,000 home, and that's stretching my budget quite a bit...and I am not a junior officer either. Perhaps the retirees you've seen went on and had a second career, and used their retired military pay to save for that big home. Some of the more senior military officers can probably afford a $400K house in that area because housing pay is tied to the local market (ie, an officer in the Pacific NW probably gets paid a little more in housing pay than I do in Arkansas), but junior officers and most of the enlisted force cannot afford a house like that.

Your son's friends likely lived frugally and saved their extra money earned while overseas (in a combat zone you get paid extra, plus no taxes...if it was in a non-combat zone, you get paid COLA) and used it to pay a down payment. But those with families or that aren't extremely tight with their budget can't simply plunk down the cash to buy such a home.

[Ticonderoga]

180. I served with the 9th Infantry Div.

In in Dong Tam Vietnam in 1968. Basic pay $ 113.40 + combat and overseas pay. LOL, 400 thousand dollar homes? I doubt that time have changed that much.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

181. Here's an example

http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/total_compensation.jsp


This site gives an example of military salaries. An Army Job, Military Police Sergeant with salary, housing, food allowance, special pay,
healthcare,tax advantages can potentially be paid $47,278 TAX FREE.

Given the current economic climate in the US, this is a good salary with great bennies.

[PacerLJ35]

187. You only get the tax free if you serve in a designated combat zone

And as an officer that meant I got an additional $600 a month (I have a family so my withholding isn't too high). Still, $47k a year isn't enough to buy a $400,000 home. Just the closing costs on that would require somebody to save a whole year's salary...and you gotta live somehow and buy food, transportation, etc.

You are right that the pay is pretty good and the benefits are very good as well. But you stated that military people were buying half-million dollar homes right and left, and I've contended with you that's an exception, not the rule.

[Ticonderoga]

177. Obama defrauded me.

I WANT MY VOTE BACK.

[Xenotime]

183. No. He promised to bring all our troops home. No.

[Turborama]

188. He didin't promise to bring all our troops home.

Attempts to rewrite history need to be rectified, whichever side it comes from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4222461&mesg_id=4223148

[ConcernedCanuk]

186. More for WAR, more for WAR!! - how abut a cry for more for the homeless, the unhealthy . .

.
.
.

USA is already known for being the most aggressive military nation on earth . .

Can you imagine the USA being known for its great way of life for it's own citizens with health care, decent housing and food . . .

And a peaceful benefactor for the rest of the World?

naaaaaaaaaaaaahh . .

I'm thinking silly

More bombs please . . .

(sigh)