XerXis Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) President Bush has asked the congres for another 3.2 billion dollars for Iraq. Most of it will be needed to send another 4400 men (mostly soldiers but also translators) to the troubled country. To make this kind of money possible Bush plans on cutbacks in less important areas like healtcare, agricultural departement and DOT, this are not my words, it is what he told Nancy Pelosi the chairman (chairwoman?) of the congres. Has Bush totally lost his senses, is he leading the USA (and the rest of the western world) to a financial crash? Edited March 11, 2007 by XerXis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted March 11, 2007 MVC Share Posted March 11, 2007 Bush never has any senses to lose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Yes. His logic is "saving the world is more important than saving our own citizens." and that is putting it very politely, and people should replace "saving the world" with whatever they deem appropriate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmccoy Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 He has lost it. Save the world and do nothing for your own country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesmithg Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 President Bush has asked the congres for another 3.2 billion dollars for iraque. Most of it will be needed to send another 4400 men (mostly soldiers but also translators) to the troubled country. To make this kind of money possible Bush plans on cutbacks in less important areas like healtcare, agricultural departement and DOT, this are not my words, it is what he told Nancy Pelosi the chairman (chairwoman?) of the congres.Has Bush totally lost his senses, is he leading the USA (and the rest of the western world) to a financial crash? It's 'Iraq' b.t.w. No he wants more money as he is going to take on Iran. He wants world domiantion for all the areas of the world that have large rivers of oil beneath their surface. He aint interested in anything else. War on terror, my arse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismaddern Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Did Bush ever have it? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XerXis Posted March 11, 2007 Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 It's 'Iraq' b.t.w. thank you, I wasn't sure about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismaddern Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 It's 'Iraq' b.t.w.No he wants more money as he is going to take on Iran. He wants world domiantion for all the areas of the world that have large rivers of oil beneath their surface. He aint interested in anything else. War on terror, my arse! It will be a sad day if America decides to commit US forces to Iran. Made worse still by the fact that it will never be a UN backed decision. America have some serious Foreign Policy issues; I just hope that we get to the next general elections before he gets a chance to attack Iran, essentially on the grounds of a civil nuclear program (Oh.. sorry, yes, terrorist, sovereign, government... a contradicton I feel). We've already ****** off the middle east enough by backing Israel unquestioningly, we could really do without making any enemies. China and Russia seem to be making much better friends over there :) Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesmithg Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 As far as I am concerned an army is supposed to protect it's borders, not invade other areas of the world to rid it of people it don't like. The only reason soldiers given up to help in other countries is to help out peace keeping and un missions. Thats the whole idea of united nations. Has Bush gone mad? yes, 13 to 0 already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted March 11, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 11, 2007 [Thread Moved from PS to RWI] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhon Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 As far as I am concerned an army is supposed to protect it's borders, not invade other areas of the world to rid it of people it don't like.The only reason soldiers given up to help in other countries is to help out peace keeping and un missions. Thats the whole idea of united nations. Has Bush gone mad? yes, 13 to 0 already. Exactly and while we are in Iraq fighting terror we can really be attacked and then what Dee DA Dee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismaddern Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Well... I dunno.. answering the actual question... do I think Bush is mad, yes of course. But... in asking for the extra US$3.2 Billion, I'm not sure he really has any other choice... the ship on reason has sailed now and he has to try to make (ok... I can't talk about Bush anymore.. let's just assume there's someone clever behind him advising him, and for once he's listening) *they* have to attempt to make what the can of the Iraq situation, and that involves rebuilding infastructure quickly; this will take money and men. So, while this situation is ridiculous, short of the political disaster that would be withdrawing from Iraq now, I suppose they need to do something about it. For the love of god though... let someone else make the decisions :p Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodel Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Without the preamble, and the question solely being "is [bush] leading the USA (and the rest of the western world) to a financial crash?" I'd say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted March 11, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 11, 2007 Here's the original story, not sure where the OP got where the money would come from, the AP story contradicts him. Today: March 11, 2007 at 0:50:5 PST Bush Seeks 8,200 More Troops for Wars President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January. Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring. In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams. The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Iraq are debating funding for the war. But in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops. Cutting the programs, he said, would eliminate the need to increase the overall $93.4 billion in additional defense money he's already requested to finance this year's war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Bush wrote in his letter to lawmakers. Bush signed the letter on his flight Friday from Brazil to Uruguay, part of his five-nation tour of Latin America that continues on Sunday in Colombia. The White House released the letter Saturday in Montevideo, Uruguay. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, recently hinted of the need to bolster the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. "Gen. Petraeus expects under the Baghdad security plan as well as other parts of Iraq, that the number of people going into detention will increase and so these military police forces will be for that," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismaddern Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 A financial crash; I'm not sure, however even if so, I'm not sure that we can really blame Bush. China has such a huge stake in the American economy, along with the control that the Isreali-sympathetic Jews that hold. Unfortunately, China appears to be having good relations with most Middle Eastern countries at the moment (oil anyone??), and Israel is quite at odds. It may come down to choosing, and that will be a bad day for America, economically. Besides that, America's time as the unquestioned most powerful country in the world may be coming to a decline. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leesmithg Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Personally I think Bush and Bliar (Blair) should be charged with war crimes. I will admit when this whole thing started to rumble 4 years + ago and they said it was to remove weapons of mass destruction (not found) & to rid the world of an evil man I was 60/40 in favour of an invasion. The amount of innocent, men, women and children killled, estimates are around 680,000 with hindsight it's bad very bad whats been done. So for nearly 4 years I have been totally opposed to this so called war on terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 People should have seen it coming - taxes increased again. That's the only part of what he's doing I disapprove of. I recon good of him to stick to his guns. But if I were American I wouldn't care that much about a small Middle-Eastern country, certainly not enough to give up more of my salary to save it, only to see it taken over by retarded sectarians the second the Army leaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted March 11, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 11, 2007 It's basically US$3.2 billion in new funds. You know that they'll just spend the US$3.2 billion in low-priority defense items later. Basically, that spending could be delayed while Iraq spending could not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas-c Veteran Posted March 11, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 11, 2007 where is the "he has always been mad" option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZZOOzzoo Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Bravo Bush. I have lots of reasons to hate Bush, but his commitment to Iraq is one thing that I admire about him. The U.S must do whatever it takes to prevent Iraq from becoming Iran's playground and end sectarian killings. It is in the interest of both the U.S and the rest of the world. It's a pity that the U.S did not do its best to gather international support for the war, because for the U.S to accomplish these goals alone it is going to take a huge amount of resources. But it still is neither too late nor impossible to turn Iraq into a success, as the recent (small) success of Bush's surge plan demonstrates. If the money Bush is asking for is used effectively, it will certainly accelerate the Iraq's progress to a stable democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranasrule Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) GONE mad ? when was he sane ??? after 9/11 the USA had the worlds sympathies and if it had played its cards right they could have really done something.....today the USA (along with Israel) is the most hated nation on earth....sad but true Edited March 11, 2007 by ranasrule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XerXis Posted March 11, 2007 Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 Bravo Bush. I have lots of reasons to hate Bush, but his commitment to Iraq is one thing that I admire about him. The U.S must do whatever it takes to prevent Iraq from becoming Iran's playground and end sectarian killings. It is in the interest of both the U.S and the rest of the world.It's a pity that the U.S did not do its best to gather international support for the war, because for the U.S to accomplish these goals alone it is going to take a huge amount of resources. But it still is neither too late nor impossible to turn Iraq into a success, as the recent (small) success of Bush's surge plan demonstrates. If the money Bush is asking for is used effectively, it will certainly accelerate the Iraq's progress to a stable democracy. America's presence in Iraq is a total failure, and always has been. Just this morning 30 people died, innocent people blown to bits. You call that success? At least Sadam (though I do not argue about him being a ruthless dictator) was a buffer against muslim terrorism. If anything, the war in Iraq made it possible for Iran to make it its playground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZZOOzzoo Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 America's presence in Iraq is a total failure, and always has been. Just this morning 30 people died, innocent people blown to bits. You call that success? At least Sadam (though I do not argue about him being a ruthless dictator) was a buffer against muslim terrorism. If anything, the war in Iraq made it possible for Iran to make it its playground Yay for total misreading. The bit about 'small success' was about how Bush's surge plan was showing some hopes of improving the situation in Iraq. I agree that the U.S's handling of the war was a total disaster. That is exactly why I expect the U.S to commit itself to clean up the mess and do whatever it takes to stabilize the region, even if that means spending billions. I still think the U.S has a chance of accomplishing the goal, but of course, for that to happen, the U.S will probably need a more comprehensive and consistent policy in the Middle East with more emphasis on soft diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digipoi Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 GONE mad ? when was he sane ???after 9/11 the USA had the worlds sympathies and if it had played its cards right they could have really done something.....today the USA (along with Israel) is the most hated nation on earth....sad but true Thats just not true. It may be true for countries that harbor terrorist and support terrorist. Ultimately because they fear Bush's goal for the end result. Yes, their destruction. That means cleaning up your backyard eh rana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundayx Veteran Posted March 11, 2007 Veteran Share Posted March 11, 2007 So when is Bush oging to demand yet another 3.2B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts