$81 Billion More For War Approved 99-0 In Senate

[Delirious]

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/4404160/detail.html

Begin the throwing of flames in a war-type style!

(Or in english, what do you think, agree or disagree and why)

 

[Swift]

As glad that I am that Kerry didn't win. I truly wish we would just give our guys the right equipment, bomb the militant areas and call it a day. This way we're doing things in just insane. I can't stand that americans are dying like that.

 

[PS]

Oh, but you can stand all the Iraqi's dying like that...smooth.

 

[Solid Fro]

What?

No "I voted for the 87 Billion before I voted against it" stuff? Funny how there is no opposition when it's not an election year.

 

[Delirious]

what i find interesting is that we elected some of those people in the senate who made the 99-0 vote...so partly in a way, we made the vote

what i find more interesting is that it was 99-0...no opposition, at ALL

 

[bfifteenv]

As glad that I am that Kerry didn't win. I truly wish we would just give our guys the right equipment, bomb the militant areas and call it a day. This way we're doing things in just insane. I can't stand that americans are dying like that.

That's it. That's what we need to do. Bomb the democracy, freedom, and love for fellow man into them.

I love that America cannot afford to give decent health care to it's poorest citizens, can't afford to fix social security without privatization, can't afford to pay to educate our kids. But more money for a war that is all about oil for our SUVs? Sure! We can do that.

We need to get the hell out of there. Let them do what they want, stop toiling in their business. But no we won't. We need too much oil, drilling for oil is messy business and we don't want that **** in our back yard.

So another $81 billion + dead americans to help install another regime that we will have to go back and oust in 30 years? Does it mean I can keep my 'Sclade? Then I'm all for it.

I hate what my country has become. I'd move to Canada but I hear they don't want any of us...

 

[Solid Fro]

Seems like Democrats are more worried about 2006 than keeping a steady voting record.

John Kerry has officially Flip Flop Flipped.

I love that America cannot afford to give decent health care to it's poorest citizens, can't afford to fix social security without privatization, can't afford to pay to educate our kids. But more money for a war that is all about oil for our SUVs? Sure! We can do that...

Do we really need to go through this again? It's October all over!

I suggest reading some history books and a newspaper before you post again.

 

[Jordan]

Seems like Democrats are more worried about 2006 than keeping a steady voting record.

John Kerry has officially Flip Flop Flipped.

...along with the rest of his party.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Defense spending is key to protecting freedom. $81 billion can easily be covered with a couple of T-bills anyway.

 

[Delirious]

and for those of us who are ignorant to what t-bills are like me?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

and for those of us who are ignorant to what t-bills are like me?

T-Bills, or Treasury Bills are government IOUs. They are low-risk, low-income debt securities (meaning you won't lose money, but you won't make a ton of money owning them either) that are usually sold in $10,000 increments.

No interest is paid on the Bills (unlike bonds which do pay interest), but the debt is sold at less than face value and repaid in full when it comes due. They are sold through weekly and monthly auctions, and they mature in 13, 26, or 52 weeks.

Example, you buy a T-bill for $10,000, but it costs you $9,832 for a bond that matures in 52 weeks. That means, in one year you get back $10,000 for a $168 profit. I wasn't kidding when I said "low-income" ($168/yr!!!), but you're pretty much guaranteed that the US government won't go bankrupt. Buying a T-bill (if you're rich that is) is a great way to diversify a risky portfolio and show your patriotism!

 

[bfifteenv]

Do we really need to go through this again? It's October all over!

I suggest reading some history books and a newspaper before you post again.

Do you mean the part of the history books where we (westerners alothough not solely the U.S.) created all the borders and installed governments in what we now refer to as countries in the middle east in the early 1900's as part of colonization o the middle east? Or the part where we funded the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight the Russians? Or the part where we funded Iran to fight Iraq.

If you are trying to suggest that this war is not about oil, perhaps you care to explain why we spend so much money and blood piddling in an area of the world so far away. WMDs, not withstanding. If we didn't give them a reason to want to use WMDs agains us, or blow up buildings (reasons like funding wars against one another across arbitrary borders that westerners created, playing one side against the other) then we would never have to worry about it in the first place.

Or do I need to read the part of the newspapers that say that Bush's budget cuts education funding for 2005. Cutting money from a program that is already grossly underfunded.

Or the part where Bush cut Medicaid funding by $40 billion dollars.

Perhaps if you were more clear on the part of my original post that you disagree with we could have civilized debate about this. But I guess just telling me to shut up is easier...

 

[xcsti]

I'm going to defend the dems on this. While many of them are opposed to the war (occupation) itself, none want to leave their own soldiers empty handed. The problem is that it seems to give the appearance that they are supporting an extension of the occupation, which they are not (as far as I know). They want to do things right, now that they've been thrown into the situation.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Do you mean the part of the history books where we (westerners alothough not solely the U.S.) created all the borders and installed governments in what we now refer to as countries in the middle east in the early 1900's as part of colonization of the area known as the middle east?

Hold on a second there... we didn't act alone. Don't forget the UK, France etc.

Or the part where we funded the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight the Russians? Or the part where we funded Iran to fight Iraq.

We funded the Taliban to stop the spread of Communism -- we were cognizant of the fact that the Middle East is an important geo-political stronghold.

If you are trying to suggest that this war is not about oil, perhaps you care to explain why we spend so much money and blood piddling in an area of the world so far away. WMDs, not withstanding. If we didn't give them a reason to want to use WMDs agains us, or blow up buildings (reasons like funding wars against one another across arbitrary borders that westerners created, playing one side against the other) then we would never have to worry about it in the first place.

Oil is a major factor in this war.

Or do I need to read the part of the newspapers that say that Bush's budget cuts education funding for 2005. Cutting money from a program that is already grossly underfunded.

Why does it have to be Bush's budget cuts? That sounds like liberal rhetoric to me. Why can't it be the "Senate's budget cuts"?

Perhaps if you were more clear on the part of my original post that you disagree with we could have civilized debate about this. But I guess just telling me to shut up is easier...

​

 

[Swift]

Seems like Democrats are more worried about 2006 than keeping a steady voting record.

John Kerry has officially Flip Flop Flipped.





Do we really need to go through this again? It's October all over!

I suggest reading some history books and a newspaper before you post again.

That's what Kerry does. he just flips with what's popular or easy. Whichever comes first.

 

[ledhed]

Actually the US did not act at all ...we were not even members of the leauge of nations and were opposed to colonization...but then again anyone who reads a little history would know this stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfifteenv

Do you mean the part of the history books where we (westerners alothough not solely the U.S.) created all the borders and installed governments in what we now refer to as countries in the middle east in the early 1900's as part of colonization of the area known as the middle east?

But feel free to continue to twist facts to suit the argument of the day.
At any rate the Dems do not have much choice now do they ? Especially when the whole Iraqi thing seems to be working out...you know freeedom ...elections ...democracy demenstrations in countrys around the Mid East...Syria out of Lebenon ...JUST LIKE THEY SAID IT WOULD WORK...its called jumping on the band wagon...not to say that when they are all democratic nations they wont all just vote to kick our ass anyway..

 

[smellysocks12]

As glad that I am that Kerry didn't win. I truly wish we would just give our guys the right equipment, bomb the militant areas and call it a day. This way we're doing things in just insane. I can't stand that americans are dying like that.

Yeah, just destroy a country and leave the people in a mess. That really works. 👎



Of course Bush has made you enthousiastic by doing everything "in the name of God".

 

[///M-Spec]

Friendly reminder. General discussion of American action, policy and history goes in the sticky at the top of the page.

I don't know why this thread exists to be honest. There are many, many, many threads on Iraq already. If you feel the need to rehash, do a search.


M