Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."What we need is what the constitution dictates: congressional authorization. For Iraq, that was actually given though in a manner that is chickenshit because congress wanted to authorize 'war' without calling it war
Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"
The Constitution requires officers of the US government to abide by all treaties enacted by the US Congress, as in signing the UN Charter; and it doesn't really matter what shit-for-brains conservatives think about the UN. Iraq posed no existential threat to your double-wide and the UNSC did NOT authorize the US invasion of Iraq. Hence, Iraq is just one more example of US terrorism.
It actually isn't the most expensive article in the budget. The entire DoD in its entirety is not the most expensive item in the budget either, SS is. The DoD, as far as I can tell, is also the only major department who's funding is decreasing while the remaining government increases - all while expanding war efforts all over the planet.only 13 years of war?? It is the most expensive article of our budget. Stop paying for the purposes of war. We were born to live in peace. I am upset of the international policy at all. These figures dissapoint me significantly!! The US people earn money for a senseless war."Thirteen years of war have cost the United States roughly $1.6 trillion.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the government has spent the money on military operations, base support, weapons maintenance, training of Afghan and Iraq security forces, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans’ healthcare, according to a recently released report by the Congressional Research Service tracking expenses through September.
The money was distributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan, Operation Noble Eagle and other war-designated funding not directly died to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to the report.
Nearly half of the money spent, $815 billion, went toward the Iraq War, the report said.
About 92 percent of the expenses over the past 13 years came from the Department of Defense.Though U.S. troop levels in the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan, have been on a steady decline, the war funds request for fiscal 2015 remains at $73.5 billion, including $58.1 billion for Afghanistan.
Notably missing from the totals is the request to cover expenses for Operation Inherent Resolve, the airstrikes that began in late August against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
“There are some indications that the [Defense Department's fiscal 2015] war funding request may be more than is needed in light of [2014's] experience when expenses for returning troops and equipment have proven to be lower and the pace faster than anticipated,” the report said, referring to the cost of the airstrikes against the Islamic State and the recent announcement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that roughly 1,000 groups may remain in Afghanistan until spring 2015."
Cost of 13 years of war 1.6 trillion WashingtonExaminer.com
SO... One obama/Democrat Annual Deficit?
Wow... who would have bet (besides me...) that executing a world war for nearly 15 years would cost a FRACTION (~ 1/6th) of what it costs to simply allow the Left to Control the US Government for say... 6 years?
Huh.
The figures ARE disappointing but the claim that the DoD is such an overbearing part of governmental expenditures ignores some MAJOR expenditures.
I don't know if I trust that graphic at all though. SS is the largest expenditure out there but that chart breaks it down into categories that are not really very helpful. For instance, pensions and defense are separate pieces of the pie yet one of the major expenses within the DoD IS pensions so is that slice taken out of the 'defense' portion? I would bet that it is and that is a misrepresentation of the real picture. Basically, there is no 'pensions' section of the budget and there shouldn't be. The pensions need to be broken down by individual agency they belong to.It actually isn't the most expensive article in the budget. The entire DoD in its entirety is not the most expensive item in the budget either, SS is. The DoD, as far as I can tell, is also the only major department who's funding is decreasing while the remaining government increases - all while expanding war efforts all over the planet.only 13 years of war?? It is the most expensive article of our budget. Stop paying for the purposes of war. We were born to live in peace. I am upset of the international policy at all. These figures dissapoint me significantly!! The US people earn money for a senseless war."Thirteen years of war have cost the United States roughly $1.6 trillion.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the government has spent the money on military operations, base support, weapons maintenance, training of Afghan and Iraq security forces, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans’ healthcare, according to a recently released report by the Congressional Research Service tracking expenses through September.
The money was distributed to Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan, Operation Noble Eagle and other war-designated funding not directly died to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to the report.
Nearly half of the money spent, $815 billion, went toward the Iraq War, the report said.
About 92 percent of the expenses over the past 13 years came from the Department of Defense.Though U.S. troop levels in the Middle East, especially in Afghanistan, have been on a steady decline, the war funds request for fiscal 2015 remains at $73.5 billion, including $58.1 billion for Afghanistan.
Notably missing from the totals is the request to cover expenses for Operation Inherent Resolve, the airstrikes that began in late August against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
“There are some indications that the [Defense Department's fiscal 2015] war funding request may be more than is needed in light of [2014's] experience when expenses for returning troops and equipment have proven to be lower and the pace faster than anticipated,” the report said, referring to the cost of the airstrikes against the Islamic State and the recent announcement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that roughly 1,000 groups may remain in Afghanistan until spring 2015."
Cost of 13 years of war 1.6 trillion WashingtonExaminer.com
SO... One obama/Democrat Annual Deficit?
Wow... who would have bet (besides me...) that executing a world war for nearly 15 years would cost a FRACTION (~ 1/6th) of what it costs to simply allow the Left to Control the US Government for say... 6 years?
Huh.
The figures ARE disappointing but the claim that the DoD is such an overbearing part of governmental expenditures ignores some MAJOR expenditures.
SS and other social justice liabilities are by FAR the majority of the US Federal Budget, over 60%.
Note that the Interests on the Federal Debt is 6%... and recognize that the interest rate on that debt is just over 1%.
"Before inauguration. Senator Obama voted for the budgets he would later blame on Bush, and for the TARP bailout. After just two months of TARP, the Bush administration said it was done -- crisis averted. In fact, President Bush was done after using about $270 billion of the $350 B that was authorized by Congress. But as a courtesy to the incoming president, Bush would request the second $350B from Congress if President-Elect Obama asked for it.
President-Elect Obama asked for it, and he got it."
Except that he didn't spend it. Only $431 billion was ever spent, including the original amount under Bush. Given that the net cost to the Treasury was $24 billion after all disbursements back to the government, TARP actually was in a surplus under Obama and was a net positive to the Treasury during his time in office.
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Were the Nazis a victim of a war of aggression in the same way Iraq was?Yes... that is precisely what I mean. The rationalization wherein defensive actions required to sustain life and to secure the viability of a culture, are defined as 'wars of aggression
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."What we need is what the constitution dictates: congressional authorization. For Iraq, that was actually given though in a manner that is chickenshit because congress wanted to authorize 'war' without calling it war
Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"
The Constitution requires officers of the US government to abide by all treaties enacted by the US Congress, as in signing the UN Charter; and it doesn't really matter what shit-for-brains conservatives think about the UN. Iraq posed no existential threat to your double-wide and the UNSC did NOT authorize the US invasion of Iraq. Hence, Iraq is just one more example of US terrorism.
Supply another statement that is not full of vitriolic hatred and false statements and maybe I will bother to give you some good examples.Supply another example of any country invading and occupying another state on the opposite side of the planet by killing, maiming, incarcerating, and displacing millions of innocent civilians for the sole purpose of ruling the known world.There is pretty much nothing more trollish than calling Iraq 'one of the greatest war crimes in history.
Otherwise you are not looking for answers, you are looking for something to spew hate and partisanship at - a pointless argument to get into.
Iraq was in material breach of the cease fire imposed by the UN and that was the only authorization the US led coalition needed to re-invade Iraq.
I am not dodging those questions - they are worthless fallacies.Supply another statement that is not full of vitriolic hatred and false statements and maybe I will bother to give you some good examples.Supply another example of any country invading and occupying another state on the opposite side of the planet by killing, maiming, incarcerating, and displacing millions of innocent civilians for the sole purpose of ruling the known world.There is pretty much nothing more trollish than calling Iraq 'one of the greatest war crimes in history.
Otherwise you are not looking for answers, you are looking for something to spew hate and partisanship at - a pointless argument to get into.
Otherwise, you have no good, credible explanation for why our country decided to invade and destroy a nation that did not attack us.
When did we do this before Iraq? I know it's convenient for you to dodge these tough questions because you want to believe that we were justified in destroying Iraq. However, you can't come up with a valid reason for us doing what we did.
So dodge those questions once more.
Not supporting the war, however, is not a valid reason for losing my damn mind and becoming nothing more than an extension of hate filled rhetoric.
What are you trying to say here?As is regularly noted, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not suspend reason and where a Treaty is signed, which the people reject,
Saddam was a monster created by the US, not unlike the Shah in Iran or numerous other psychopaths around the globe who were originally thought to be useful to US economic domination of critical resource-rich areas of the globe. You claim concern for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died at Saddam's will without mentioning how the US supplied Iraq with the poison gas precursors and the helicopters used to spray the gas. You mention the '91 rebellion encouraged by HW Bush who then threw Iraqis under the bus when he failed to ground Saddam's air forces. Finally, your solution to Saddam's atrocities seems to require the mass murder, maiming, and displacement of millions of innocent Iraqis without noticing how some of the same war criminals who found profit in supplying Saddam earned even greater spoils by his overthrow; you don't seem capable of penetrating the "amazingly successful scheme of deception on the American people."Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000."
In March of 2003 a majority of UNSC members were of the opinion UNSC Resolution 678 did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.Iraq was in material breach of the cease fire imposed by the UN and that was the only authorization the US led coalition needed to re-invade Iraq.
"Before inauguration. Senator Obama voted for the budgets he would later blame on Bush, and for the TARP bailout. After just two months of TARP, the Bush administration said it was done -- crisis averted. In fact, President Bush was done after using about $270 billion of the $350 B that was authorized by Congress. But as a courtesy to the incoming president, Bush would request the second $350B from Congress if President-Elect Obama asked for it.
President-Elect Obama asked for it, and he got it."
Except that he didn't spend it. Only $431 billion was ever spent, including the original amount under Bush. Given that the net cost to the Treasury was $24 billion after all disbursements back to the government, TARP actually was in a surplus under Obama and was a net positive to the Treasury during his time in office.
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Am I right in saying that TARP was a complete success? Do you attribute that brilliant success to Bush or to Obama? I know the banks paid the money back, but I am a little confused (as usual). I was under the impression that TARP was a program that bailed out the banks, so the money was not 'spent' but was loaned by the treasury at interest. If the cost was a net $24 billion, how can you call that a surplus? That would seem to be a loss of $24 billion and a net negative.
Do you recognize the fact that the lies Bush told to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq have been used in the past, and will be used again if enough Americans don't start recognizing the " amazingly successful scheme of deception" their lawless government protects.You continue the hate spewing and asshattery by creating straw men as well: I do not and have never supported the Iraq war. We don't belong there and never should have been in a conflict in Iraq to begin with. that, more than anything, will highlight Bush as an absolutely terrible president
To say men like my brother in law is wasting his life defending our rights piss me off. Fuck you. They didn't die for nothing..
The money wasted on these horrific "wars" pales in importance in comparison to the thousands of young American lives lost, thousands more limbs and minds lost, so many young American families destroyed.
.
Then if we all agree that invading Iraq was the wrong move, why the hostility? I agree with Zeke on virtually nothing, but we agree on this.I am not dodging those questions - they are worthless fallacies.Supply another statement that is not full of vitriolic hatred and false statements and maybe I will bother to give you some good examples.Supply another example of any country invading and occupying another state on the opposite side of the planet by killing, maiming, incarcerating, and displacing millions of innocent civilians for the sole purpose of ruling the known world.There is pretty much nothing more trollish than calling Iraq 'one of the greatest war crimes in history.
Otherwise you are not looking for answers, you are looking for something to spew hate and partisanship at - a pointless argument to get into.
Otherwise, you have no good, credible explanation for why our country decided to invade and destroy a nation that did not attack us.
When did we do this before Iraq? I know it's convenient for you to dodge these tough questions because you want to believe that we were justified in destroying Iraq. However, you can't come up with a valid reason for us doing what we did.
So dodge those questions once more.
You continue the hate spewing and asshattery by creating straw men as well: I do not and have never supported the Iraq war. We don't belong there and never should have been in a conflict in Iraq to begin with. that, more than anything, will highlight Bush as an absolutely terrible president. Not supporting the war, however, is not a valid reason for losing my damn mind and becoming nothing more than an extension of hate filled rhetoric.
Iraq was in material breach of the cease fire imposed by the UN and that was the only authorization the US led coalition needed to re-invade Iraq.
So you wouldn't have minded to much if one of your kids was killed in Iraq over the noble cause of war because Iraq "was in material breach of the cease fire..........
That sounds like a real good reason for one of your kids to have died for his country. Don't you think so? How noble their death or maiming would be. Cause Iraq didn't comply with a cease fire.
But really, you war mongering asshole. You didn't suffer any loss from Iraq now did ya? You may have even found a job in the "defense" industry. Or got you a tax cut while the war was happening. How noble your sacrifice was for our war of choice. I am impressed.
To say men like my brother in law is wasting his life defending our rights piss me off. Fuck you. They didn't die for nothing..
The money wasted on these horrific "wars" pales in importance in comparison to the thousands of young American lives lost, thousands more limbs and minds lost, so many young American families destroyed.
.
