tex Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Why am I not surprised? Our hard earned tax dollars at work, or should I say our tax IOU's are hard at work. We are swimming in a sea of red ink as it is and it just keeps getting worse. :puke: Wonder how many sick and hungry people in this country could be cared for with 4 billion a month? WASHINGTON, July 10 — The Pentagon is spending nearly $4 billion a month in Iraq, a “burn rate” that is likely to continue far longer than the Bush administration intended due to ongoing attacks on U.S. forces, according to private and government cost projections. PENTAGON OFFICIALS have avoided divulging the size of the force they anticipated for Iraqi occupation and reconstruction, but a Defense Department report sent to Congress last week conceded that demobilization has not been as rapid as planned. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the monthly cost of operations in Iraq is roughly $3.9 billion. The military has already had to shift about $3.6 billion from an Iraq contingency fund and other military accounts to cover unanticipated costs, according to the report. And the current force in Iraq — about 150,000 troops — will likely remain in the region into the next fiscal year, which begins in October, the report said. Before the war, Defense Department officials hinted that the peacekeeping force would be 40,000 to 60,000 troops. “The presumption was always that the burn rate would decline rapidly,” said Loren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute. “It’s pretty obvious now that the peacekeeping function substantially exceeds what was anticipated.” MORE COSTLY THAN EXPECTED Pentagon officials and defense analysts in Congress say the $62.6 billion emergency spending bill that Congress passed just after the war began should cover war costs through the end of this fiscal year. But the messy aftermath — with its guerrilla-like attacks, looting and sluggish rebuilding efforts — threatens to drain the Treasury well into next year and beyond. The $3.9 billion monthly spending rate is nearly double the rate anticipated for longer-term peacekeeping operations, a House Appropriations Committee aide said. Indeed, signs of strain are already beginning to show, according to Defense Department documents. In its most detailed assessment of the cost of the war, the Pentagon said it has already incurred $900 million in unanticipated personnel costs and about $4.1 billion in weapons depot maintenance costs that are “beyond the scope of the ... programs to absorb.” An additional $612 million in family separation allowances and imminent danger pay demanded by Congress will also have to be covered by shifting funds from other accounts. The military hopes to spend $232 million to replace Air Force transport equipment, $217 million to buy new Tomahawk cruise missiles, $638 million on munitions, $389 million to convert Chinook helicopters for special operations, and $109 million to upgrade Army combat missile systems. And those are only the preliminary assessments of equipment loss, the report cautioned. NO MONEY FOR IRAQ OPERATIONS The House this week approved a $369 billion defense spending bill that includes no money for military operations in Iraq, a move that “is very hard to understand or explain,” said Thomas Kahn, the Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee. Defense Department officials remained sanguine about the long-term issues. The report to Congress continued to predict that “only a limited number of U.S. forces will remain” in Iraq by fall 2004. © 2003 The Washington Post Company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I also wonder how many sick and oppressed people will be saved in Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan I also wonder how many sick and oppressed people will be saved in Iraq Well, if that's worth $4 billion a month, we should follow through ... ... and invade and occupy Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Liberia, Somalia, and just about every country ending in "-stan". After all, we only did it for humanitarian reasons ... at least 15 years after the atrocities we decry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 This figure has got to be bogus. It's much too high. I would speculate $1 billion tops. That's still alot of green though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 you're absolutely right Tex......let's pull out of Iraq today....and I don't want a single penny spent in this country on the indigent either.......much as it unsettles you guys.........you can't take with one hand what you give with the other........put another way: virtue can't be a part-time job. so let's do it! put your other causes on the back-burner........in fact, since the deficit is the driver, let's start building a list of programs to cut here at home. defense? ok. but let's hit social security, welfare, medicaid....all the goodies you guys happen to favor in onw form or another....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 15 years?....would you feel more virtuous had it been 10 years?....5 years?.......it's nice to know that one has to keep putting quarters in the genocide meter to keep the horror needle pointing at an appropriate threshold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Last night on one of my local news stations, there was a story on a food drive and a shortage of food for those in need. 100's of people were lined up to received food donations. One woman was interviewed and her words were something to the extent of "We give billions to foriegn nations for aid, when we have those in need right here in our own country". That amazes me. Everyone brings up "We freed all these Iraqi's" and so on.... We have homeless and hungary people here, I would MUCH rather see that money got to helping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 fan, I would rather take the billions we are spending in iraq and make MORE weapons and spend MORE on defense here in the US. Give the military pay raises, give them a better lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 code........many in the military are doing just fine.....it's at the lower end, the enlisted with familes who are receiving the pointy end in the wrong places....... i agree with the folks who argue that we need to spend what we have now "mo better". i agree with the folks who argue that we must continue to press and streamline the acquisiton process while introducing greater efficiencies that produce long-term savings: this is a long-term battle that has been struggled with for decades. i agree with the folks who argue that we must continually assess what the strategy is that girds our foreign policy commitments both militarily and diplomatically. code.....a lot of money does go to poor and homeless: both through federal programs and on through a thousand and one personal decisions on how folks handle their discretionary income. this isn't a zero sum discussion. but.......truculent, uncaring guy that I am....I'm perfectly willing to live by the moral calculus I see others hewing to in the international arena. I see no domestic body count, no direct threat and therefore do not feel obligated to support these "stay home first" programs. petulant? you bet. that's how things are unfolding. wait for the next campaign to begin picking up a head of steam. if anyone things the exchanges on Tailgate are nasty, my suspicion is that the next election is going to be far worse by orders of magnitude. no matter who wins (and I think the election is going to be much closer than many predict) - this individual is going to find it almost impossible to govern. too many lightening rod issues, too many entrenched interests. too much animosity from all sides. there is no longer any maneuvering space for compromise. so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Yep, let's pull back all of our aid. Start with Iraq, but then pul back that 15 BILLION to Africa. Soldiers in Korea? That has to cost a bunch, lets pull back and let Kim roll into Seoul. Eff the whole world, lets just keep all of our dollars at home. Fair enough? Or does the left want to pick and choose charity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Yep, let's pull back all of our aid. Start with Iraq, but then pul back that 15 BILLION to Africa. Soldiers in Korea? That has to cost a bunch, lets pull back and let Kim roll into Seoul. Eff the whole world, lets just keep all of our dollars at home. Fair enough? Or does the left want to pick and choose charity? There's a difference between protection and invasion. The difference is lives lost. How many US soldiers died in Seoul last month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 We should pull back from South Korea...there is no reason for us to be there. The South Koreans insult us all the time and don't want us there but know they need us for their countries defense. The only reason that Bush is giving 15 billion in dollars to Africa for Aids prevention is so he looks good to moderate republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 you're absolutely right Tex......let's pull out of Iraq today If we were to pull out then all hell would break lose. We have to stay to let the arabic people believe us. Once all this craziness is over, it will die down and then we can rebuild Iraq. If any of you thought we were just going to get rid of Saddam and just leave you are crazy. We are in for the long haul and mabye this will change the public image of us for the next generation. All the dems and republicans knew this from the start, you can change now. The reason we are having problems is we needed to keep the major forces there longer to get a better hold of the country. That is where we made the mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Amen, Funky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Funkyalligator We should pull back from South Korea...there is no reason for us to be there. The South Koreans insult us all the time and don't want us there but know they need us for their countries defense. The only reason that Bush is giving 15 billion in dollars to Africa for Aids prevention is so he looks good to moderate republicans. Brilliant plan, so then North Korea will just take over South Korea after we leave, man I hope you run for some office one day :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 How many died in Korea to begin with? How many died in Europe after Hitler committed suicide? Use common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 funky....with the usual"we weren't consulted" reservations...the Congressional Black Caucus supports Bush on this one. That is certainly a twist. Even Maxine Waters forced herself to vomit out a near approval. Have you been to Africa? It is unbelievable - the ravages of this disease. It is costly. But it has the potential to save large numbers of lives. What's wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma If any of you thought we were just going to get rid of Saddam and just leave you are crazy. From what I understood from our president that this was NOT about removing Saddam from power, but that we were moving against someone obviously hiding WMD from the UN inspectors. If this was a war SOLELY about removing a courrupt regime that starve and kill their own people, we have a lot of work to do. There's dozens of leaders like that across the globe, some with WMD that we need to also invade and remove from power without the world's backing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Nothing is wrong with saving lives but the 15 billion dollar came out of left field....Bush has tried to bring an initiative like this to the forefront before and it is completely out of character......... As for North Korea...they won't invade South Korea even if we pull out but if they do who cares......it will end up pissing China off because it will increase Koreas economic strength and provide a direct threat on their southern border.......China won't stand for it if North Korea invades South Korea....they will say something to North Korea about it and North Korea will stop in their tracks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I mean't to say Bush has never tried to bring an initiative like this to the forefront before.....it is not in his character and it just indicates that he is playing politics....trying to cultivate good will around the world after he managed to piss them off....look at the timing of when he announced his plan to give money to Africa... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Youre such a partisan. I dont agree with his 15b to Africa, but to say he did it for pure polical gain shows your stripes. Kevin, you fall into the Liberal trap of "so and so is worse so let's not do anything". The war was about many things. Oil, WMDs, humanitarian aid. All played a part in it. And if you dont think NK will roll into SK if we leave, you need to have your head examined. Whether we should care or not is a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 :doh: Sometimes you really see the need for a real alternative to public communist schools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Funkyalligator As for North Korea...they won't invade South Korea even if we pull out but if they do who cares......it will end up pissing China off because it will increase Koreas economic strength and provide a direct threat on their southern border.......China won't stand for it if North Korea invades South Korea....they will say something to North Korea about it and North Korea will stop in their tracks Funky the only thing saving south Korea right now is the US. If North were to invade and then China get involved why don't you add 2+2 and see what you just created, WWIII We live in a time where we can not just stay in the US and not worry about the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Yep, let's pull back all of our aid. Start with Iraq, but then pul back that 15 BILLION to Africa. I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Wait a minute. I thought Iraq was all about the oil! You mean that we aren't making money on this deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.