Obama supports killing missile defense, slowing future combat systems...

WRL

WRL

Well...the right is right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

WOW, this video will blow you away, in it Obama claims he will cut tens of billions of dollars from defense spending, in the middle of the war on terror, cut investments in 'unproven' missile defense, even though it clearly has proven itself, he will not weaponize space, even though the Chinese just shot a Satellite out of space, he will slow our development of future combat systems, WHAT...

Watch the video and I'd like to challenge the Obama supporters to defend this nonsense.
 
Cut defence spending in the middle of a war on terror, eh?

Just when Al-Quaida was planning on invading from space. This is irresponsibility of the highest order.

I, for one, will not be pacified until the entire universe is cleansed of Islamofascist alien lifeforms. And Communists.
 
There is so much waste by the DoD.

They seriously need to be audited, again. We do need to eventually do away with the nuclear arms development, the war on drugs, and some of the 765 bases that we have in others countries, and this is the reported number. They have bases that only a select few in the Pentagon know about, along with the President and his security cleared advisers.
 
Cutting tens of billions of pentagon spending by ending the iraq war, and cutting some expensive new weapons systems that were designed to fight an enemy that disappeared twenty years ago sounds like a horrible idea.

Once this anti-american, BLACK muslim is in office, I fully expect him to surrender to the islamo-fascist hordes within his first term. :mad:
 
WRL said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

WOW, this video will blow you away, in it Obama claims he will cut tens of billions of dollars from defense spending, in the middle of the war on terror, cut investments in 'unproven' missile defense, even though it clearly has proven itself, he will not weaponize space, even though the Chinese just shot a Satellite out of space, he will slow our development of future combat systems, WHAT...

Watch the video and I'd like to challenge the Obama supporters to defend this nonsense.
Click to expand...

ZOMG?!

He won't weaponize space?!

How will we defend ourselves from the moon men?
 
***sigh***

I have never in my lifetime saw so many idiots in one place at one time...wrl posted some facts and the twits go off on another childish tangent...omg! 'fear mongering' is their chosen battle cry...Cypress is not a Vet , (Charver can be forgiven as he is a comedian),nor waterbaby...yet they claim they know all about war and what is needed(akin to Obama the Momma)...thank God they are not in charge of anything more than a key board!
 
Last edited:
FY06-spending-income-chart.jpg
 
Watermark said:
ZOMG?!

He won't weaponize space?!

How will we defend ourselves from the moon men?
Click to expand...

The Chinese just shot a Satellite out of space, they bet us in a technological race, and now Barrack wants to handicap our people further by walking away. This poses the greatest risk to US national security is quite some time, they have the ability to cripple our defense networks and we need to get ahead of the curve, not just walk away, why is that Barracks answer for everything.

You guys talk about all this wasteful spending of defense, I've posted the numbers, only around 20% is spent on Defense, a tiny fraction of what is spent on entitlements, and lets not forget, who do you think developed today's modern world?

Where do the Democrats find these people?
 
Cypress said:
Cutting tens of billions of pentagon spending by ending the iraq war, and cutting some expensive new weapons systems that were designed to fight an enemy that disappeared twenty years ago sounds like a horrible idea.

Once this anti-american, BLACK muslim is in office, I fully expect him to surrender to the islamo-fascist hordes within his first term. :mad:
Click to expand...

Wow, the race card was quite a kicker. Kudos!
 
Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq

by Ron Paul


Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
DIGG THIS

Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve already spent more than $500 billion in Iraq, mostly through supplemental spending bills that are not part of the normal appropriations and budget process. But with costs soaring and no end to the war in sight, yet another supplemental spending bill must be passed soon – and both parties in Congress are only too willing to provide the money under the guise of supporting the troops.

Never mind that the American people showed their dissatisfaction with the war in the fall elections. Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the administration and assert its power over the purse strings, and too many vested interests in the defense sector benefit from the supplemental bills. A cynic might even suggest that many Democrats want the war to drag on, despite their supposed opposition, to damage the president politically and benefit them in 2008. But whatever the reason, the money for war keeps flowing.

Defense Department officials will ask Congress for the next supplemental bill in coming weeks. The amount requested is likely to be at least $140 billion. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2007 – and the administration has made it clear that we will – the bill to American taxpayers easily could top one trillion dollars in another year or two.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul367.html
 
uscitizen said:
Umm the Iraq war spending has been outside the budget WRL. Include the supplemental spending too for an accurate picture. Not a bush blinder view.
Click to expand...

sorry this is accurate. It includes federal discretionary and non-discretionary spending. The supplements are another issue, and an easier way to keep track of war spending. Barrack is talking about stripping the part of the budget, I listed. And of course sabotaging our efforts in Iraq, but he might return 'if' Al Qaeda establishes a base their, whatever that means.
 
Battleborne said:
I have never in my lifetime saw so many idiots in one place at one time...wrl posted some facts and the twits go off on another childish tangent...omg! 'fear mongering' is their chosen battle cry...Cypress is not a Vet , (Charver can be forgiven as he is a comedian),nor waterbaby...yet they claim they know all about war and what is needed(akin to Obama the Momma)...thank God they are not in charge of anything more than a key board!
Click to expand...

How would being a footsoldier grunt in a pointless war give you any more expertise in defense spending than the next guy?


I'm THANKFULL that Obama is going to cut this GOVERNMENT WASTE AND BLOAT.
 
Missile defense is a joke. How many billions have been thrown at that program? And what, you think the Chinese and Russians won't just develop missiles that can defy the missile defense system?

And is it really necessary for the United States to develop first strike nuclear capacity? And won't that prompt the Chinese and Russians to develop a more effective second-strike by increasing the number of nukes at the ready? And how will India react to an increasingly nuclear-armed Chinese neighbor? Surely they'll start building more nukes? ANd what will Pakistan do in response to India's increased production of nukes? ANd hey, isn't this going to create a whole hell of a lot of fissile material floating about?

And should we really weaponize space? Surely the Chinese and Russians will sit idly by for that as well. No possible bad outcome there.

Now that I think about it, you're right. Obama is crazy.

Oh, and why does it matter what we spend on defense relative to other items. Is there some proportion of our revenue or GDP that has to be spent on defense. I thought the idea was just to spend as much as is necessary, not to spend a pre-set amount regardless of the necessity of the expenditures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top