White House Budget Director Says 40,000 Troop Escalation Would Cost 40 billion
-
FootwedgeI've recently noticed on poli boards here and abroad are seeing more and more conservatives questioning the thinking of spend, spend, spend...when it comes to Afghanistan.
My contention remains...one cannot be a true conservative and want our kids saddled with more debt...based on a war against an ideoulogy, that has no standing army and are no threat to our homeland.
We are talking 1 million dollars per soldier per year when all overhead is factored in...according to White Hosuse Board Dirceter Peter Orszag. Is this guy some wacko from the libbbbberrral media?
From the article...
"Sending 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan would cost an extra $40 billion a year, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said today."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGvM0165Q9bs&pos=9
I want to hear from the pro Afghan War crowd how somehow this washes with "conservative thinking"? -
tk421
That's a crazy number. -
Footwedge
I actually agree. I find it hard to believe as well. Yet, I've heard this figure bantered about from other people as well.tk421 wrote: That's a crazy number.
I would like to see an actual breakdown on how this number is calculated.
But the point remains. What about the money issue on the ongoing war in Mesopotamia? -
tk421
Cut our loses. No reason to be over there. IMO.
-
dwccrew
I agree, although I'll contend that we aren't cutting any losses. We went over there to cripple and crumble AQ and remove the Taliban from power. We have done that. What is being faced now is pockets of resistance.tk421 wrote: Cut our loses. No reason to be over there. IMO.
Bring the troops home and secure our borders. Do not have breakdowns in security here, like US Customs did when they allowed known AQ operatives into the US with expired visas.
No more wasteful spending and no more American lives need to be lose over there. Time for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq to take over their respective countries. -
isadoreyes lets just let the taliban retake control of afghanistan, how could a taliban controlled afghanistan ever pose a threat to the lives of Americans.
and when Klalid muhammed beats the rap, he will have a nice new home where he can go to practice his profession. -
tk421
It's either that or stay in Afghanistan forever like we do Japan/N.S Korea. The Afghan government is never going to be able to control that country without our presence. Heck, even with our presence, we couldn't control the country 100%.isadore wrote: yes lets just let the taliban retake control of afghanistan, how could a taliban controlled afghanistan ever pose a threat to the lives of Americans.
and when Klalid muhammed beats the rap, he will have a nice new home where he can go to practice his profession. -
isadore
turn afghanistan in a nation like s. korea and japan, two countries we built into rich democracies who are close allies of the United States. gosh that would be horrible.tk421 wrote:
It's either that or stay in Afghanistan forever like we do Japan/N.S Korea. The Afghan government is never going to be able to control that country without our presence. Heck, even with our presence, we couldn't control the country 100%.isadore wrote: yes lets just let the taliban retake control of afghanistan, how could a taliban controlled afghanistan ever pose a threat to the lives of Americans.
and when Klalid muhammed beats the rap, he will have a nice new home where he can go to practice his profession. -
Glory Days
if thats what it takes, so be it. i'd rather be fighting to stop the attacks, then just standing by waiting for the next attack to come.tk421 wrote: It's either that or stay in Afghanistan forever like we do Japan/N.S Korea. The Afghan government is never going to be able to control that country without our presence. Heck, even with our presence, we couldn't control the country 100%.