by Laurence Vance at April 11, 2009 09:17 AM

So, Obama wants $83.4 billion to fund the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To any Republican in Congress who opposes this spending, but supported the same spending when Bush was presient, I ask the following question: If you are not a partisan hack, then why are you suddenly against this military spending? You had no problem when it was a Republican war.

Just as Nixon made Johnson's Democratic war into a Democrat/Republican war, so Obama's call for billions more to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of to fund a withdrawal means that he has turned a Republican war into a Republican/Democrat war. Both parties are war parties. Both parties are socialist parties. Both parties are evil parties.

I support the funding for the war..but find it hypocracy that he campaigned against supplement budgets being used to fund the war and then turn around and do the same thing..

Oh, and by the way, the democratic party is not a socialist party, it is a fascist party...there is a difference

The mainstream of both parties are Fascist. I've heard it also described as Dems=Marxist Socialism and the Reps=National Socialism.

Repubs still enourage private ownership of business, and I will agree with you that some of the current leadership is falling in the same pit of hell that the dems have long fallen in.

Repubs still encourage private ownership... but yet it was Bush and his people who pushed TARP.

Repubs are not the answer, neither are the Dems. The Constitution is the answer and until we get people into the seats of power who obey the document that was written to restrain Government, we'll continue the Totalitarian Tiptoe.

I read he had to have it in a hurry.
Ya'll know what that means.
Mo' Pork fo' da' Fat Guys!!
Will it be open for public review before it's passed?

I did agree with you that some are following that path, like the TARP, which I didn't agree with, but if you look at the dems, they are farther down the hell hole..

I agree with you that it is not about the party, both are going in a direction that are not good, but look at the people today that are blindly following Obama, do you think that people will ever turn back and leave these foolish attitudes behind??

Once again, was the same blind loyalty not shown to the Bush folks? I mean, come on, "It's okay to torture them, Our presidents just trying to make us safe... if you don't like it leave the country."

I can't tell you how many times I've heard crap like that and it's preeminent on both sides of the aisle, the idea that it's worse on one side or the other is a false ideal, it's both sides of the duopoly, it's almost exclusively the ones who get their voices heard. If not for the support driven behind folks like Dr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, we would never hear real messages of liberty, let alone the truth.

I would have to read more about those two, I don't know much about their views..but I do think both parties are going down the wrong path.

There are some good ones out there, just far and few between.

Dr. Paul is my favorite, I first discovered him, just before the Iraq war, he gave a speech to Congress that was called "NeoConned".

How is it hypocrisy?

Obama was never against retaliating against those who attacked us.
He was against an illegal war in Iraq when they had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11.

But lets just leave 50,000 troops there forever. I'm against this war, but for the Occupation?

They are not combat troops.
They will not be deployed in cities.
And no one said they are permanent.

Name me one major war where we have built a base or an embassy and then not left troops there?

Germany: Still has troops
Japan: Still has troops
Korea: Still has troops
Gulf war 1: Troops went to Kuwait and Saudi

You know those old stories about the Japanese soldiers that fled into the mountains and didn't know the war was over for 40 years?

Thats us.

Sadly reports have it that we may have to stay there for awhile. The Iraq government has not even paid their military for three months. Cause for an uprising and joining of other better paying jobs (the enemy). The American government paid them previously.This government it seems must stand on it's own two feet to make it. But are they?

Does anyone know the amount spent on the Viet Nam war? Was it somewhere around 288 or 388 billion?

I like you have no use for a two party system. Too much power given.

Kat

Another thought. These aren't combat troops, based on whose definition? How long do you think it's going to take, before those folks who resent us already, go ahead and strike those socalled NonCombat troops?

That they won't be deployed in cities is interesting, because it's real easy to see civil unrest leading to some nice neat new Military Patrols from Uncle Sam.

Again...and I hate to agree with you. It sounds likely.