Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

U.S. House votes for $97 billion in war funds

World May. 15, 2009 - 06:17AM JST ( 11 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

11 Comments

0

jeancolmarMay. 15, 2009 - 08:10AM JST

The US has a seemingly nice guy president but nothing has changed. Bush's wars go on, wasting lives and money. And the American antiwar movement is dead.
0

neverknow2May. 15, 2009 - 08:39AM JST

That's a hell of a lot of money. It would be cheaper to pay the terrorists before they attack. At least half price.
0

rajakumarMay. 15, 2009 - 11:37AM JST

US should spend zero dollars on foreign wars. This way will help fiscal discipline of US and US economic improvements.
0

skipthesongMay. 15, 2009 - 02:33PM JST

That's a hell of a lot of money. It would be cheaper to pay the terrorists before they attack. At least half price."

YOu know what, that's not a bad idea!

the American antiwar movement is dead." Well, one must be careful on how they criticize this commander in chief. People criticizing tax plans have been called a slew of nasty things. I wouldn't want to hear what a person protesting his war plans would be called.
0

SushiSake3May. 15, 2009 - 06:50PM JST

I'm 'glad' the U.S. government is - for the first time in 8 years - actually focusing on the 'right' war.

Draw down the failed Iraq crapshoot and hey - how about getting serious about getting the guy behind 9-11?

But Republicans - The Party Of 'No' - would surely oppose that.
0

SushiSake3May. 15, 2009 - 07:53PM JST

There's a big difference now.

Under Bush, it was the wrong U.S. leader fighting the wrong war (did Iraq attack America??) for the wrong reasons.

Now we have a far more intelligent leader in Obama who is now drawing the wrong war in Iraq to a close and amping up the war THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRIORITY No. 1 FROM THE GET GO but wasn't thanks to bush and his seriously misguided followers whose support has led to probably the largest waste of U.S. taxpayers' money in history.

But, hey, I'm not ignorant - if you're a Republican, it's **all **President Obama's fault. :-)
0

presto345May. 15, 2009 - 09:15PM JST

I am sure I don't get it. This country continuing to spend money it doesn't have.
0

NolivingMay. 15, 2009 - 11:01PM JST

jeancolmar did you even know what obama's campaign was about on the wars? He said he was going to get a timeline for US forces to withdraw from Iraq, which he has done, he was also going to send more resources to fight the war in afghanistan. He has done what he promised what he would do. Where did you get this idea that he would end America's involvement in both wars instantly? The war in afghanistan though is one that the majority of americans feel is a war that needs to be fought. The anti war movement in america was an embarassement, code pink for example was more about emotions then it was about rational thinking of how to end those wars.
0

OssanAmericaMay. 16, 2009 - 12:25AM JST

Under Bush, it was the wrong U.S. leader fighting the wrong war (did >Iraq attack America??) for the wrong reasons.

Last I checked, the Taliban didn't attack us either.
0

ca1ic0catMay. 16, 2009 - 01:48AM JST

I guess the printing presses are going to be running 24/7/365 to keep up with the spending. I would bet some of that worthless paper that Obama's "timeline" will prove as fictional as Bush's "WMDs" did. Gitmo is still open, the torture information isn't being released, the tribunals will continue. The Democrats have realized that they are up to their necks in this. I wonder if McCain would have had the moral courage to do what was right instead of what is expedient? Obama is just a political hack being controlled by the party big shots. The only difference between this administration and the last is who gets the filthy lucre.