Sequestration spending cuts will take effect tomorrow unless some deal is struck and what do they do? They pledge $ 60 million in aid to help the rebels in Syria! WTF?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/28/17129047-us-announces-direct-non-lethal-battlefield-aid-for-syrian-rebels

They have always been F'd up, just in different ways. The spending steamroller started in 1932 and escalated in 2009.

Congress was on a recess all of last week. They knew they weren't going to get anything done. They get paid regardless. Fucking joke.

Yay Obama! $6 trillion more debt and no new jobs, but lets support the middle east!

Get women to stop voting and you'll never see a dem in office again.

Raw Dawgin' it;1397623 wrote:Yay Obama! $6 trillion more debt and no new jobs, but lets support the middle east!

Get women to stop voting and you'll never see a dem in office again.

Only white male property owners vote.

Problem solved.

4cards;1397616 wrote:Sequestration spending cuts will take effect tomorrow unless some deal is struck and what do they do? They pledge $ 60 million in aid to help the rebels in Syria! WTF?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/28/17129047-us-announces-direct-non-lethal-battlefield-aid-for-syrian-rebels

Whichever side we choose invariably ends up hating us, and we keep doing it. The very definition of insanity.

fish82;1397631 wrote:Only white male property owners vote.

Problem solved.

I'd prefer just employed people. That would eliminate about 50% of the Democrats voting base.

queencitybuckeye;1397635 wrote:Whichever side we choose invariably ends up hating us, and we keep doing it. The very definition of insanity.

But, it is our inaction over that that is actually hurting us.
There are areas where they want U.S. and Western aid and weapons, but since we are not giving any, they join the radical Islamic side.
So, while we cannot project force over there, it actually hurts us to do nothing.
Plus, over 70,000 has been killed in the nearly 2 year struggle.

And, on side note, as someone who visited Syria in 2005, knows the area, and has not spoken with good friends I made there in over 2 years, we need to do something, Morally, something. $60M is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

ptown_trojans_1;1397803 wrote: And, on side note, as someone who visited Syria in 2005, knows the area, and has not spoken with good friends I made there in over 2 years, we need to do something, Morally, something. $60M is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Grab a rifle and go. You have no right to take my money for it though.

ptown_trojans_1;1397803 wrote:But, it is our inaction over that that is actually hurting us.
There are areas where they want U.S. and Western aid and weapons, but since we are not giving any, they join the radical Islamic side.
So, while we cannot project force over there, it actually hurts us to do nothing.
Plus, over 70,000 has been killed in the nearly 2 year struggle.

And, on side note, as someone who visited Syria in 2005, knows the area, and has not spoken with good friends I made there in over 2 years, we need to do something, Morally, something. $60M is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

...My wifes family is from the middle east and trust me when I tell you that these people HATE the USA and no matter how much money, humanitarian or military aid you throw at them, they will STILL HATE us. They smile while they take our cash, and 20 minutes later are out in the streets burning our flag and shouting "death to America".

F those people & F our government for even thinking about giving ANY foreign aid (MY TAX DOLLARS) to countries that don't support us. How much in financial aid did Syria give the USA for the disasters like Hurricane Katrina which was well before the civil war started in Syria? I'll tell you....$ 0.00!!!
Many of the fighters.....errr..rebels, are the same ones from Syria that went to Iraq to fight with the Taliban against our troops & now we're giving those F'rs cash while Americans are forced out of work due to spending cuts. F them!!!

ptown_trojans_1;1397803 wrote:But, it is our inaction over that that is actually hurting us.
There are areas where they want U.S. and Western aid and weapons, but since we are not giving any, they join the radical Islamic side.
So, while we cannot project force over there, it actually hurts us to do nothing.
Plus, over 70,000 has been killed in the nearly 2 year struggle.

And, on side note, as someone who visited Syria in 2005, knows the area, and has not spoken with good friends I made there in over 2 years, we need to do something, Morally, something. $60M is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

60 million here, 60 million there. 3 billion to Israel over here. 1 billion to Saidi Arabia. Thank God we have an endless supply of money. Costs a lot to run an empire.

First word's out of Hagel's mouth on his SoD inauguration speech...

"US can't dictate to the world"

Cleveland Buck;1397840 wrote:Grab a rifle and go. You have no right to take my money for it though.

I'm, and no one, is really talking sending U.S. troops. There should be no troops sent. Only limited aid and weapons once a transitional government is finally fleshed out.

4cards;1397860 wrote:...My wifes family is from the middle east and trust me when I tell you that these people HATE the USA and no matter how much money, humanitarian or military aid you throw at them, they will STILL HATE us. They smile while they take our cash, and 20 minutes later are out in the streets burning our flag and shouting "death to America".

F those people & F our government for even thinking about giving ANY foreign aid (MY TAX DOLLARS) to countries that don't support us. How much in financial aid did Syria give the USA for the disasters like Hurricane Katrina which was well before the civil war started in Syria? I'll tell you....$ 0.00!!!
Many of the fighters.....errr..rebels, are the same ones from Syria that went to Iraq to fight with the Taliban against our troops & now we're giving those F'rs cash while Americans are forced out of work due to spending cuts. F them!!!

Good for you. Quite the narrow mind.

Footwedge;1397913 wrote:60 million here, 60 million there. 3 billion to Israel over here. 1 billion to Saidi Arabia. Thank God we have an endless supply of money. Costs a lot to run an empire.

First word's out of Hagel's mouth on his SoD inauguration speech...

"US can't dictate to the world"

So, we shouldn't contribute at all, even if it is the morally right then to do?
Screw the 70,000 killed? Sorry, you are on your own?
I understand your point of view, but I just do not agree with it.

No, we cannot dictate the world, but when even the rebel say, we want U.S. help, we need to give it to them.
Sorry, I have been following this civil war since the start. I have lost touch with several friends, fearing they are dead.
If we are a country that stands for good, here is one example of it.

I sincerely hope your friends are OK.

Tell me that if we fund the rebels and they win, that I won't be tuning into the evening news in six months or a year and seeing these people we helped shouting clever things like "Death to USA" and burning an American flag or two. When you can't, because you can't, then tell me about out moral obligation.

queencitybuckeye;1398043 wrote:I sincerely hope your friends are OK.

Tell me that if we fund the rebels and they win, that I won't be tuning into the evening news in six months or a year and seeing these people we helped shouting clever things like "Death to USA" and burning an American flag or two. When you can't, because you can't, then tell me about out moral obligation.

If we do nothing, that will happen anyways.

ptown_trojans_1;1398044 wrote:If we do nothing, that will happen anyways.

But it will be a hell of a lot cheaper.

believer;1398067 wrote:But it will be a hell of a lot cheaper.

Monetary wise, yeah, but geopolitical wise, the U.S. would lose in the long term.
It is just 60 Mil, the DOD signs contracts larger than that every day.

Some things are worth the money.

Let me put it another way. If we could go back and fund the Afghans after the Soviet withdraw, would you like to? It could cost money, but it would have elevated the fragile government there, and maybe prevented the Taliban from taking complete control.
If the U.S. does nothing, and Syria falls, it may have a radical Islamic Government in place, next to Israel, next to fragile Iraq.
If the U.S does aide the rebels, perhaps it allows a more moderate Government to take shape.

It would be real easy to take an isolationist tact these days, and would be popular with the tea party and the Paulians out there. The only problem is that it flies in the face of everything we stand for as a nation. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for us if we decided to "circle the wagons" and thumb our collective noses to the world? Is that what you really want the USA to stand for?

ptown_trojans_1;1398071 wrote:If the U.S. does nothing, and Syria falls, it may have a radical Islamic Government in place, next to Israel, next to fragile Iraq.

The government in Syria is already an enemy of Israel. They are allied with the Islamist Hezbollah and the Islamist regime in Iran as well as a strong Russian influence. If the Syrian government falls and the US does nothing the big losers will be Hezbollah and Iran and to a lesser extent the Russians. The rebels despise Hezbollah's and the Iranian's direct aid to the regime. Likewise the Russians diplomatic support. With the death and destruction they have experienced they will not soon forget this.

ptown_trojans_1;1398071 wrote:If the U.S does aide the rebels, perhaps it allows a more moderate Government to take shape.

Short term no doubt US aid would gain some influence with the rebels if they were successful in overthrowing the government. The Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Russians will be pissed they were muscled out and they will blame it on the US. The rebels will want that eyesore of a Russian naval base gone.

It would be a very risky investment on our part. A lot can go wrong. The US risks little by staying out of this conflict. When it is resolved the US can deal with the victors diplomatically.

stlouiedipalma;1398241 wrote:It would be real easy to take an isolationist tact these days, and would be popular with the tea party and the Paulians out there. The only problem is that it flies in the face of everything we stand for as a nation. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for us if we decided to "circle the wagons" and thumb our collective noses to the world? Is that what you really want the USA to stand for?

Derp.

From the WSJ:
"Mr. Donahoe said a few weeks ago that he'd end Saturday mail delivery later this year without a Congressional order not to, so naturally Congress is telling him he can't do it. In their continuing resolution to fund the government through September, those great fiscal conservatives in the House whooped through language that the Postal Service interprets to mean it must deliver on Saturday. The Senate is expected to do the same this week...Ending Saturday delivery would save about $2 billion a year, which is at least something."

And these clowns are going to balance the budget, like ever? Could there have been a more no-brainer of a budget decision?!?

gut, it's Congress. Nothing these idiots do is supposed to make sense, unless they all resigned en masse. That's a decision I could live with.

stlouiedipalma;1398241 wrote:It would be real easy to take an isolationist tact these days, and would be popular with the tea party and the Paulians out there. The only problem is that it flies in the face of everything we stand for as a nation. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for us if we decided to "circle the wagons" and thumb our collective noses to the world? Is that what you really want the USA to stand for?

The "paulians" do not support isolationism. Do you even know what that means? All this money spent on foreign aid and military adventurism would be very helpful to support all your social programs here in the US.

ptown_trojans_1;1397803 wrote:But, it is our inaction over that that is actually hurting us.
There are areas where they want U.S. and Western aid and weapons, but since we are not giving any, they join the radical Islamic side.
So, while we cannot project force over there, it actually hurts us to do nothing.
Plus, over 70,000 has been killed in the nearly 2 year struggle.

And, on side note, as someone who visited Syria in 2005, knows the area, and has not spoken with good friends I made there in over 2 years, we need to do something, Morally, something. $60M is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I am A-okay with allowing American arms manufacturers selling weapons over there. Nobody's saying to act like China back when it was so silent.

However, on the issue of doing something "morally," I suggest that taking from one to give to another, regardless of how significant an arbitrary opinion thinks the amount is, is immoral. It justifies stealing by saying you're doing something good with what is stolen.

If you want to give Syria $60M, I am in full support. I'll even donate $100 toward that cause. But make it voluntary on an individual basis.

pmoney25;1409511 wrote:The "paulians" do not support isolationism. Do you even know what that means? All this money spent on foreign aid and military adventurism would be very helpful to support all your social programs here in the US.

What's funny is, a very large number of Democrats were in such agreement with the Paulines while Dubya was in office. Oh, how the worm has turned. I'm betting we could find evidence of many on here even being so if we checked the archives.

stlouiedipalma;1398241 wrote:It would be real easy to take an isolationist tact these days, and would be popular with the tea party and the Paulians out there. The only problem is that it flies in the face of everything we stand for as a nation. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for us if we decided to "circle the wagons" and thumb our collective noses to the world? Is that what you really want the USA to stand for?

ROTFLMAO!

It is amazing when your guy is in the WH, we become the world police! The hypocrisy is astounding.

"What's funny is, a very large number of Democrats were in such agreement with the Paulines while Dubya was in office. Oh, how the worm has turned. I'm betting we could find evidence of many on here even being so if we checked the archives."

+ 1,000,000,000,000

or should I say +17,000,000,000,000