• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Says US 'Foolishly Spent' $7 Trillion in the Middle East As He Spends $2 Billion a Day on War

Thoreau72 said:
You mean as per the Constitution only Congress can declare war? :lol:
Click to expand...

Well, as per the Constitution, Congress can pass all the laws they want to and they aren't law until the President signs them. For the edification of the poster saying that it wasn't Trump, it was Congress.
 
rocket88 said:
Well, as per the Constitution, Congress can pass all the laws they want to and they aren't law until the President signs them. For the edification of the poster saying that it wasn't Trump, it was Congress.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, and he had a good point too--reality as opposed to theory.

To further focus your post here, as per the Constitution, the last sentence of Article I Section 8, "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution THE FOREGOING POWERS"

The fine point being that Congress CANNOT "pass all the laws they want to", rather per the constitution, they can pass laws ONLY in the context and authority of the foregoing powers.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You mean as per the Constitution only Congress can declare war? :lol:
Click to expand...

Congress abrogated that responsibility right after the Gulf of Tonkein incident. It's time for them to take it back, quick, before the new CIC decides we need yet another Vietnam or Iraq.
 
The Lurker said:
Trump Says US 'Foolishly Spent' $7 Trillion in the Middle East As He Spends $2 Billion a Day on War





I suppose that Thoreau72 was right:



Trump, to me, is no different than Obama, Bush, and all the Presidents that came before.
Click to expand...

I have always said that Eisenhower was the best president I personally experienced in my lifetime. 8 years of peace once the armistice was signed for the Korean War. 8 years of economic expansion and growth of the middle class. Ike kept a close eye on military spending, giving the military what it needed, but nothing more.

The problem isn't only the military industrial complex. It is also those in congress which use our military as a civilian jobs creator and maintainer. There's been many things that even the JCS has said the military doesn't need, don't want and can't use. But congress funds those things anyway to keep jobs back home or to create new ones. My whole life has been military, but I have always said if we just funded the military with what it needs to protect and defend this country, one could cut 100 billion easily from the defense budget.

We spend way to much buying equipment and systems that aren't needed and storing them away in some warehouse in order to keep civilian jobs or to gain new ones. Then ten years latter, that same equipment, systems are sold by DRMO at a tenth of the cost it originally cost to make and produce that stuff.

This I think is much more of a problem than what is happening overseas. Those troops, equipment etc would still have to be housed and paid whether overseas or here in the states. Sure the munition used over in the middle east and elsewhere needs replacing, but quite a lot of that munition would need replacing any way either due to age or use in training exercises, qualification and other uses. The wear and tear on equipment would probably be reduced if station here instead of overseas, but the cost of maintenance continues regardless of location. Our ships at sea would still be at sea, if not the middle east, someplace else in the Atlantic or Pacific.

This is why I say the biggest problem is congress using the military as a jobs creator and maintainer.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I understand your point, and he had a good point too--reality as opposed to theory.

To further focus your post here, as per the Constitution, the last sentence of Article I Section 8, "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution THE FOREGOING POWERS"

The fine point being that Congress CANNOT "pass all the laws they want to", rather per the constitution, they can pass laws ONLY in the context and authority of the foregoing powers.
Click to expand...

The point still is that it could not have become law without the President's signature. Trump, as President, signed it. Therefore, it got his approval.
 
Mycroft said:
And Trump is working WITH them...instead of against them...to get the job done. Obama?...not so much.



I don't think you understand the nature, the uses and the purpose of having a large, powerful and capable military. Believe me...we need it. And it costs money. But the benefits outweigh the costs. The problem we run into all the time is that when the Democrats get into power, they cut the military as much as they possibly can and we end up in a bad position. Then a Republican fixes things...and the snowflakes blame the Republican.

So it goes...
Click to expand...

Okay, why does the US need to spend more on defense then the next 8 countries combined?

The US spends more on its military than the next 8 countries combined - Business Insider

What are you worried about, a Mexican/Canadian invasion?

These conservative arguments about small government and less spending never seem to apply to wasteful spending and the big huge government military industrial complex, which we see both Republican and Democrat governments support.

If you think the US military is in bad shape, either you are wrong or the government is mismanaging its military resources, putting more resources in would not stop the mismanagement.
 
The Lurker said:
I understand that. What I'm saying is that Trump deserves to be seen as being culpable in the military spending. He's the one that signed the legislation after all.
Click to expand...

Should Trump cancel all military spending and close all military bases all over the world?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
7 trillion is a estimate on the high end, we will not know the exact number till the last broken soldier dies, but TRUMP IS RIGHT.
Click to expand...

He's right that the problem exists but he's actively working to make the problem worse rather than solve it.
 
Doesn't anyone understand the commercial value of military dominance?

Not to mention the obvious social and humanitarian benefits to peace...
 
Yes_Minister said:
Okay, why does the US need to spend more on defense then the next 8 countries combined?

The US spends more on its military than the next 8 countries combined - Business Insider

What are you worried about, a Mexican/Canadian invasion?

These conservative arguments about small government and less spending never seem to apply to wasteful spending and the big huge government military industrial complex, which we see both Republican and Democrat governments support.

If you think the US military is in bad shape, either you are wrong or the government is mismanaging its military resources, putting more resources in would not stop the mismanagement.
Click to expand...

Trump is on a path to increase deficit spending back to the GW Bush levels. Republicans = Deficit Spending. Here's the facts.
us_deficit_history.png

Cut Taxes and Increase Spending --- that's their formula. It's Stupo-Math!
 
The Lurker said:
Trump Says US 'Foolishly Spent' $7 Trillion in the Middle East As He Spends $2 Billion a Day on War





I suppose that Thoreau72 was right:



Trump, to me, is no different than Obama, Bush, and all the Presidents that came before.
Click to expand...

You left out that they are wars President Trump inherited not ones he started. But unlike Obama who said it would take a generation to defeat ISIS President Trump has done it in a year, and he did it by repealing Obama's rules of engagement.
 
JMaximus said:
Doesn't anyone understand the commercial value of military dominance?

Not to mention the obvious social and humanitarian benefits to peace...
Click to expand...

This is a joke or heavy sarcasm, right?

I would ask: why do so few people seem to understand how wasteful the government is, the military especially? Or, why do so many ignore Eisenhower's warning in 1961?

I reckon "the humanitarian benefits to peace" is the part that makes it a joke.
 
Casca XV said:
You left out that they are wars President Trump inherited not ones he started. But unlike Obama who said it would take a generation to defeat ISIS President Trump has done it in a year, and he did it by repealing Obama's rules of engagement.
Click to expand...
No offense, but the people that have been destroying ISIS are Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Russia. Hell, ISIS was already on the run back when Obama was still President.

Also, ISIS is a creation of the United States. It was meant to destabilize countries and serve as a pretext for foreign interventionism. Our government shipped arms to ISIS. The Deep State would never allow ISIS to perish because it's a useful tool of the United States.

Furthermore, while I understand that President Trump inherited Obama's wars, he shouldn't be continuing them. Instead, we should get the hell out of there. It means more of our troops dead or coming back with PTSD and more money wasted.
 
Casca XV said:
You left out that they are wars President Trump inherited not ones he started. But unlike Obama who said it would take a generation to defeat ISIS President Trump has done it in a year, and he did it by repealing Obama's rules of engagement.
Click to expand...

That's bull, unsurprisingly.

It had lost 60% of its territory when he took office and was on the run from the Iraqis and Kurds on one side, Syrian bastards/Russians on the other. Meanwhile, we weren't losing troops like we did during Bush's war thanks to Obama's strategy of having us in mainly support roles. Meanwhile, civilian deaths from airstrikes were up under Trump last I checked, which isn't a good thing unless one is simply happy to see suspected muslims die.

Trump just did what he always does: show up, assess the situation, decide between claiming credit (if it is good) and casting blame (if it is bad).



Just like he did the other day by claiming credit for the lack of deaths in US commercial flights, when it's been zero since 2009 and he actually didn't do anything about airline safety. He talked about using a plan that's been in the works for years, back in June, but it didn't actually go into effect.

Same thing every time, and every time, the usual suspects will pass off whatever lie of the day Trump has recommended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom