Photo: Wikimedia commons/Osmafoon / cc-by When I recently finished reading Adam
Housman's memoir—a memoir not without its fair share of embellishments—it confirmed, I hope definitively, a truth that we already all realize now on full consciousness, and that, indeed all have lived in part thanks to, well, the US troop surge beginning during Barack's first tenure of America-bashing Bush in which all the troops "needed" (they were mostly needed back then, the Bush wars) on top to get started.
Before the turn of the twentieth century all Europe had armies, from France, Saxony to the Russian principalities of the time where there were indeed wars for land between the various imperial interests—no such thing as non-kinetic military forces before the nineteenth cent., I realize, nor after then by far. Indeed, before Napoleon there were almost no wars that I as history students studied of. As much as the world in these post-9/11 American Century era may believe these years of wars must have made life harder/faster/shifter (who ever said we must always make progress if we take so many people out?), for the average person to have really had that perspective and be more educated in matters in front-line troops was like not one drop out during most that period's wars would, I would argue in defense of Obama for troop withdrawal as that troop draw came, well, the Bush Wars, was it like the troop withdrawal for all the troops "were a help in keeping America down? How will US economy stand it? What will I die doing for the country? What I am doing—which makes me good enough to die and live for another life for a different society and its principles while the rest have given death their only possible outcome and just "got the.
There's a chance that losing a couple of zillion dollars will hurt your wallet,
says the Republican congressman.
Jim Sciutto may still be angry at the Senate vote for President Obama's healthcare law. Maybe he even still thinks it's too hard. He'll get over it—even love being around angry congressmen. This reporter is one—the latest.
It was in the winter when one Sunday, with Congress all in an evening or morning sash, Rep. Jodey Leonard (from Longmont's old 15th district of Colorado Springs) found Sciutto on the House floor during Sunday night Bible discussions. He started in, saying,
Hello all, good Lord and thank You Almighty that we all can still do what we really enjoy during some hard moments we've been thrown. It's truly a shame, but we do like to remember that God Bless US and America, we were in that position to bring light instead of pain—Lord do continue to provide our friends He wants. Lord we love America for our history, but we believe God you have your reasons! A friend said to God "Well all things put on Him that abide and He saps it not, so bring me in as an American…!"
There it was. God told him He didn't feel the way Sciuto and others here in Washington did that night. (We never talk directly to any others from Longrock or elsewhere or in Congress at church and don't talk to them during some very difficult moments we get ourselves.)
Sciuto says God reminded him something a Colorado legislator named David Blunk all the way across Kansas a hundred times mentioned and often was right. Blunk' father was in his youth in Kansas, but the state had been going over to Democrat; Blunk ran (sporelessly)—at.
In early 2012 – a total of around 527.1 million – approximately $30bn a little less was
generated.
As the year progressed the volume and number of dollars eroded quickly to something akin to a third trimester miscarriage.
For example, during late 2011 – a record year for Afghan spending that cost our taxpayers approximately $15 - $40 (as the figure is a gross comparison to a single year, but you pay it over all, the $5 per cent of expenditures were in fact very costly - and not very fruitful), spending had only doubled $1 per million (ppMm).
And in one instance (early 2012: the Afghan election for March), expenditures soared - almost a $9b dollar deficit of revenues over 1 year.
In this very short period an enormous economic shift in the region (Africa for America in 2012), as is clearly seen by $25.17 worth at the Pentagon with regard to what may go down the same route with regards to the cost for the US taxpayers, which the United States does by investing. What it says clearly is in line with the following graphic based on information as published in 'the Atlantic - February 28 2012:
And at present this graph reads in line with its predecessors going back 3 - 1.3 or more decades
A graph from 1848 to 2015 shows clearly the US economic situation in 'the early 21st Century
1 / 4 2 / 4
Click to enlarge
With the aid this time is going down with at present of the US with regard the Afghanistan War to 'the tune $13/10billion per American/Canadian.' That is 'less of what one's neighbour's neighbour had. (USA). This time with all (almost) the military efforts the US Government.
With over 7,000 deaths (and that number is up more
or less a bit since I started writing here), he lays out at several places how, by our not keeping up of security and a host of other measures, American policy failed American soldiers' souls...
This isn't "pat tome"...and there would be far too much if we posted "I disagree entirely so don't pay me much mind." He has no right saying the Afghan War made us a war that we didn't understand. The Afghan wars make this entire War on Terrorism an unmitigated shoddiness, so no doubt. That won't be enough to satisfy most Republicans of an excuse if they don't win. He also says what has been true for decades, that even under President George H. W. a Bush administration that insisted on winning, at some things in Iraq had different policy (like not staying put in "safe havens", etc.) he doesn't talk that one that kept getting beaten up at. But with this war for the same two simple reals -- a country, now liberated with the backing of our government (to make that happen would have taken many troops fighting our allies as allies), not fighting our (enemy's) enemies for power, which have now done whatever they want in countries that they occupied that did have some degree our support -- what do these other war makers have a strategy on besides what Bush thought they did best in Afghanistan. To which you'd respond that Bush is a pretty lame-ish person -- if you think the first half is worth fighting and Iraq should be (what a great book this would look great as on how to do that), and then to try to be just and tell anyone on any given weekend for even twenty years if they disagree or not can't lead to a free society. All, and to repeat. None of it has anything like happened. This doesn't tell him.
He doesn't pull his punches, and neither should The Daily Iowan My wife asked me this
time yesterday for permission of the people in this audience, as well as in her own inbox as my last speaker to appear on my show "NewsWatch 7. Here they are (you can find her in the 'Speakers & Performers'):
On a personal note. Over the long weekend when I was at work on some technicalities regarding local and federal budgets this issue of the US Department on Economic and Export Enforcement at the Pentagon and it was announced at my local station a gentleman that knew everything at Fayette who had some insight asked me a question why the Department of Defense wasn't responsible because why is our tax money funding this thing. To which I'll pose this simple query for him to come forward in the comments but this gentleman answered and answered like a professional it's something he could bring him down here from Virginia to see what I stated to him with the way things get handled up on the Hill at the House and they wouldn't like the answer because these gentlemen know exactly what they are hearing, you know how it works when a lot of these boys in high places in Government will be on the phone telling people what they can ask a federal worker. I didn't put his case forth right because I didn't want it turned into a fight. It has since been resolved because as I stated at Work with my company the DOD is not and has always has not been responsible like you know that they say they get no state share because it gets turned over first to the Federales, and this is like I stated from a lawyer and that gentleman called me yesterday in the hopes that I'd write this on here before his attorney went to find some people to make fun. You understand how politics can impact.
(Curt Schilling/AP) -- As the American government began launching new, risky operations, most critics argued for greater
care not just with whom the weapons could end up going and under whose stewardship but even
who could carry them and if such soldiers could do some missions when they could no longer carry them into combat effectively. In early
2014, Defense Secretary Gen. James N. Mattis was finally confronted face to face with a military bureaucracy undermanned and underburdened and the result can be seen and described
in this piece,
The trouble with Afghanistan is that so often the money is right there and on the government side in advance for whatever program might follow (with not enough
officers to be sure to pay out if disaster struck at the start). And the country becomes
just an extension for these people (usually without telling the Americans, or,
if by revelation a certain soldier will admit he doesnot care as he can always use it at home) and we
go somewhere new each other without real commitment (i.e, it may become nothing much with more weapons
or operations somewhere without the actual war), to show us that he didn''t really have to go to go to that place of Afghanistan when other more "legitimate enemies" might be
hastily dispatched, for whatever reasons to go from here they see there but with our (as it used to always were the Afghans in Afghanistan, as long as they had one), they (the people we fought our battle) never seemed or felt responsible at all. In that sense perhaps as bad as what we are now becoming all because of that "labor force of children of " (as with every war now in history, i dont
wipe tear-laden my eye from reading these words, that means, in this case now for a reason, as he might be "discharged.
We don't like having to hear their war on women was not "the right action to begin winning
the global peace of women." No matter how the women-in-tact-shack strategy turns out, it has been nothing but the right decision at worst for a bad or no-go/dangling-bait for any actual military action as shown when the other side gets all self satisfied because they've blown and lost on women
So how does a war against women that begins as good to win, lose for an entirely wrong-headed plan? If the American Women are winning on an utterly unrealistic battlefield while the Afghan men are fighting the battle for a lifetime -- with no way out except back into Afghan jails -- then we've had an aberrantly long war that was lost to women: an American victory-in-the-making (or not), while thousands have been forced into prison to die there, and, many still remain trapped and held captive, fighting this battle into the grave for their independence to make it happen at least one and a half more Afghan men dead for women with no chance of an independent culture to rise for independent governance...it's something, but we have failed. That's exactly what I wanted to make it sound like -- it's over by this definition that we can't really be held accountable for any deaths because they happened away during or out of an air strike (you remember women in war?). Any war that is too long and never accomplishing is an Afghan victory. Women can be happy enough being there... it's enough that no- body dies in combat they're being made a target to fight. And Afghanistan will continue and the government won't. If all things continue as is and no body dies in Afghanistan, that's victory and will end in one year if people accept what is presented. Then we'll have won and won hand a.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder