I thought Obama is synonymous with ANTI-WAR... more money? more war? When is the end of this!!!
The U.S. President has asked congress on Thursday for $83.4 more for U.S. wars. According to Obama, 95 percent of the money requested will head for three regions:
1. Iraq: money will support U.S. military operations in the Iraqi basis.
2. Afghanistan and Pakistan: for diplomatic operations in effort to defeat al-Qaeda and Taliban.
As well, $3.6 billion will go for strengthening the Afghan National Army.
"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to rake responsibility for their own future - and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
It is always a terrifying factor when Presidents request more money for war. It leaves you thinking: doesn't more money mean a more intensified war? isn't Obama hope the opposite of that? however, would we be able to reach an end to this war without intensifying some certain measures? well, maybe we do need additional funding and training.
As we've witnessed in the previous 8-years, blank checks for war given to President Bush have led him to irresponsible and reckless actions. Which in return, caused a FILTH for America's reputation and resulted in bloodshed of many innocent civilians.
However, the question here is, should Barack Obama be given the same opportunity President Bush had and just hope that he will act differently?
No comments:
Post a Comment