Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE UNITED STATES has spent $2.7 billion (€2.4 billion) to date in its campaign against the so-called Islamic State (IS), new figures released by the Pentagon show.
That works out at more than $9 million (€8 million) per day.
About two-thirds of that figure is spent on the Air Force, according to the BBC.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives approved a $579 billion (€516 million) defence spending bill that offers a slight pay raise to US troops, but reflects deep divisions on budget priorities and whether President Barack Obama needs new war powers to fight IS.
The vote was 278 to 149 in favour of the bill, which drew stiff opposition from Democrats because it uses a war-fighting account to raise defence spending next year.
The measure gives Obama roughly all the money he requested for defense, but does so by hiking the war-fighting account — which is not subject to congressional spending caps — by almost $40 billion (€35 billion).
This week, the White House announced another 450 advisers will be sent to Iraq in a bid to reverse gains by IS. This brings the total military personnel there to 3,500.
IS seized Ramadi, a predominately Sunni city near Baghdad, last month.
- with reporting by AP
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This seems like an unfairly negative slant on her performance.
I didn’t think Guam was part of the Virgin Islands!
Let’s just hope that this socialist/elitist couple is done in 1 term. No you can’t.
Ron Paul 2012
Right, let’s hope for a President that campaigns on literally not doing anything as President. Let’s hope for an isolationist President that abandons all overseas allies that rely on the US/NATO for their national defence, including us (just like pre-WWII USA, which we all know turned out just swimmingly for the world). Let’s hope for a President who wants to turn the USA into a confederation of independent states where, much like Europe, a coherent voice is nearly impossible to find in times of crisis.
Last but certainly not least, let’s hope for a President that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, and the universe was created in 7 days.
As pleasant as it is to listen to a good debater and apparent voice of reason among the so-called Republican “candidates”, he would make an awful, awful President.
The “socialist/elitist” couple. You really need to look up the definitions of both of those words.
@Muc so you’re hoping for a President who attacks Iran on a spurious WMD charge .and as a result oil will hit $250 – £300 a barrel and the shitty economy we have will be completely flushed . Thats provided China don’t mind their economy being fucked by the US and go to war (and if you think that won’t happen you need to read a few PLA general’s speeches )
@Jeff
So the solution to all this is to completely abandon all foreign operations of the US armed forces and let Russia and China extend their circles of influence in the ensuing vacuum? As well as leaving defenseless allies such as ourselves, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and a rake of others high and dry?
Not justifying the stupidity of Bush’s foreign policy but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Also, a rebuttal of the rest of the reasons why Ron Paul would be a shit President would be nice.
@Muc Beag. Iraq an ally? Oh yeah, I forgot the US stomped them into alliance but this is a good thing according to you.
The “security” that you seem to think is so important seems to me to be the biggest threat to global security at present not Russia and not China.
Not only is it completely insane to think that in this supposed modern day and age where we can clone living species and perform medical miracles previously thought not to be possible that countries are still going to war and butchering poorer nations because of their resources but an ordinary citizen supporting these jingoistic policies is beyond comprehension.
In times of crisis their so called “coherent voice” didn’t do really do much for the people of New Orleans after Katrina did it?
It is a special type of lunatic that supports the past and current insane aggressive US foreign policy over a more peaceful one which is essentially what Ron Paul is about. My only fear is that the extremist nut bags like yourself will know exactly what to do if he ever gets into power.
Less of the name calling there. I’m not a “nutbag”, “lunatic” or whatever else and I certainly don’t support “insane aggressive US foreign policy” – which you have to admit has been toned down since Obama came in (withdrawal from Iraq, limited involvement in Libya and Arab Spring, economic rather than military responses to Iranian nuclear ambitions etc). What I am opposed to is complete termination of current overseas operations, particularly the likes of South Korea.
Going to add to your point about Katrina/New Orleans – Lehman Bros. When they called up the White House asking for a bailout, “Dubya” wouldn’t even take the call. In the end it cost us ten times what a bailout there and then would’ve cost. That bad decision was not the fault of the US’s federalist structure, as it was possible to call the White House with such a request, but the failure of former President Bush and his 8 years of dreadful leadership.
Do you really think there would’ve been a more swift response to Katrina if the US were a loose confederation of independent states, as Ron Paul would envisage? Do you think the military could be mobilised faster if the problem lay solely with the state of Louisiana, again as Ron Paul would envisage? Do you think human rights would be improved in America if all the power lie with the states (think about it, with such direct democracy they could vote in racist laws without any consequences from federal government). Do you think the dollar would be better off, or even exist, without the Federal Reserve?
As much as I like him, his Presidency would be a disaster for the USA and the world.
Seems like she has had to put up with a lot of nonsense since her husband became president.
lol, “isolationist”? WTF does that have to do with Ron Paul? And how the f*ck is U.S. taxpayer responsible for European security? Europe has to grow some balls and pay for its own security or shut the f*ck up and take it in the a**. And yes, the retard will be a 1 term president, no doubt.
Ron Paul wants to end all overseas operations of the US military, so in foreign policy terms he would be considered an “isolationist”. As in he wants the US to be isolated from world geopolitics.
Reality is they are the protectors of a lot of countries that would be too small to defend themselves, yet provide the US with military bases in exchange for defense (less-so Europe, more-so South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc).
Also, the military-industrial complex created by these overseas operations does generate stimulus for the US economy. Indeed, a form of Keynesian “pump-priming”.
Obama’s currently favourite to retain his position at the White House, by the by.
Seems like a bit of a cow in fairness but anybody in a position like that is going to have a nastier side to them
have your say