Obama´s trip to India - what will it cost?

@mysteryman,

Really? I seriously didn't know that.

That wouldn't have made sense then and it doesn't make sense now.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Great Halloween costume for my nephew.
Shame I didnt know about that sooner.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

they come in even tinier versions Very Happy

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Some of the people on here made that same claim.

0 Replies

@Green Witch,

I was just wondering why someone would moan about these obviously killer costs, GW, things like the mango ice creams and the twin beds.

I was also just wondering if those other unimportant things had ever crossed her mind and if she had had occasion to register any complaints about them.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

On that day, when he was in AF-1, the left said he was out of communication with the rest of the govt.

I think that you misunderstood that, MM. People said that he was out of communication for the whole eight years of his "term".

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Im applying the same logic that the left used against Bush after 9/11.
On that day, when he was in AF-1, the left said he was out of communication with the rest of the govt.
They claimed he couldnt communicate from AF-1, even though it has one of the best commo systems on the planet.
So, it stands to reason that Obama will also be out of communication with the rest of the govt while he is either in the limo or on AF-1.

Oh, I see. It was sarcasm.

Keep setting up those strawmen, MM, and you can keep knocking them down.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

As terrorist threats are really to take seriously the costs are much higher than any trip would have been earlier. Which also means that the visiting country has to pay lots of millions to protect the American president.
Of course it is wonderful to be able to have a visiting American president and watch it on TV. What about the normal person, who can´t fly because of 41 planes on the airfield, the roads that are blocked and you can´t go to work - all those expences?

1 Reply

@saab,

It's the cost of having idiots in the world who think a good solution to their problems is to blow other people up. Sorry if that inconveniences you, but the alternative to paying for protection is happy terrorists and dead presidents.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

First lady is presumed to have some usefull function.

How very presumptuous . . .

0 Replies

@Green Witch,

No, it did not upset me at all - I don´t want to see any dead presidents or any other for that matter.

But with TV conferences I think that most/many/several of our politicians (world wide )could hold TV conferences which costs less, don´t pollute and would be safer for the politicians involved.

0 Replies

@saab,

Quote:

Headlines Today accessed the details of elaborate arrangements that will be in place to guard Obama during his three-day trip beginning on November 6. He will be accompanied by US first lady Micehlle Obama and their daughters Malia and Sasha.

Has Headlines Today made that claim? Just so you know, they are not a very respected TV channel out here in the country. At least, the people who know better, are always skeptical of the claims they make.

Also, while the media are definitely trying to make the trip sound like a big deal, it's nothing like Bill Clinton's presidential visit to the country few years ago. THAT one was a big deal - for us. Everybody knew he was coming -- I suspect his extra-marital affair had prompted a lot of curiosity about his personality and character. I was a kid back then, and I was really excited (what was I thinking, really?) about it.

The believers were praying everything goes okay during the visit and that there are no terrorist attacks, etc.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Quote:

It's the cost of having idiots in the world who think a good solution to their problems is to blow other people up. Sorry if that inconveniences you, but the alternative to paying for protection is happy terrorists and dead presidents.

It's really simple, GW, yet you continue to miss it, all the while suggesting that you haven't. If the USA would stop its terrorist actions, if the USA hadn't been deeply involved in terrorism for the last century, at the least, these problems would not exist.

1 Reply

@spidergal,

I saw the claims in Daily Mail, an English gossip paper, so I wanted to know if it really was correct. This was what I found in India Today.
See what else I can find about it.
A Swedish paper just mentions he is not going to Pakistan this time but next year.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Yes, it was sarcasm.
But based on facts.
There were many people on here after 9/11 that charged that Bush was out of communication when he was on AF-1, and when he was at his ranch.

So, using that same "logic" to claim that Obama is out of communication was indeed sarcasm, but based on the same logic the Bush haters used.

2 Replies

@JTT,

While there are no innocents in the game of who was a terrorist first, I think this problem goes back to the beginning of organized government. Assignation of leaders has been around since someone decided to be the leader of a tribe. There is always someone who wants to bump off the leader either for personal glory or their own people's gain. I doubt very much if we offered the biggest olive branch in the universe to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban they would suddenly invite us over for coffee and turkish taffy. The Taliban recently killed a woman I had met a few years back. Her sole interest was helping the farmers of Afghanistan. Her good efforts meant nothing to them, they slaughtered her as they have many good people, so I doubt your idea to suddenly change our ways will make any difference to their way of thinking. They worship blood sport, and while the US can't claim sainthood, I doubt we can do anything to change their minds in the near future and the past can't be changed. Thus we will continue to spend millions on protecting our leaders their entourage.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Quote:

While there are no innocents in the game of who was a terrorist first, I think this problem goes back to the beginning of organized government. Assignation of leaders has been around since someone decided to be the leader of a tribe. There is always someone who wants to bump off the leader either for personal glory or their own people's gain.

You being duplicitous, GW.

Quote:

I doubt very much if we offered the biggest olive branch in the universe to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban they would suddenly invite us over for coffee and turkish taffy.

And why not? They certainly did before, right after they were created by none other than the USA.

Quote:

The Taliban recently killed a woman I had met a few years back. Her sole interest was helping the farmers of Afghanistan. Her good efforts meant nothing to them, they slaughtered her as they have many good people, so I doubt your idea to suddenly change our ways will make any difference to their way of thinking. They worship blood sport, and while the US can't claim sainthood, I doubt we can do anything to change their minds in the near future and the past can't be changed. Thus we will continue to spend millions on protecting our leaders their entourage.

Can you not see how you deal in sweeping propaganda? "They worship blood sport" while the USA "can't claim sainthood".

Who was this woman?

Wouldn't, for you, saturation bombing of towns and villages, napalming villages, torturing, raping and murdering innocent men, women and children indicate a certain degree of worship for blood sport?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Whatever

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

There were many people on here after 9/11 that charged that Bush was out of communication when he was on AF-1, and when he was at his ranch.

you're going to need to provide some evidence of "many people on here"

"here" didn't exist until about a year after 9/11, and "most" people had moved on from 9/11 drama before this site was established

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

Quote:

Whatever

I can assure you that it's a damn big whatever to the families of those Iraqis and Afghans lying in graves, if their remains could ever be found.

How can you begin to suggest that you don't support these terrorist actions/war crimes/etc when you aren't even willing to review the facts, GW?

The Taliban did not invade the USA. The Taliban never were nor could they ever be a threat to the USA.

The Taliban came to be the governing power in Afghanistan because of the USA. I don't recall any, that's none, no complaints whatsoever about them during the period of time when they were the US's boys.

Funny how all of a sudden, they are the devil incarnate and the stories of their atrocities are told far and wide across America.

The Taliban did not refuse to give up Osama bin Laden.

1 Reply

Obama´s trip to India - what will it cost?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know