RE: Funding the troops in Iraq

RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Kirata -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 7:02:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level What do you think would happen if there were a vote to cut off funding for the military in Iraq? Well, not that our soldiers wouldn't be happy to come home to their families, but no one who has watched a buddy's guts get sprayed across the sand is going to be anything but pissed beyond belief if now somebody says oops, sorry about that, changed our mind you know, it was all a mistake, have a banana. How we ended up there doesn't matter now. We have already altered the lives of the people. We must make it turn out for the best, no matter how it started. If withdrawing our troops is the answer, so be it. But the case has to be made, and righteous whining about how we got there does not, by itself, make that case. K.

Level -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 7:03:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy So the Dems vote to cut the funding. Aside from a certain veto..Let's say that it was effective and supplies and funding were dropped. Who in their right mind would keep them fighting? I would like to think that you just might be so compelled to bring them home... How long would it take to get them home? Could that be done quicker than the supplies would dry up?

Level -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 7:06:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: Noah How do you suppose it will proceed if we replace him with someone who built his political career on having accidentally gotten stranded for several years in the country he was trying to attack? But McCain wouldn't cut off funding, Noah. As I understand the U.S. Constitution it isn't the President's choice in any event. True, so I'm not sure what McCain had to do with funding [:D]

Level -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 7:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou If they cut off funding, people would start coming home. It would be done hastily; and Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Kuwait would all busy themselves taking advantage of the situation. I wouldn't expect them to do anything less, because they are right next door to a powder keg. Yeah, there would be an increase in violence and a possible free for all civil war. If you think Somalia was bad, you haven't seen anything once we leave Iraq to the mercy of warlords with ready access to American ordinance that would surely be left behind. On top of that, add a worldwide economic crisis due to disruptions in the oil market. Anyway you look at it; we are not going anywhere for quite sometime. It'd be a mess, wouldn't it........ but would it be worse than now? Would the world in general be worse off than it is now?

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 7:23:14 PM)
quote: It'd be a mess, wouldn't it........ but would it be worse than now? Would the world in general be worse off than it is now? I think it would be worse for Iraqis and the entire region in general. I know a lot of people say that's fine, because it's none of our business. But the world's economy is tied to that region, and will be for the foreseeable future. It was a huge mistake going in there. I have believed that from the beginning. But we went in there and the deed is done. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball. But I can't see anything positive about us pulling out right now.

Noah -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 7:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 I criticize, castigate, and condemn any politician who votes to send troops into combat and then votes to deny them the means to prevail. If that means putting them in a lake of fire, I'm actually quite ok with that. If that means making them listen to endless loops of Rush Limbaugh, I'm ok with that too. Correct me if this is historically inaccurate but I thought Congress voted the Executive the right to send the troops into combat if diplomacy failed. At the time the rhetoric from the White House in favor of the resolution was all about This is not a vote for war, but an attempt to give the President the tools he needs to avoid war. I never saw any Congressman vote "Yes" on Now Send Them In To Battle legislation. One man asked for the right to decide whether to send the troops into combat: George Bush. One man eventually cast that vote. Do you not believe that having asked for and assumed the responsibility of having the one and only vote in the matter, that George Bush should be held accountable in your mind for that vote he did indeed cast?. Meanwhile, the Commander in Chief sent the troops in on a dishonestly justified (as history shows) poorly planned (as history shows) ill-defined (as history shows) mission. He sent them in under-manned and kept them ill-equipped despite the billions and billions that Congress kept giving him each time he asked for it. Can you explain two things for us? Why is your condemnation saved for the legislators who didn't vote to send in the troops but have finacially supported them financially to a degree an order of magnitude greater than history has ever seen? What does "prevail" mean to you in the context of this war? Thanks

Real0ne -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 7:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy So the Dems vote to cut the funding. Aside from a certain veto..Let's say that it was effective and supplies and funding were dropped. Who in their right mind would keep them fighting? I would like to think that you just might be so compelled to bring them home... How long would it take to get them home? Could that be done quicker than the supplies would dry up? cutting the funding does not mean instantly drying up the funds. There is enough for an exit strat to acted upon and if they stay longer then they fuck themselves.

caitlyn -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 8:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level What do you think would happen if there were a vote to cut off funding for the military in Iraq? Nothing would happen Level. This whole line of reason is yet another whopper told by our leadership in the White House and Congress. There is more than enough money in the defense appropriations bill, to pay, feed and arm our troops. If more money were needed, they would buy twenty less F-22's, or buy them, and push payment to next year's budget. This was all a political ploy, not unlike the inane numbers throw out as the "cost of the war." Honestly, do people think our troops work for free, when they aren't in Iraq?

stella41b -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 8:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level What do you think would happen if there were a vote to cut off funding for the military in Iraq? Why restrict the vote just to funding? Why not have a vote on the whole subject of military occupation in Iraq? No point in going over how the troops got there in the first place. Decisions were taken and mistakes were made. What is the point of keeping the troops there anyway? To prevent a civil war? To prevent a country from making its own history? If this is the case then I don't really see much point in the troops being there, all it is doing is putting their lives at risk, unless it's for peacekeeping. If it's for peacekeeping, then where's the negotiations which are necessary to achieve peace? Pardon the pun, but let's not beat about the bush here. The only reason the troops are there is to protect various Western corporate interests and the supply of resources such as oil. Hard as it may be for some people to accept, Iraq is going to go down in history as a painful lesson as to what happens when you barge in and use military force to protect corporate interests at the expense of peace and human rights. Most people aren't that bothered anyway. They're more concerned about issues which affect them, issues such as healthcare, unemployment, poverty and pensions. Rather than being concerned with playing the world's policeman, I feel that politicians in the US should be devoting more attention to issues closer to home, reminding themselves of the Gettysburg address in 1836 and concentrating more to ensure that ordinary Americans have better access to employment, healthcare and working to end poverty in the United States.

kdsub -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 9:12:00 PM)
How about lets fund them until they step back on US soil...Not funding our boys and girls would be criminal...It would get some of them killed. Better to vote this November and set up a withdrawal day...FUNDED... Butch

TheHeretic -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 10:05:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level What do you think would happen if there were a vote to cut off funding for the military in Iraq? If it went through? First big headlines will be about the massive lay-offs. It won't be a few F-22's that don't get ordered. It will be trucks and truck parts, and trailers and tires, and odd little bolts rated to very precise strengths. Flight suits. Computers. The military buys an incredible variety of custom items, and most of them are made in the USA. A lot of the big ones are built by union labor, or paid at a mandated prevailing wage. Say 1/4 - 1/2 million GOOD jobs wiped out overnight as the money comes from other parts of the budget? The impact of that puts us right into heavy recession. Then we get new attacks by the Islamic Crazy People, casualties skyrocket and the only survivor of an ambush is on TV saying "we ran out of ammunition." Do you think anybody would be answering the phone in Nancy Pelosi's office? It would be the end of the Democrats as a party.

Sinergy -> RE: Funding the troops in Iraq (3/5/2008 10:42:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy flawed intel. A better description of the sitting President would be difficult to figure out. Sinergy

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875