Should the Democrats Withhold Funding for the Iraq War?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 9 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]373070[/snapback]</div>

Neither Dems. or Rep. care about the masses. Just their families, rich friends, and big corporations. It's obvious that it's going to be business as usual. And all of them only care about getting reelected in 2 yrs. They are true "worthless eaters."

 

If that's what they believe (that funding should be cut) then they should not have voted FOR the wart before they vote AGAINST it.

By the way we won the WAR, the rebuilding afterward is proving more difficult. Plus it is made harder because every time the administration tries to alter its plan (which it has done often) they are creamed by the media which says things like "is the change now an affirmation that you were wrong before?" who wants that kind of criticism, i.e. unwarranted. Plus it’s not very constructive. The real question should be, why did you change? But if you listen that is not what is asked. Plus Dems don't even ask the question they just assume the answer they want. Only a tid-bit into the double standard media review.

And I'll grant you there are MANY liberals (moderate conservative=liberal) out there who think the media isn't doing enough to get Bush out of office, just goes to show how far we have slipped as a country. It’s not the media's job, they are to report the facts, and the only problem is how selective they are in reporting. (Not everything’s perfect, it’s the real world get over-it)

The Dems need a plan B, if they want us out then they have to also tell us how to keep Iraq out of Iran's hands. And I don't want to hear the whining, we would not have this problem if Bush didn't flood New Orleans! I mean invade Iraq. We did because Iraq was a threat and a destabilizing force. (Not to mention the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people Sadam executed (not killed in a declared conflict but had executed) over his reign without ANY TRIAL!!!!!!

People need to stand up to truly evil people. Words alone cannot solve all disputes. We must be able to see and make a judgment between "good" and "Evil" if not we are lost. Good acts can have the same consequences as evil ones and those consequences can be used to rationalize that good and evil are the same, they are not. A person who goes into a 7/11 to rob it and kills the clerk is different that the police officer that shoots and kills that robber, even if his bullet passes through the robber and kills an innocent bystander. (Granted to some libs out there this is not the case, and you are truly lost)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 9 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]373111[/snapback]</div>

Sure, they'll try, but "folks like yourself" will do everything possible to impede progress...just as "folks like myself" did during the zenith of Mr. Bush's administration.

That's why we'll never progress unless we can -- each and every one of us -- realize that it is *our differences* which make us strong as a nation.

Embrace those differences, Mr. Berman. Your either/or attitude (and willingness to dismiss) belittles the manifold strengths we ALL bring to the table as Americans.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 9 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]373132[/snapback]</div>

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

And if we make the wrong judgment...what then?

We were not placed upon this Earth to judge each other in the way that you suggest..and then, render punishment. Period.

A slippery slope, my friend.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 9 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]373166[/snapback]</div>

Yes, but you failed.

Pretentious, PIOUS, BS.

Until we can read minds, there will likely always be the possibility the "wrong judgment" was made, and even then, it's totally subjective, and based upon different standpoints.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 9 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]373030[/snapback]</div>

The silence is deafening because your on ignore for most people now.


I'll answer your question with a question, should Gdumbass resign for his incompetence?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 9 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]373207[/snapback]</div>

This is interesting to note:

Most of the radical libs. on this site have at least one person on their ignore list...

How many righties have ANYONE on their ignore list?

:lol:

Don't like what you hear, SHUT YOUR EARS!!! lololololololol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 9 2007, 02:58 PM) [snapback]373214[/snapback]</div>

This sounds a lot like a dysfunctional relationship, where everyone is really defensive, and every comment is seen as a confrontation.

So now we've sunken to arguing over who listens and who doesn't...? Ugh.

Gee, for the life of me I can't figure out why we're in gridlock and public discourse is all but dead.

 

Is it halt the funding or stop the proposed additional $100B in funding? What is the total cost to date?
What is the priority of this vs other priorities we have both domestic and international?

It is not a simple question as outlined.

 

Current total spent on Iraq & Afganistan: approximately $319 Billion
That is a toatl for five (5) years of conflict, for BOTH conflicts.
That's about $60 Billion a year. (yeah that's a lot of bread but it goes to show that the "requests" for more money doesn't mean it is actually spent)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 9 2007, 05:51 PM) [snapback]373400[/snapback]</div>

How much just for Iraq?

I don't think Afghanistan is the question of this thread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bulldog @ Jan 9 2007, 02:27 PM) [snapback]373310[/snapback]</div>

The Constitution provides that the President controls the military, but that Congress controls the purse strings. So the issue is, will Congress restrict the money so the President will either have to let our troops be slaughtered or retreat?

The Democrats can force an immediate withdrawal if they want to. Stop the money, and the military will pack up and leave.

Should the Democrats do that? (I don't get to vote, because I lost the last election. You guys are in charge now).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 9 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]373070[/snapback]</div>

Good grief! Do YOU have a plan? Does ANYONE have a good plan? How can you expect the Dems to fix this mess Bush has created. Ever heard of the term FUBAR?

There is no one perfect solution because we broke it. If someone had just READ about Iraq's tribal history, and what Iran had to gain from a war, he might have anticipated this...plenty of people trying to tell them. This was entirely predictable and exactly what we were saying BEFORE the war.

To keep throwing money and men at this thing is the definition of insanity. ( btw, When we pulled out of Vietnam, everyone was saying we'd pay a big price at home. We didn't.)

There is no good choice. No good plan. This is a HUGE error. No one can fix this up neatly. We really messed this up, and we have to take responsibility for that and get out of these people's home.

I'm sure the Iraqi's appreciate us for fighting terrorists in their homeland so we don't have to fight them in the US. That's a great way to win hearts and minds.

 

June 22, 2006 S 2766 A $509 Billion military budget bill, including $50 Billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Passed 96-0.


My answer would be, Yes, I believe the Demoncrat's should try to halt funding for the Iraq war.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 9 2007, 10:03 PM) [snapback]373488[/snapback]</div>

Unfortunately it is not a simple black and white question nor answer as you make it out to be.

Stopping additional funding won't stop things immediately as the military have many budgets. Stopping all the funding will cripple the military. At the moment we are throwing good resources and money away in Iraq.

No fault of the military, but rather the poiticians that were in charge when they started the war. They never secured the victory before sendign the troops into battle. In effect they send them into a loose loose situation. The war to be won was/is political first and military second. We have done nothing to politically cripple our enemy (Islam extremists), in actual fact we have strengthened their position. (Sure we can take out a few heads adn camps today, but what about tomorrow. They will always hate us, but now we have given them the leverage to convince even more of the moderate Islamists to support their stupid cause.)

So bottomline is that I expect that the budget will be used to force a sooner pullout of troops. Not but cutting it off, but using it as leverage for a speedier withdrawal.

What are we trying to achieve at the moment there? We don't have the political control over the country to be able to make real change. I recall certain political elements rushing to declare victory and hand Iraq back it's sovereignty. This is biting us badly now. I propose (not realistic anymore) to divide Iraq into 3 seperate states.

Lastly let me ask an interesting question. If you knew then what you now now, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place? Or would you have saved our political goodwill, resources, troops, fundign for other enemies that are comign up now like Iran adn North Korea? For the record. I was against the Iraq war from day one, as I was more interested in sending more resources into Afghanistan to clean that up first adn get Bin Laden and his cronies. I was also very concerned that Iraq qould become a black hole of resource drain without clear cause to attack or clear path of victory. Iraq has been a pressure cooker for decades with a tirant managing to keep the lid on. We now have opened it up and th only way to close it again will be for us to become the same tirant that he was. Or do we seriously think the SUnnis, Shiites and Kurds are going to hold hands and sing together? How many more troops do we need to loose or get injured, or messed up, how many more dollars before we figure this out? DO we seriously think we know how to manage them better than they do themselves? What are we going to do different after 4 years there, that will make the right impact?

We need to choose our battles very carefully in the war on these extremists, and the battles with the most impact will be the ones on the political front.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Debra Barbre @ Jan 9 2007, 10:46 PM) [snapback]373500[/snapback]</div>

I have heard that BS statement so many times before. And that is what it si complete BS. The hardcore terrorists wil find their way to Afghanistan (lot closer than the US) to fight US troops. Come on (not atacking you but the BS statement made by politicians covering their nice person) we already had a war going in Afghanistan for any young and healthy terrorist to go and die for their cause. No need to start a second in Iraq for that. In fact Iraq or Saddam had lesslove for Bin Laden and company than we have.

Anybody who cares to read up on a bit of history will find out that Bin Laden promised Saudi protection from Saddam in the 1st Gulf war. Saudi obviously chose the US (who wouldn't). Then Bin Laden got pissed since the US defiled the "holy land" by setting up military basis. That is when he focussed his efforts on the US. To get us out of the "holy land".

Problem is our commander and his advisors either do not understand the enemy or chose to ignore their knwoledge of the enemy for their own political gain (at the time they started the war). It is starting to bite them badly now. Unfortunately it is at a great cost to all of us, some much more than others.

 

The guy's a a MAROON..... Anyone who thinks we should give him carte blanch, our family members and all our tax money to keep f-ing it up is an even deeper shade of maroon.

If he were your boss, you'd be slapping a postit reading "Kick Me" on his back. Admit it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Debra Barbre @ Jan 10 2007, 06:22 PM) [snapback]373894[/snapback]</div>

Did you intend to write M-O-R-O-N ?

Maroon is a color.