Do you favor cutting the funding for the Iraq war

[opebo]

Yes, of course


Just like my liberal friends, I favor cutting funding immediatly, stranding all of our troops over there to fight for themselves.  I'm sure some of them will make it back alive.  Who cares about building Democracy anyway.  We should have cut the funding right after WWII to all the European countreis that we were mothering.  Who cares about the fact that we were fighting ex-Nazis and pro-Stalin factions in those countries for years after the war ended.  It couldn't have happened anyway, cause it wasn't widely reported.  We all know that something is only happening if the media get hysterical about it.

The problem with your WWII analogy is that the Nazis in this case are us.

[NewFederalist]

Yes I think that's the only way this war will be brought to an end...

Agreed. There should have been a congressional declaration of war in the first place. If there had been, this war would be over OR it would have never been fought.

[AkSaber]

Cut off funding and then what? Watch the Iraqi people suffer under another dictatorship? No thanks.

[David S]

Cut off funding and then what? Watch the Iraqi people suffer under another dictatorship? No thanks.

Seems to me they are already suffering. According to IraqBodycount http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ over 56000 are dead and I don't know how many are maimed. According to the AP article at this site http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/11/04/national/a03110406_03.txt about 100,000 Iraqi's flee the country every month to escape the violence. Doesn't seem like a happy situation to me. The big question is whether the Iraqi people will ever accept a peace imposed by us. A bigger question is why are we trying to create a government modeled after ours in a country on the other side of the world. Why are we getting our own soldiers killed and squandering our money on something that we clearly should never have been involved in?

[Silent Hunter]

In response to that, the US isn't imposing a government like theirs. The Iraqi system is a parliamentary one, for a start. It is allowing the Iraqis to have their own democratic government.

And don't forget who is causing most of this suffering.

[David S]

In response to that, the US isn't imposing a government like theirs. The Iraqi system is a parliamentary one, for a start. It is allowing the Iraqis to have their own democratic government.

And don't forget who is causing most of this suffering.

Who decided it would be a Democracy? I don't think "Islamic theocracy" was one of the options the Iraqi's could choose, although many people in that region would support such a government.

[JSojourner]

In response to that, the US isn't imposing a government like theirs. The Iraqi system is a parliamentary one, for a start. It is allowing the Iraqis to have their own democratic government.

And don't forget who is causing most of this suffering.

The original cause of the current state of affairs is what concerns me.  And you can put the blame square on the shoulders of The Decider.

[??????????]

Cut off funding and then what? Watch the Iraqi people suffer under another dictatorship? No thanks.

Seems to me they are already suffering. According to IraqBodycount http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ over 56000 are dead and I don't know how many are maimed. According to the AP article at this site http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/11/04/national/a03110406_03.txt about 100,000 Iraqi's flee the country every month to escape the violence. Doesn't seem like a happy situation to me. The big question is whether the Iraqi people will ever accept a peace imposed by us. A bigger question is why are we trying to create a government modeled after ours in a country on the other side of the world. Why are we getting our own soldiers killed and squandering our money on something that we clearly should never have been involved in?

Thankfully your political party isn't relevant enough in our govt. to have any real say in foreign policy.

NO do not cut funding (sane, American)

[Hatman 🍁]

$1 trillion and counting. Glad it's not my country spending all that.

[Everett]

YES (normal)

No (American)

No (sane).

No (sane).

NO do not cut funding (sane, American)

What's up with this "normal", "sane", and "American" business? Do you seriously believe that your opinions somehow define normality and sanity? Does supporting or not supporting something have a direct impact on whether or not someone is American?

So in theory, if I am in favour of this proposal, then I must be normal and possibly British. And if I do not favour this, then I am a sane American. Damn.

Also, I'm not exactly sure how this makes me an Independent In Name Only, but... I don't support immediately cutting all funding for the war. Getting our soldiers out before cutting funding seems like a more reasonable idea.

[12th Doctor]

YES (normal)

No (American)

No (sane).

No (sane).

NO do not cut funding (sane, American)

What's up with this "normal", "sane", and "American" business? Do you seriously believe that your opinions somehow define normality and sanity? Does supporting or not supporting something have a direct impact on whether or not someone is American?

So in theory, if I am in favour of this proposal, then I must be normal and possibly British. And if I do not favour this, then I am a sane American. Damn.

Also, I'm not exactly sure how this makes me an Independent In Name Only, but... I don't support immediately cutting all funding for the war. Getting our soldiers out before cutting funding seems like a more reasonable idea.

It's a running joke on the forum.  I can't remember who it is, but someone once put up a poll asking something along the lines of "Do you support gay marriage?"  Putting the answers as "Yes (Democrat)" "No (Normal)"

[GOP = Terrorists]

Actually my ideal position is that we don't cut off funding.  We fund it just enough to ship every Bush/Lieberman supporter to Iraq along with a single rifle and five bullets.

[David S]

Cut off funding and then what? Watch the Iraqi people suffer under another dictatorship? No thanks.

Seems to me they are already suffering. According to IraqBodycount http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ over 56000 are dead and I don't know how many are maimed. According to the AP article at this site http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/11/04/national/a03110406_03.txt about 100,000 Iraqi's flee the country every month to escape the violence. Doesn't seem like a happy situation to me. The big question is whether the Iraqi people will ever accept a peace imposed by us. A bigger question is why are we trying to create a government modeled after ours in a country on the other side of the world. Why are we getting our own soldiers killed and squandering our money on something that we clearly should never have been involved in?

Thankfully your political party isn't relevant enough in our govt. to have any real say in foreign policy.

NO do not cut funding (sane, American)

States I have taken some time in responding to your comment because I wanted to give a thoughtful and thorough a response.  I believe you are a patriotic and loyal American. But to who or what should that loyalty be directed? Should it be the president? The congress? the American people?, The constitution?, The land of the united states? The American way of life? Different people would have different answers to that question. When it comes to Iraq I don't think someone can be loyal to all of the above. The congress is at odds with the president. And if the last election is an indicator the American people are also at odds with him.
My answer is that I am loyal to the constitution, and to the security of the United States and the American people.
If president Bush had said Iraq was behind 911 and had proof of it then I would be all for attacking that country. But he didn't say that. When he was asked about it he said this;
"President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered."
See Video at:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

Secondly as far as we know none of the hijackers were from Iraq. Most were from Saudi Arabia, a country we are not at war with. Some were identified as being of unknown nationality but none were identified as Iraqis.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/plotters.shtml

Another reason we were given for attacking Iraq was that Saddam was not disarming as required after the end of the first Gulf war. But when our soldiers entered the country they found no such weapons. Nor did they find weapons of mass destruction.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War." Source http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
The only other reason we are given for being there is to create a democracy in Iraq. But that is not a constitutional function of our government. Certainly there are many countries that are not democracies and which we have not attacked. That includes nations we are friendly with such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well as nations we are not friendly with such as N. Korea and Iran. So why attack Iraq?

The war has been costly in terms of American Lives, Iraqi lives, and American money. In view of everything I've noted above it seems to me that it does not serve the interests of the United States. Continuing it in my opinion is a pointless waste of lives and money.

You may not agree with me but I think I have presented valid points. In any event I don't believe President Bush has any intention of ending the war and it will not be brought to an end until either a new president is elected or until congress forces the issue.

[John Dibble]

Depends - what portions of the war effort would the cost cuts affect? This question is overly vague for a yes or no answer.

[glittervomit]

No (Dinosaur)

[??????????]

David S. I think you are making a huge mistake and one that many liberals make in trying to make 9/11 the reason we went into Iraq. The reason we went into Iraq is because they had WMD and refused to comply with UN inspectors, on top of that situation Iraq was in continual violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. Violation of a ceasefire is of course a valid reason to resume hostilities against a nation.

[Silent Hunter]

Actually my ideal position is that we don't cut off funding.  We fund it just enough to ship every Bush/Lieberman supporter to Iraq along with a single rifle and five bullets.

That's what, just shy of 100 million Americans? Probably about 60 million when you discount those who are too young and too old. We'd win in no time.

[opebo]

David S. I think you are making a huge mistake and one that many liberals make in trying to make 9/11 the reason we went into Iraq. The reason we went into Iraq is because they had WMD and refused to comply with UN inspectors, on top of that situation Iraq was in continual violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. Violation of a ceasefire is of course a valid reason to resume hostilities against a nation.

But they did not have 'WMDs', not that I see any reason we should care if they did.  Similarly, why should americans care if they were 'violating the cease fire agreement'?  The agreement was unreasonable, obviously, and imposed by a previous american agression which should not have taken place.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

No, I don't think we should strand our Troops in harm's way.  I think Congress should pass a BINDING resolution setting a time-table to end the war and bring our soldiers home.  That's a big difference from stranding our Boys and Girls in the middle of a war zone with no tools or means of defending themselves. 

[Nym90]

Yes, the funds could be better used elsewhere. Obviously it is crucial to ensure the troops are not put at further risk due to funding cuts, but redistribution of the funds needs to start now to put forward the impetus to change our war policy.

[angus]

I think Congress should pass a BINDING resolution setting a time-table to end the war and bring our soldiers home. 

That's my least favorite option.  Have I posted here?  Well, it doesn't matter.

I voted yes, since I think they should come home immediately, and the only way to do it is bring the funding from f to zero, where f is a finite number of dollars.  Immediately.  Basically, as nym90 says, if we're hell bent on overspending, then let's at least build something we can use here at home.

My second favorite option is to go ahead and give Bush as much money as he's asking for, and pray to whatever gods there be that he's right.

My least favorite options all involve published timetables.  I'm no military strategist, but you never give your enemy your game plan.  Making a schedule available to the world invites disaster.  Oh, sure, a few top generals, the president, and maybe a few Iraqis that we really trust can know the inside game plan, but you don't share that stuff with the People.  There's no good reason for me to be made aware of any timetables.  And plenty of reason to keep that sort of timetable under wraps.  Very tight wraps.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Lets just get out of there. ITs not our problem.

[GOP = Terrorists]

That's what, just shy of 100 million Americans? Probably about 60 million when you discount those who are too young and too old. We'd win in no time.

There is no too young or too old.  If you supported them or the war time to get shipped out.

[Silent Hunter]

That's what, just shy of 100 million Americans? Probably about 60 million when you discount those who are too young and too old. We'd win in no time.

There is no too young or too old.  If you supported them or the war time to get shipped out.

I'm talking about those who under 16 (which would violate international law) and those who are far too old to fight at all. A man on a zimmerframe is not going to be any use in combat.

By the way, if I was called, I'd go.

[David S]

David S. I think you are making a huge mistake and one that many liberals make in trying to make 9/11 the reason we went into Iraq. The reason we went into Iraq is because they had WMD and refused to comply with UN inspectors, on top of that situation Iraq was in continual violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. Violation of a ceasefire is of course a valid reason to resume hostilities against a nation.

Hmmm looks like I should have responded to this long ago. I guess my geezer brain lost track of this thread. With regard to WMD in my last post I pointed out the CIA report which contradicted the WMD claim;
Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War." That's the CIA's words not mine.
If you need further proof even The president and the VP admitted there were no WMD.

By Scott Lindlaw
ASSOCIATED PRESS

October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, trying to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.
http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/