Do you favor cutting the funding for the Iraq war

[David S]

Yes I think that's the only way this war will be brought to an end prior to 2009.

[David S]

Ron Paul is one of the few politicians urging other members of congress to vote against the supplemental appropriation which would fund the surge. Good for him!
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10523

..."This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental."

[David S]

Yes, when we say to cut funding we mean to leave our troops there to fend for themselves and to hitch hike back to the U.S.  It'll teach them for being soldiers.

Kind of like we should just cut the poor off of welfare and let them fend for themselves, right? 

Of course the objective is to bring them home as Congressman Paul states in his final sentence:
"We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?"

No one said anything about leaving them there.

[David S]

In my opinion congress should tell W "we're giving you enough money to bring the troops home safely, no more and no less."  For W to abandon the troops after that would be an extreme dereliction of duty, and possibly an impeachable offense.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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/

[David S]

Don't worry, Progress with tax the hell out of those remaining behind. 

Actually while the chickenhawk crusade is going on we'd just nationalize everything ya'll own and wouldn't need to tax anyone for quite a long time.

Ahhh . . . Socialism.

Yes now we too can have a vibrant and robust economy similar to that of ... North Korea.