Do you favor cutting the funding for the Iraq war

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

See this diary: "Cut the Funding: I'm a Soldier and I Approve this Message"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/14/134438/356

[Boris]

You're kidding yourself if the congressional Democrats have the guts to do something like this. They a) would fear the backlash and the GOP spin (which is very good) and b) would have a hard time uniting all Democrats over a resolution. Why do you think they're wasting their time with meaningless non-binding resolutions?

[DownWithTheLeft]

No (American)

[Ebowed]

Yes, but the Democrats will never do it.

[David S]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

YES YES YES

[MODU]

No (sane).

[opebo]

Yes, of course.  By the way, those who type (sane) behind their answer are violating the 'no personal attacks' policy.

[Ban my account ffs!]

No.  First give the president an ultimatum for some clear plan, a plan to bring the troops home before his term is ended, and if he doesn't (which he won't), then cut the funding.

Maybe his friends can pay for the war with the profits they've made from it.

[MODU]

Yes, of course.  By the way, those who type (sane) behind their answer are violating the 'no personal attacks' policy.

You love me.

[opebo]

Yes, of course.  By the way, those who type (sane) behind their answer are violating the 'no personal attacks' policy.

You love me.

Really?  You're a bit nondescript to inspire such a profound emotion, particularly in one as jaded as I. 

All the best..

[MaC]

only under the condition that it goes with a time line to get out of the war.  I wouldn't want American troops still fighting and not having food, clothing, ect..

[12th Doctor]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

World War II ended September 2, 1945. Period. There were some isolated axis soldiers who were cut off communcation wise who didn't get the message. Completely irrelevant to the Iraq situation.

Wow, you are a horrible horrible person for insinuating that what the soldier on DailyKos is calling for wouldn't involving taking the troops home out of harm's way. You are complete garbage. I hope you are ridiculed for the rest of your life for supporting this batsh**t crazy warmongering.

[Democratic Hawk]

You all know which line I'd take on this were I in Congress or, rather, the House of Commons

Dave

[The Dowager Mod]

Nope.

[12th Doctor]

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.

World War II ended September 2, 1945. Period. There were some isolated axis soldiers who were cut off communcation wise who didn't get the message. Completely irrelevant to the Iraq situation.

Wow, you are a horrible horrible person for insinuating that what the soldier on DailyKos is calling for wouldn't involving taking the troops home out of harm's way. You are complete garbage. I hope you are ridiculed for the rest of your life for supporting this batsh**t crazy warmongering.

Well... I guess I am a horrible person. 

You obviously have no idea, at all, about... well history.  After the war ended officially, there were several teams of hardcore Nazis who broke off into groups and continued to cause problems for the Allies after the war was "over".  They blew up bridges, killed government officials and allied soldiers.  A guy from my home town was killed after the war was "over".  There were also many communist groups which tried to eject the Western Powers out of Germany and cause problems for the Democratic governments of the conquered countries.  The History Channel ran two specials on it.  The reason it wasn't common knowledge at the time was because the media didn't report on it.  They, unlike the current media, realized that doing so was potentially detrimental to the allies and was unnessesary... plus... OMG... they didn't do it because they realized that people were sick of hearing about war and wanted to get on with their lives.  People must have thought very differently back then, huh?

[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."

[Ban my account ffs!]

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? 

[Ban my account ffs!]

And Supersoulty:

If Europe had been slipping into chaos and civil war 4 years after the end of WWII, I think there would have been a much stronger push to end spending $125 billion/year on the country, too.

And if it's about democracy building, why aren't we fighting in every country that doesn't have a democracy... like China or Venezuela or Cuba?  WHy don't we attack those countries and occupy them and drain our country of money in the name of "democracy building"?

[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.

[Smash255]

I would say yes, but I'm afraid even if that does happen Bush would either still leave the troops with no $$  there or Iran-Contra the funds 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.

[Boris]

BTW, I voted no (Proud Spineless Democrat). It's too risky and there's too much potential for a large political backlash, the worst of which could include GOP retainment of the White House and congressional gains in 2008. If the President doesn't back down, then the Democrats would have no choice but to reinstate funding (or impeach him, but they don't have the numbers for that), unless they want more troops to die at a faster rate.

We simply do not have the power to affect foreign policy at this time. With luck, that will change in 23 months.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

NO!