What happens if the gov'ment refuses to fund the war?

Question

There is a petition to stop funding for the war in Iraq (Sen. John Edwards). I am tired of this crap. My husband is in the military , and for a looong time I was standing by our presidents side...not budging out of pure respect for our so called "leader"...Gung Ho American! Well, my patience has run VERY thin with this man and his "Plans"....I believe our troops SHOULD be returned home. What is everyones thoughts on this. ANd to get back to my question.....my worry is, can Bush still send troops over without funding? Will he do it regardless?

Ummmm...to the last answer I just read...Your an idiot..I'm not moaning, I'm asking a simple f@!$%@$ question! AND, To add a little something, I am a little nieve and iggnorant to the politics of our country...sorry found it boring in school. Wish I did pay attention back then :) Anyway, so let me get this straight, If they cut funding, my husband and myself & kids, as well as other military families, suffer...will the ones suffer who are already over there if they cut funding for this next batch of soldiers? I mean either way...funding or no funding I want them out of there. They are dying in vain. ALSO~ I don't need the f%^#$@* idiots out there telling me I need to stand by MY HUSBAND either....I FULLY support my man and his fellow soldiers. Just give me a straight responce about how it works...like I said, I'm a bit iggnorant...not dumb. (definitions are clearly different)

Answer 1

If the dems cutoff funding they are more stupid than I thought. I know you miss your husband, but let him do the job he was trained to do. America will be stronger because of his service, and people like him. Tell him thank you from a fellow American. Hang in there, he'll be home soon. God bless.

Answer 2

UNFORTUNATELY IN TONIGHT'S SPEECH (1-10-2007) THE PRESIDENT WILL BE SENDING OVER 20,000 MORE TROOPS INTO IRAQ. CURRENTLY THE NATIONAL DEBT IS:
The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount

01/09/2007 $8,677,702,233,082.11

THAT'S 8.6 TRILLION DOLLARS

THE % THAT THE MILITARY CLAIMS HERE IS:
urrent military” includes Dept. of Defense ($449 billion), the military portion from other departments ($114 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($100 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

The Government Deception

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (above).



Source: New York Times, Feb. 7, 2005, based on
Budget of the United States FY2007.

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 17, 2006, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

Answer 3

Military members will still get paid and all the normal things. The basic military budget pays for that(part of the governments's budget). The war effort funding pays for being in Iraq (it is in addition to the basic budget), building facilities there, equipment there, combat pay, etc... stopping the funding just means that other than paying the troops, there would not be EXTRA money

Answer 4

If the Dems make the mistake of cutting funding they will lose big in 2008. The won't do it, they will talk a lot about it, but they will not do it. The dems need the issue for the presidential race in 2008. Don't be confused into thinking they really care.

Answer 5

it has always been political suicide to cut off funding for troops once they're in the field. What you are saying to them, and by extension their families, is that they won't get supplied, fed, or paid. What politician is going to do that?

Now, Congress can refuse to fund troops BEFORE they're deployed, which makes their deployment unlikely. It's still a hot potato.

I don't think there was ever anything in Iraq worth one American life...let alone 3000 of them.

Answer 6

More troops means more blood shed. Resistance forces in Iraq aim is to free their country from foriegn occupation. More US troops means resistance will become stronger and result in more US casuality. So the it is better for all that the troops are returned back as soon as possible.

Answer 7

It depends on whether the Dems want to "stay the course" or give it a chance to get the troops out sooner.

Answer 8

Same thing will happen as happened in VN..
The cowardly liberal congress surrendered, cut funds
and the Military was forced to pull out of VN...
This time it will be much more serious..
The time congress will get us nuked by Islamofaschist terrorists.

Answer 9

*sigh* I've given up trying to figure out the working's of that man's two brain cells. I'm with you girl, my hubby won't be back from Iraq for a year, and I was fed up with this crap since before he even joined the military!

Answer 10

Usually a civil war.