Hillary and Kerry voted to send our troops off to war and now they want to cut off their funding and prevent them from getting reinforcements. I guess our troops are supposed to fight the terrorists with sticks and rocks.
2007-02-16 06:21:10 · 11 answers · asked by Herb 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I am disgusted with all the weasels...dem and rep. This M.O. is JUST like VietNam with all the same actors. All they care about is getting re-elected and keeping whatever power they've accumulated. How ANY of you can think that ANY president doesn't agonize over sending our military into danger is beyond me. Sometimes the grownups have to make and stand by decisions that their children don't like. So grow up, do some REAL research outside of your favorite tv shows that prop up your belief system. To get more upset by global warming (which if you'd really read what will be coming out in the COMPLETE report will show its not happening), than Islamic fanaticism shows your childish view of the world.
2007-02-16 08:01:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anji 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No that is not correct. They want the troops to come home. Most democrats don't want to cut off funding in order to bring the troops home. I don't know why. That's how they ended Vietnam. Because if that happened your precious Bush would be forced to bring them home. If they were fighting with sticks and rocks at that point, it would be the President's fault for not bring them home.
Bush sent them over originally without getting a bill passed to pay for their equipment. How dumb is that? You complain about not giving them equipment now. He sent them there with nothing. Only after they were there did Republicans bring up a bill to pay for equipment and ammo. They waited until then so everyone had no choice but to vote for it, even though Rep. also put in a bunch of no bid contracts for their rich friends because that is the only way it would get passed.
Polaris's answer is a bunch of crap too. Congress actually voted to go to war with Germany and Japan. Unlike Vietnam and Iraq. Almost every agreed with going to war. And people did oppose that war as well, but they weren't tried for treason.
2007-02-16 14:30:25 · answer #2 · answered by kdog 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To be quite honest, If people would calm down (such as yourself) and come to the realize that it would be a waste to send 21,000 more troops to defend the U.S. against terrorism. I mean sure we are so called stopping terrorism in the middle east but just in case you weren't alive during last 4th of July; well North Korea has some pretty powerful missiles. I guess there's no oil over there to care enough about them. There will always be terrorism. There is no use to send over more troops if they're going to die just so we can make Iraq into a "democracy".
2007-02-16 14:40:14 · answer #3 · answered by indiekidforlife 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I've been sick of them for years. This is Vietnam all over again. Badmouth the war, drive down troop morale, threaten to cut off funding. You are right in characterizing Democrats as traitors. If Republicans politicians had done these things during WWII, FDR would have had them tried for treason!
2007-02-16 14:31:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually it is the neocons I am sick of. They walk in lockstep to der furer without thinking to challenging anything he does. Democrats challenge not only Dubya but fellow Democrats because that is what democracy depends on. I am tired of hearing cut and run BS. Let's face it we were lied to and duped into a war with someone third on the list of possible antagonists while the others are free to hassle us. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Do cons care? No, they apparently don't care because they don't know (they don't question and thus research) the fact that the Bin Laden, Bush, and Saudi families have been oil business partners from way back.
They also don't know that the outgoing Clinton Administration warned the incoming Administration about OBL and all they did was brush it off. A plan was already in place, created by non partisans, to deal with OBL and Al Qaeda should they try anything. Instead the new Administration started all over with supposedly looking into OBL and Al Qaeda instead focused on Saddam Hussein. Destabilization was their goal. Take the heat and attention away from Bin Laden by going after Hussein.
We are meddling in a part of the world we should not be meddling. It is all for O I L. But instead of walking the walk when Bush says he is for alternative energy he just talks and we try to get more oil for his buddies in the oil business. If he was really interested in stabelization of the Middle East the best thing to have done was give great incentives at home to reduce our dependence on their oil and to do the same for our allies. With no one to buy their oil they don't have the money to do the sort of things they have done over the last decades. You fill your SUV and you are contributing to the insurgents.
You talk about cutting funding and about fighting with sticks and rocks. What happened to the money already sent for fighting. Our people still don't have enough protective vests or armor for their vehicles. Haliburton, though, they are rolling in the money. Well over half the money already spent has been wasted or mis appropriated. We even have 9 tons of it simply vanshing. With that kind of waste who can blame Congress from being careful? How long will this go on? Will we have to drain our treasury to pay for it? We have already cut funding to NPR and PBS, who produce better TV than any of the other regular networks. What about veterans, the guys who put their fannies on the line in past wars so we can be around to fight this one? Funding for the veterans hospital system has jus been severely cut. What will be cut next? Without raising more money from taxes or teriffs how can we expect to continue ten, twenty or more years over there? How many lost lives are enough? 10,000? 50,000? A million?
They don't want us there. They see us as infidels trodding on sacred soil. They want to live in the 14th Century. By us trying to make them like we are we anger them more and more. They want us out and we should oblige. Not overnight but in a phased withdrawl to be out by the end of this year. If they have civil war let them sort it out. Unfortunately we must have oil so we can't let that happen, now can we?
2007-02-16 14:57:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your broad generalizations of someones political actions is quite elementary and I am embarrassed for you. It is common sense that a politician is going to do what he/she has to do to be in favor with the public. This goes beyond all party lines, because they are all politicians. You're a fool to believe anyone is actually "underminding" the nation or "Surrendering" to the enemy. Open your eyes and be realistic. They are going to do what they have to do to win. Just Like Bush is doing, he cannot possibly back out of Iraq. That would ruin the entire Bush legacy (whats left of it, anyway).
2007-02-16 14:33:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, the troops are supposed to come home.
2007-02-16 14:31:14 · answer #7 · answered by mousemom125 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What's going to change if we send in 21,000 more troops???????
NOTHING!!!!
Bush and his minions are the traitors!!!
And you don't even care that your fellow Americans are fighting and dying so Bush and his people can become wealthier and more powerful!!!!
2007-02-16 14:26:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
lol sticks and rocks LOL. i am also sick of the republicans and their "we can run this world" attitude
2007-02-16 14:39:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes. they want their cake and eat it too
2007-02-16 14:24:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋