If you were in Congress, would you cut off funding for the Iraq war?

Question

Bret, what if you didn't want your plumbing fixed? Would you keep paying the plumber?

Anthony, most sober analysts think the war in Iraq is as bad as it is going to get. Who is going to stop the Iranian influence in Iraq? Nobody. So no big civil war.

Answer 1

No. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you would stand to lose by preventing equipment and supplies from reaching the troops. Aside from the massive amount of US troop casualties that would result (far more than the 3100 so far in the war) it would force us to withdraw and open up a massive civil war that would likely engulf the whole of the Middle East and place Israel on the verge of extinction.

Answer 2

I'd write the funding so the money by law can't be used to do anything but provide for the soldiers welfare and safety. But - the latest idea is to give Bush the money, but make it contingent on the Iraqis meeting their part of Bush's surge plan. Since the General in charge thinks that'll only have a 1 in 4 chance it looks like the troops will be coming home pretty soon - assuming this is the final deal. I expect it to change some more and the final wording to be wrangled for some time yet, but Bush will have to sign it because if he doesn't - no money and he takes the heat for "not supporting the troops" - not that that ever made any sense to someone with more than a couple of functioning neurons anyway.

Answer 3

it isn't a vote to reduce off money. that is a failure to vote for funding. in accordance to the structure all tax legislations ought to originate contained in the homestead of Representatives and all spending authorizations ought to come from the Senate. it isn't precisely that sparkling reduce although that is fantastically close and adequate for this question. that is largely what got here about even as Vietnam fell. Our protection force become out and the Vietnamese protection force become doing the pastime. Then, as now, a Democrat managed Senate did not renew the spending invoice that would have persisted to provide the South Vietnamese protection force. the rustic fell very presently thereafter.

Answer 4

No, not without exhausting every means possible to try to end the war without it. If you cut off the funding the ones that will be hurt the most are the troops, no democrat or repuglican wants that to happen. I would only do it as a last resort. I would not allow any funding for an esculation of the war however. I would vote no to any bill that had extra money in it to make it worse over there.

Answer 5

Cutting off funding hurts our troops more than anything else so, no, I most certainly wouldn't vote for that.

Answer 6

No. We are in the war whether you agree with it or not. Taking away funding from the troops that are there is not the answer.

Answer 7

no, Bush is too determined to continue. Decreased funding will only cause less prepared soldiers for awhile. Not something i would like to see

Answer 8

Yes. The war was broken when we bought it, why should we keep paying for it now that we don't want it anymore?

Answer 9

If I wanted my house pluming fixed, I wouldn't stop paying my plumber. If I wanted my military to win a war, I wouldn't stop paying for their ammunition.

It's so simple, it's ridiculous.

Unless I didn't actually want them to win. Then, ya, I'd quit sending food and ammunition, I suppose. Are there American Congressmen and women who don't want our military to actually win? I wonder.

LFP: Absolutely. If you don't want the military to win, quit sending money. Absolutely sure thing that they'll lose, no ifs/and/buts.

Answer 10

Not until the troops are home. I don't think our fighting men should be punished for Bush's mistakes.