Why can't people understand that defunding the war has nothing to do with supporting the troops?

Question

This ridiculous republican mantra of "support the troops" is so damaging to the dialogue of the war.

Cutting funding for the war means Halliburton and the military-industrial complex won't make as many billions as they did last year. Troops have nothing to do with this.

Nope, you guys don't get it. War does not equal troops. I'll say it again: war is not the troops. It is the responsibility of the military to withdraw troops safely from danger as we withdraw. That's called supporting the troops. You wouldn't want congress to micromanage it, would you? By your definition, this war will never end, and the real winners are the military-industrial complex.

Answer 1

What a lame excuse and a pathetic, hypocritical attempt to wiggle out of a moral imperitive.

Your logic is the same as telling astronauts who are stranded on the moon, "We're cutting funding, but even if your air runs out, we want you to know we really support you guys!"

Now, you want to rethink that "defunding" abomination?

Answer 2

I too re-read it, twice... then thrice... then I went away and came back and yet tried once more to understand a question of this nature from a person who, initially shows promise, with which to dialog a topic of global significance.

Talk about mantra...

Their is only one dialog when discussing troop support. This has been shown time and again, from ages past to present. Troop support simply means fully funding our people in harms way! Give them every thing they need to complete the mission put before them.

The Liberal Democrats that think a "deadline for withdraw" is necessary, have no clue how to engage an enemy and win. Telling the enemy when you are planning to pull out, only allows them time to resupply, and stock pile the necessary equipment to launch a massive attack as we are in the process of withdraw. A period when we would be most vulnerable.

The fact that Halliburton makes a mint through logistical support of the war effort, is an action not new on any war front. I don't know of another company that has the global logistical strength to supply the needs of the military as Halliburton and its subsidiaries.

Should Halliburton be compensated for its strength in this area? Duh!!!

Which professor fed you this grull anyway? Do yourself a favor...

Go down to a local VA center and start talking to our veterans. Get the story from those who have served. I am sure you will find both sides of the campaign. Just remember one very important thing.

It is because of these men and women in harms way, that you are NOT being hunted down by the secret police, beheaded, but only after being tortured... brutally.

You get a better perspective, when you kick a door, and find the "interrogation rooms" where "criminals" were questioned for saying much what you are.

Thank a Vet for the free air you breathe!

Answer 3

"War is not the troops." Wrong. War is about troops. That is how wars are won. The best military tactics will never prevail if we do not have a military to execute the plan.

Yes, large corporations like Halliburton do benefit, but they supply the goods and services necessary for our troops to fight the war.

It seems to me that there are two ways we can support our troops. We can either fully support the war or we can campaign for swift withdrawal. Personally, I support the latter. However, any notion that we should not properly fund our troops whilst they are still in a theater of war is plainly wrong.

As a recent immigrant, my first Presidential election will most likely be 2008. I thought I was a business-oriented Democrat, but I'm beginning to think I'm a moderate Republican.

Answer 4

Pretty pie in the sky question. As a career military 24 years, every defunding or budget cuts especially during a high op-tempo time has affected the troops. Yes the economy losses some jobs and profits but it is ridiculous to think that it will not hurt the troops.

Where do you think supplies and services that directly affect the troops come from. Money then has to get shifted,Just look at the Carter years and the Clinton cuts.

What surprises me your are the same people who complained that we did not have enough equipment and armor to do our job in the beginning, where do you think quality equipment comes from..that saves lives. De funding is a solely political move that does not support the troops.

Answer 5

I actually had to reread this question a few times because I thought surely I was reading it wrong. How could anyone possibly think that if you stop funding the war that you aren't hurting the troops? The money that's for the war is for the bullets, body armor, vehicles, weaponry, pay, etc for the troops... Good god when you are discussing war the troops have EVERYTHING to do with it! Who exactly do you think the money is benefitting the most!? I have so much more I could say but the sheer stupidity of this question is actually making my head hurt.

Answer 6

As a Special Forces SGT with 22 years in the service, I wonder how can we raise children who are so inept that they would consider showing their ignorance to the world with such a question. Yes the US does spend money with private contractors, but the large majority of the funds used in OIF is funds for the troops and materials they use. Another grammer lesson is needed here, the words "I support the troops" should never be followed with the word "But".

Answer 7

So how is it supporting the troops to take away their resupply and reinforcements?

That is exactly what happened in Vietnam when the democrats defunded that war (think back to the pictures of people trying to get out by helicopter from the roof of the embassy when the NVA took saigon)

Answer 8

No one is taking funding from the troops! The troops were sent into Iraq with inadequate protection, the Democrats do not want the troops to be lacking in anything that could create an inability for them to protect themselves. They want them home! Out of harms way. They do not want to spend trillions more on a never ending & perhaps esculating situation. They were going to stop 20 billion more being spent but decided that it might endanger our troops so did not stop the money flowing out of our depleated coffers. We must remember that, as usual, Congress(Republican) gave Mr. President a free hand in the beginning of this action in Iraq. Now some of the Republicans, seeing how the public is against this Iraq pit, have suddenly decided that they no longer think that Iraq was such a great idea. The people of this country have seen how an idea to rid Iraq of Saddam wasn't such a good idea. Oh, yes, he was an evil man, but he had control of the country. Now we are trying to get some of his ex-army men to join in the defense of Iraq thus, perhaps, bringing some stability back to the country. We need to get out of there, ASAP! We have too many irons in the fire. It is true that the Industrial & Military complex has made millions & we were after their oil. That problem(oil) seems to have worked it's self out but you can bet that some oil company in America will be doing the work & making millions!

Answer 9

so who feeds the troops?

how about ammunition?

body armor?

clean water?

meds?

Gas?

transport planes and ships?

all these need money.

no money and you have naked, hungry, unarmed, thirsty people standing around... Yeah that seems like a great way to support the troops..

actually I get it now! that's the only time liberals care! when there is suffering involved! that's why they want to cut funding, so they know they are supposed to care.

Answer 10

when troops do not get the equipment they need because there is no funding, that has everything to do with supporting the troops.