Do you think by congress limiting funds on the war on Iraq it will effect the mission or the quality of life?

Question

for the soldier?

Answer 1

No, regardless if you were there or not. You have to understand what limiting the funds actually does. First, the government doesn't buy things on "time" or make payments. So if a tank is sent to Iraq, it has been bought and paid for a long time ago. Also, soldiers pay and benefits were included in last years budget, so that is already paid for. What is not paid for yet, is the increase of military that Bush expects to create, additional contracts for companies doing business in Iraq, that sort of thing. The purpose of the funding restrictions are to show Bush, that he doesn't have "carte blanche" to do as he pleases.

Answer 2

The Congress didn't cut the funds at all, it is the deal that President Bush wont agree with that has the funds in limbo. As far as equipment goes, that has been already been bought a paid for more then 30 years ago, America has the largest stockpile in the World. Most of the funding was going to rebuild Iraq in the first place that Bush can't seam to come up with any results. Halliburton and the Republican party has been using Iraq to embezzle American tax payer money. Congress has every right to question Bush and make him responsible for his actions. The American people have spoken with this last election and the 20% approval rating of the Administration regardless of what the right wing radicals spew.

Answer 3

This is where checks and balances within our government come into play. I find it amazingly interesting to see it in action. The founding fathers made our form of government to work so that if we get a tyrant who is bent upon his own path into office, and he won't see reason, the people, through our representation, can make him see the light of day. So, although the president can deploy troops anywhere he wants in the world, congress has the final say because it is us, through them, who pays the bill. The way it will effect the soldiers is by forcing the president to bring the troops home because he can't pay for it without the approval of congress, therefore neuters his tyranny and stubbornness. How can one say the soldiers quality of life is threatened by being home?
This is one reason it is always wise to have an opposing party ruling Congress. Otherwise, we have a rubber stamp congress who goes along with whatever the president says, as in the last six years. The soldiers have done a remarkable job in a bad situation. Everyone stands behind them and only want what is best. Now, we need to get together on what is best for them.

Answer 4

When no more funding exists, the war will end and the soldiers brought home and out of harms way. Whether this happens through overspending on the war or Congress cutting funding, the end result will be that the war will end and the soldiers brought home and out of harms way.

There is an old saying that goes, "War is the wealth of a nation." No more wealth means no more war.

Currently, the funding isn't used to protect the troops, it is used to thrust them into the horrors of war. The whole "support the troops" mantra is merely a way for the wealthy elite who stand to benefit from this war to attempt to rally support for the war. These are the same people who gave us the Walter Reed debacle and the lack of concern for Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome. They don't care at all about the troops. What they care about are the spoils of war.

Answer 5

Congress can not limit the funds, because they dont have enough votes in the Senate. Basically, they are wasting time trying to embarass the President. Acting like 3rd graders.
Pathetic.

Answer 6

each person knew it became unlawful at the same time as Blair twisted it and Conservatives supported the conflict at present. This became the view of Lib-Dems for in any respect cases. Lord Goldsmith admitted it became now no longer licensed at present besides the indisputable fact that he became silenced Few correct politicians like Robin prepare dinner dinner, Clair short and Galloway attempt to protest besides the indisputable fact that everybody, British fools listened to Blair. yet reality should prevail.

Answer 7

I would not worry about it, There is no way Hillary or Obama will vote for this bill when it gets to the Senate. They both have claimed that we need to stay until there is stability. How can a hopeful Commander and Chief not support funding for their troops.

I realize the Democrats on this web-site have not realized this yet, and it makes it so funny.

Bush will not have to Veto it.

Answer 8

It will begin with a reduction in the quality of life for the soldier. That will be followed by lack of equipment for rotating soldiers which will, in turn, lead to a higher death rate among military personnel.

All this just to force President Bush to bring us home. Less of us will come home and the ones who do will feel disgraced and betrayed.

Thanks, DNC.

Answer 9

Congress is NOT limiting funds. The supplemental budget gives Bush exactly the amount he asked for. If, however, he vetoes it, like he has promised, it will cut the troops funding. I'll be interested to see how far he will go for his agenda.

Answer 10

Yes.

Not giving the soliders what trhey need, or wasting time by playing political games, will have a negative effect.

If they don't like the war, then they should just pull the funding 100% and stop playing games. But they are afraid to let the public see them doing that.

So, more smoke and mirrors.

I warned people not to vote Democrat. But they did.