If our troops run out of money and Bush refuses to bring them home, aren't they Bush's responsibility?

Question

I would certainly hope that he would have the good sense to bring our troops out of harm's way once their money runs out. But there is no accounting for his bizarre behavior sometimes.

Answer 1

Actually, if the troops stop getting paid they can leave on their own.

It would be a breach of contract on the government's part, as they agree to pay you for your time that you serve.

Answer 2

Yes, it is Bush's responsibility. Congress has clearly acknowledged in the bill and in the media that they would fund the troops, but on the condition that there is a time limit. Bush is refusing to sign the bill because there is a time limit on the troops. The money is there if Bush would not be so stubborn and sign the thing. Also, Bush put alot more soldiers in Iraq. He should be the one to be paying the consequences if the troops run out of money.

Answer 3

Don't worry about the troops running out of money. The Defense budget is so huge the war could easily go on forever without additional funds being allocated. The president knows this. Congress knows this. So don't worry, the war isn't going to end because there is no money.

Answer 4

Buhs is responsible for our troops in any event--he is Commander-in-Cheif. Unfortunately, he's a lot more keen on the power than the responsibility--which is why 3280 American soldiers have died for nothing in Iraq.

But don't be concerned. Congress will not hold that money back so long as to cause the troops to come to harm--nor would anyone support them if they did. This current face-off is the current move in a long political struggle. And Bush is losing. :)

Answer 5

If congress decides that they wish to run the war instead of the Commander in Chief by cutting the funds. This will cause more deaths as we simply can not all pickup and run like the yellow cowards in congress. I know the Democratic party is invested in the defeat of our military, but those are my brothers in arms in the Field and if they cause one death by their cowardice they should be brought up on treason charges and shot. The time for debate is before a war starts and after its over, you never debate anything while at war except how best to win the war.

Answer 6

Iraq is still rich in oil and that's why there is a civil war in Iraq. If one hears the news right, the insurgents are fighting against their government for their rights to the oil, too, as much Bush and the Iraq war plotters wants to continue to keep our Troops there to make sure the deal with those they help put in this government actually hand them their share. Bush and his Iraq war plotters are simply making use of our Troops to make sure only this government secure Iraq's Oil Wealth and commit to their secret deal. But the Shiite Government members are also playing a double crossing game by pandering to the al-Sadrs. It's funny that the Bushies and the Right Wing Media keep telling us it's the al-Quedas who are fighting our Troops while International Media are saying it's the al-Sadr terrorists that re killing their British Troops.

The only reason the Bushies are reluctant to seek out Iraq's neighbors to get involved may be that they don't want to have to share the oil wealth with too many groups. So many good Iraqis, especially the Iraqi Christians, have fled Iraq. These refugees don't even care about staying back to fight for their peace. Maybe they don't trust the Government. Are we actually helping and sacrificing the lives of our Troops to bring a dreaded government to Iraq that will in future pander to Iraq and Syria just to make sure the Bushies get their share to the oil?

Al-Maliki was an Iraqi living in exile in Iran and then in Syria during Saddam's days.
http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/no/nouri_al-maliki.htm

Ibrahim al-Jaafari has a family history originating from Saudi Arabia. We don't even know how closely associated he is to the Bin Ladens.

Answer 7

Consider how he's taken care of our soldiers. They don't have the best, most technically advanced equipment that they should have. Some are required to stay for extra tours of duty. They come home and have to fight for every benefit they were promised. God forbid they need medical help. Good sense? Are you talking about the same person who got us into this mess?
No offense, but using the term "good sense" and bush in the same paragraph is hard to take.

Answer 8

I wouldn;'t put much hope in him coming to his senses and bringing the troops home. He would rather leave them there to fight with nothing than admit he is wrong. If they die, they die.. what does he care. If he cared there wouldn't be 3200 dead on his watch already.

Congress is right to cut off fund.. because then there should be such hue and cry from the populace when they realize that Bush is just letting soldiers die just to prove he is the decider.

The man is a danger to all of us.

Answer 9

Bush doesn't want to admit to defeat. So instead of accepting the inevitable--after 4 years of failure--he's going to punish our troops by blaming his veto on the Democrats.

Answer 10

No, they are not technically the president's jurisdiction, although he is the US Commander in Chief. They would fall under congress, and their own military's command. I suppose there would be anarchy of some sort in that case.

Hopefully, funding won't be just cut for Iraq in the first place; it would be very foolish for the Democrats to do so ... and that's coming from a Liberal.