Does a "NO" Vote on Iraq War funding mean the troops must be brought home?

Question

The Senate is currently considering a bill to not fund the Iraq war.

Answer 1

i wish it did...but i doubt it...i am just getting over the bs news that Sec.Def.Gates and dubya just extended the soldiers tours in iraq to 15 darn months. i was thinking i had only 11 more months to go...apparently it is 14 months...

Answer 2

Nope, it'll just make it more difficult to pay for things like R&R for our troops, spare parts for tanks and Humvees, ammuniton for our troops or training for new replacement; which means that the forces already in country would have to stay there longer until new replacements can be brought in.

Inevitably, the funds will have to be taken off other programs, like welfare, farm incentives, student loans, retirements, etc...

Is a very hard situation to comtemplate, and the Democrats are not making things any easier by being stubborn and not approving a war funding legislation that's free of pork-barrel spending or timetables to retreat.

Answer 3

No, a no vote means that the budget will be cut for the funding. We all know Bush is not going to bring us home, and the Department of Defense is not going to leave us out here with no cash. So the funding to the bases and training in the states will be cut. That means that our houses will start to fall apart we will not have enough money to train up prior to coming here. I foresee that if the funding gets cut our now 15 month rotation will become 24 soon enough.

Answer 4

The Bush administration already had a manage the Iraqi authorities to carry all troops homestead by using 2012. the only element the Obama administration is doing is following up on it. no individual, both Republican or Democrat, anticipated all troops to be pulled out interior President Obama's first twelve months in place of work.

Answer 5

No, not really because it means that when the money earmarked for the deployment runs out, other military money goes instead and probably other Federal monies not directly earmarked for something else.

This means that some of the developmental programs get slighted and American manufacturers relying on them get laid off. It means other government services are put at risk. It means support for other security programs are decreased. It can also end up shifting the military debt, especially money for troops and their families to other government areas and state governments in the form of Food Stamps and other support when bonuses and such are not paid on time.

Answer 6

the pssys in the senate just want to make the President look bad. Thos idiots say the care for the troops, but at the same time dont want to give them the tools needed to win. they fly around the world to meet with terrorist states and leaders but wont sit down with the pres to fund the military while they are fighting....these dam libs need to be jailed for treason

Answer 7

The proposed bill is just a dirty political trick, which the President will be forced to veto. Do you really believe that there is a 51% majority in the U.S. Senate shameful enough to pass that bill in the first place, much less a 2/3 majority to override the President's veto?.

Answer 8

Probably not but it does send a message to the President. It is time to bring them home. He has no exit plan. It is hard to continue a war without the funds. The President forgets the power of Congress. they have the power to pay expenses or the power to close the check book. He is not willing to bend or waver. He miss judges the Congress and the American people that are ready to end the war.

Answer 9

At some point, the troops would need to disengage from the civil war since there would be no funds for the U.S. to continue its military presence. But the de-funding of the military would be done over a period of time to assure an orderly withdraw and the best possibility to turn all military issues over to the Iraqi armed forces.

Answer 10

Henry is absolutely correct. If funding for this is cut off from the main source, he will get it somewhere else and the troops will probably suffer a little in the end somewhere, probably not those over there though.

Answer 11

Nope. It just means that the military will have less funds to get things done. The Dems are hoping it means they will come home, but I would wager a guess that it is just going to put the military in a really tight spot and hence, our country will be weaker in terms of security.