(I've decided I'm too lazy to visit all the websites to make my own charts, so i'll ask you guys. Hope you don't mind)
I know that many say the support bailing out if Iraq, which i want, but I don't want them to cut the soldiers funding to do so. I refuse to support a candidate that would use such a tactic. Can you help me?
2007-12-20 10:27:09 · 11 answers · asked by Princess Ninja 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Chuckabee will just send Chuck Norris over there and let him end the war himself. After that there will be no need for a budget for the war. Of course Chuck Norris will be the real president but will allow Chuckabee to fill in for him. Now if Chuckabee disappoints Chuck Norris then he will roundhouse kick Chuckabee to the sun and let someone else fill in. It's getting where nobody wants to run because of the fear of facing the wrath of Chuck Norris.
2007-12-20 15:30:50 · answer #1 · answered by going postal 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it seems to me you have some very 'at a loss for words' and 'puzzling' solutions right here. in the beginning, if one seems on the final election effects and the effects of contemporary polls, it somewhat is obvious that just about all the yankee voters % no element of this conflict. yet, Fox information and the Neocon Propaganda device has now stepped in and have by some ability confident the yankee public that a 'surge' is the respond. Now the Democratic social gathering is caught between a rock and a demanding place. to supply up the conflict, (through fact the yankee public needs -or needed? Who knows?) they might desire to tension Bush's hand. Bush is the President - The Commander-in-chief- and he has veto ability, and the Dems have not got the majority to tension his hand. As I pronounced till now, Fox information and the Neocon Propaganda device have by some ability at a loss for words the situation (To 'help the troops, you may desire to 'help the 'surge'!) And the standard public has swallowed this 'line' hook, line and sinker. The 'surge' is going to 'win' the civil conflict. Holy sh+t, what baloney! The Democratic social gathering tried to pass a 'non-binding no one-knows- what' and have been defeated in the Senate. the triumphing political device has made them powerless, even in the event that they're in the 'majority' in the two properties. the only 'ability' they nevertheless have is to 'decrease investment', and that's seen as 'leaving in the back of the troops to a destiny worse than loss of existence' (through fact of Fox and the NPM) My prediction is: If Bush does not start up a 'diplomatic offensive, i.e. confer with the events in touch in the area, the U. S. troops are going to be withdrawn (compelled out) in direction of the top of this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days, many deaths and terrible injuries later. And which will somewhat be proclaimed as a 'victory' by ability of Iran and Bin encumbered If Bush, or who-ever cautioned him, think of that a '0.33 social gathering' can win a civil conflict, he/they're somewhat misinformed and/or misguided!
2016-10-09 00:26:49 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would they need funding if they are not in Iraq? The troops went to Iraq underfunded. Whether you are for the war or against it, you should at least want some accountability so we can know where the money is going. Billions of dollars are unaccounted for. How much money is really being spent on the troops?
I don't think Bush should be given a blank check or money just because he asked for it.
2007-12-20 12:01:37 · answer #3 · answered by Just my opinion 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you keep giving money to the machine, the machine will keep running the same way it has been running for the past several years. You have to cut funding. With no funding, the war is over, or at least, scaled back.
Imagine what good we could do in the world with the billions of dollars that are spent every single day on Bush's war.
2007-12-20 13:21:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if the troops are out of Iraq then they won't need that funding anymore, now will they?
I actually support Freedom- Leaves the troops there, but let them do their job, so that they can finish and come home- Stop all the PC red tape Nonsense. Bringing them home early will be a huge mistake.
2007-12-20 10:47:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
as prez... if any of them wants to end the war they won't have to cut funding.
the only reason people some people are supporting cutting funds now is because that's the only way to force Bush's hand.
it will be moot when a new prez is there, unless the new one doesn't want to leave.
also, when people say cutting funds will hurt the soldiers that's total BS. it's not like funds would be cut and the soldiers would stay there anyway unprotected, unfed, unpaid etc. that's propaganda.
2007-12-20 11:16:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Every candidate supports leaving Iraq. Every person does, for that matter. The debate is if we would rather win first.
The only way to end military operations in Iraq soon is to stop funding them. You can't stop something by funding it; it just doesn't work.
2007-12-20 10:33:01 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Come down from that cloud to reality. No one can get out of Irak till 2013...Dims words
2007-12-20 10:33:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul Is in favor of leaving Iraq ASAP.
2007-12-20 11:12:42 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ron Paul. It has been reported that many soldiers are even voting for him.
2007-12-20 10:31:54 · answer #10 · answered by grasshopper 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋