# Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?



## Cruentus (Sep 25, 2007)

Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?

This has been proposed by a number of sources as a means to try to put an end to the Iraq war. The idea is that if the legislature votes to decrease or stop the funding for the war, that it will effectively cause us to reduce or end our efforts in Iraq.

I personally think that this is faulty logic, and if executed could be detremental to our soldiers fighting who are in harms way. 

I can understand people wanting to pull out of Iraq. I can understand that people are tired of spending money on the war. And yes, soldiers are dying or getting injured in Iraq. So I understand the whole "support the troops, bring them home" idea.

But I think that decreasing funding to these soldiers is the wrong way to go about trying to "stop" the war. Ultimatily, less funds means that we won't be able to properly equipt our soldiers who are fighting, thus endangering them even more. I personally want our troops to have the best equiptment and resources money can by, regardless of the nature of the conflict. Their lives literally depend on our decisions, and that of who we elect. 

So, it would seem to me that saying "I support our troops" in one instance, but saying, "we should cut off funding for the Iraq war" in another is hypocritical.

But, perhaps there is something I am missing here. I am wondering about some of your opinions, as they often vary from from my point of view.


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu (Sep 26, 2007)

I'm very much with you on this!  Not only is funding necessary for equipment, etc, it also shows the troops that their country is behind them, I think a lot of civilians forget that their army fights for them and their freedom, whether they agree with it or not!


----------



## tellner (Sep 26, 2007)

"Supporting the troops" does not mean that you have to support any war they are sent to, its continuation or the people who started it. It is also possible to fanatically support a war and spending infinite money on it while treating the men and women who are doing the fighting extremely shoddily. 

In fact, that is the situation in which this nation currently finds itself.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 26, 2007)

Well if there are no funds then the troops will be coming home as they simply cannot stay without the proper equipment, etc.

I do not think that anyone advocates having troops in a war zone without the proper equipment.  

I think this is one of those checks and balances that our forefathers put in place to ensure that no one branch of Government has complete power.

Reality is that *some *of our troops especially the ones I have personally talked to feel they are being missused. (they are warriors not peace keepers) Many of them feel that they have been out and out mislead and are tired of the multiple deployments.  Having said that all of the ones I have spoken to *want to win* and yet many feel that they are in a now unwinnable position! (these comments were spoken to me by people who have been on the front line)

Now as to the war itself, is it right or wrong?  Well only *history* will decide and we are a long way from knowing one way or the other.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2007)

I was going to posit the point of view that it was perfectly possible to have no desire to put troops in more of harms way than necessary and still use the cutting of funding as a political weapon to curtail the war.

However, *Cruentus*'s OP is well balanced and shows an awareness of that, so there's not much point in my restating it .

I do believe that there is a danger in the flip side of this issue tho', where *more* funding and an expansion of goals comes about because of a reluctance to endanger troops on the ground.

I'm sure that it's not exactly a surprise that I do not support the actions taken by certain Western Powers in the Middle East and I do get quite annoyed when the 'flag' of "It's for your freedom!" is waved.  I won't get into a thread-diverting detailed analysis of why that propogandised dictum is false because I think we've been down that route here a while ago.  

Where I'm heading with this is that, at the base level, the invasion is about money and about the only way to get the darned thing to stop is to turn off the tap of funds that allow the incumbents to pursue their less than virtuous aims.

Which brings us right back to the cleft stick.  How do you bring the hostilities to a close without needlessly endagering those who've volunteered to serve in the defence of their country?  After all, it's not their fault that the use they've been put to is worthy of 19th Century imperialism rather than 21st Century democracy.

The only way I can see that happening is by a change of government when the newly elected actually decide to end it.  Once you're on the back of the tiger, you can't dismount gradually without geting mauled - you have to jump away wholesale not piecemeal.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2007)

The original post just seems like another attempt to attack the patriotism and citizenship of those who believe the war in Iraq was wrongly started, wrongly executed, wrongly managed, and wrongly followed through.

Today, a large majority of American citizens want the soldiers out of Iraq. The civil war they are attempting to referee, is far older, far more entrenched, than we were prepared to deal with when the invasion was presented to us by the leaders of the military. And, the State Department's private military is not making things better for the United States military. 

The argument presented is that George Bush, the self-described 'Decider', having successfully inserted the military into a 'war zone', is free to disregard the consent of the governed, and the other co-equal branches of the government in which he serves. 

If any other foreign leader was granted the authorities I just described, Americans would call that leader a 'dictator', controling an autocratic regime. Is that the type of country we wish to live in? 

And lastly, if arguments such as the original post continued to be raised, it will hasten the day when the 'Support the Troops' meme is cast off. When the citizens will recognize the soldiers are fighting in an unethical, and illegal war. Why should troops be supported if they are hurting the country and behaving in an unethical manner?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

The only way I can see it being done and not endangering our warriors is to pick a cut off date a year or 3 down the road. To say its cut off this instant is a disservice to our troops.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When the citizens will recognize the soldiers are fighting in an unethical, and illegal war. Why should troops be supported if they are hurting the country and *behaving in an unethical manner*?


 

Cut em off and let em suffer, the babykilling jackbooted imperialist thugs! Is that it?

What do all you servicepeople prior and present think of THAT??


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu (Sep 26, 2007)

I served in the military for about a year and a half, and have many friends who have served and are presently serving in Afghanistan.  I have also lost a couple of very close friends over there.  The war be unethical and the war may be illegal, but our troops do their best to not get caught up in all the politics.  They are paid to do their job and they do it.  But, they believe in what they're doing, and when people start talking about 'unethical' etc. it hurts.  Soldiers serve because they love their country and believe in it.​


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The original post just seems like another attempt to attack the patriotism and citizenship of those who believe the war in Iraq was wrongly started, wrongly executed, wrongly managed, and wrongly followed through.


 
Well, no it's not. I'm not looking at an attempt to attack people who are against the war. There are many reasons that are valid to be against it, and there are many people who I would consider patriots who are against it.

I am discussing the specific strategy that the congress has looked at as an option, which would be to vote to cut funding for the war in hopes that it would force us to reduce troop levels or end it all together.

I am of the opinion that this would cost even more lives, and greatly endanger our soldiers in Iraq. This is because this won't result in immediate withdraw, but rather a cut in spending on gear and equipment for the soldiers who are left there with lives on the line to do a job. 

I can appreciate wanting a timetable to withdraw, and other strategies to end the war, even if I don't agree with some of these strategies. But to use this particular strategy is something that I cannot appreciate or understand at all, especially if people wanting to do this say they support our military.



> And lastly, if arguments such as the original post continued to be raised, it will hasten the day when the 'Support the Troops' meme is cast off. When the citizens will recognize the soldiers are fighting in an unethical, and illegal war. Why should troops be supported if they are hurting the country and behaving in an unethical manner?


 
To clarify, are you saying that our troops are behaving in an unethical manner, and should not be supported? That's pretty ****ed up, in my opinion, but hey, at least your opinion would be congruent with wanting to cut funding regardless of the consequence of more soldier's lives lost...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2007)

You mention a generic idea that you describe as a specific strategy. Who's goal in Congress was to cut immediate funding. Who's plan are we discussing? Some courageous Representatives have called for immediate withdrawls and immediate withholding of funds. However, most of the proposals in Congress are far less severe. Are we discussing a straw man construction. 

Most of the current plans in Congress require the troops have sufficient rest and training time as compared to time deployed in a combat zone. 
Again, by a large majority, the American citizenry wants the soldiers removed from Iraq. Is it not required by our Congressional Representatives, to move to enact the wishes of their constituents? 



			
				Cruentus said:
			
		

> michaeledward said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems my paragraph asks a question. I did not ascribe it as my opinion.

However, I think it is a reasonable question, which is why I asked it.

As I recall, we have discussed on this board whether it is appropriate for a soldier to justify an illegal or unethical question with the phrase "I was only following orders". I thought it was encumbant on the American soldier to disobey an illegal order.

If this is true ~ if the American soldier is required to act ethically on the battlefield, even if it is insubordinate to his commander (and if it is not, let's clarify and discuss). Then can't we expect a similar responsbility of the American citizen. 

Must the American citizen 'just follow orders' / 'support the troops'? Is there a point that the citizenry is require to withhold support for the troops because of the illegality or unethicalness of the orders of the Commander-in-Chief?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 26, 2007)

The same people that claim to support the troops while trying to deny them the funding they need are the same type of people that won't allow ROTC's on campus or military recruiters on campus, or, in the case of the city of San Fransisco, a retired ship to be a museum in the harbor. But they support the troops, right? Yeah, like a rubber crutch.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> You mention a generic idea that you describe as a specific strategy. Who's goal in Congress was to cut immediate funding. Who's plan are we discussing? Some courageous Representatives have called for immediate withdrawls and immediate withholding of funds. However, most of the proposals in Congress are far less severe. Are we discussing a straw man construction.


 
No, not really a straw man. I think I need to explain more...



> Most of the current plans in Congress require the troops have sufficient rest and training time as compared to time deployed in a combat zone.
> Again, by a large majority, the American citizenry wants the soldiers removed from Iraq. Is it not required by our Congressional Representatives, to move to enact the wishes of their constituents?


 
The plan actually came from some media sources being critical of the democrates for not proposing this strategy. This came up during an interview of Nancy Pelosi, where it was suggested that the democratically controlled congress hadn't done enough to try to stop the war, and that cutting funding was one of their options that the dems hadn't tried.

So, you probably should stop thinking in terms of different 'camps' or 'parties,' assuming that I have an agenda of some sort to accredit or discredit one or the other, because I don't really think that way. I actually agree with the democrates for not pursueing this avenue of approach.

What bothered me is why people would think that trying to end the war at the expense of the safety of our troops would be a viable option that congress should persue. Furthermore, it sort of bothered me that Pelosi, who claims to care about our soldiers, didn't fire back with my arguement that doing so would put our troops in danger. Instead, she basically said that they tried to get proposals through, but couldn't get through the senate. This implied to me that if something like a plan to cut funding could be put through the Senate, that they would.



> It seems my paragraph asks a question. I did not ascribe it as my opinion.
> 
> However, I think it is a reasonable question, which is why I asked it.
> 
> ...


 
Well, right now this is derailing the argument into something far different then my original question. That is a whole different discussion regarding what point should a soldier decide to not follow orders.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 26, 2007)

O.K. So the proposal was not from a specific Congressperson, or any Congresspersons proposal. 

Now, the proposal we are disputing is attributed to 'media sources'. This returns to the basic question. Which media sources? 

Often the media masks questions under the unattributed 'some' and 'other', but do not attribute for whom they are acting proxy. Sometimes, this is done for the media 'gotcha moment', rather than concerns of a specific party. 

Regardless of what Congress proposes, the Department of Defense is not going to have its budget changed to zero dollars. The Department of Defense has published the changes they would make to their annual appropriations to adjust to the protect soldiers in combat zones, if the Congress were to not authorize the Presidents new Supplemental Request. There would be changes in domestic allocation in order to protect soldiers. So again, aren't we also discussing a possiblity that will never come about, even if Congress does stop all war funding. 

I'm wondering if we can ask the question ... 'Who wants the troops to be in more danger or less protected?'  ... do you think anyone would argue for that?


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> O.K. So the proposal was not from a specific Congressperson, or any Congresspersons proposal.
> 
> Now, the proposal we are disputing is attributed to 'media sources'. This returns to the basic question. Which media sources?
> 
> Often the media masks questions under the unattributed 'some' and 'other', but do not attribute for whom they are acting proxy. Sometimes, this is done for the media 'gotcha moment', rather than concerns of a specific party.


 
Probably. It was Wolf Blitser that asked the question, but who knows who is actually suggesting this as an option; could be just something cooked up by the media to provide a 'gotcha' moment as you describe.



> Regardless of what Congress proposes, the Department of Defense is not going to have its budget changed to zero dollars. The Department of Defense has published the changes they would make to their annual appropriations to adjust to the protect soldiers in combat zones, if the Congress were to not authorize the Presidents new Supplemental Request. There would be changes in domestic allocation in order to protect soldiers. So again, aren't we also discussing a possiblity that will never come about, even if Congress does stop all war funding.


 
I suppose. I guess it depends on the situation, and how the funds are going to be appropriated.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?


 
I believe, yes.



> This has been proposed by a number of sources as a means to try to put an end to the Iraq war. The idea is that if the legislature votes to decrease or stop the funding for the war, that it will effectively cause us to reduce or end our efforts in Iraq.


 
that seems like the logical conclusion to me.



> But I think that decreasing funding to these soldiers is the wrong way to go about trying to "stop" the war. Ultimatily, less funds means that we won't be able to properly equipt our soldiers who are fighting, thus endangering them even more. I personally want our troops to have the best equiptment and resources money can by, regardless of the nature of the conflict. Their lives literally depend on our decisions, and that of who we elect.
> 
> So, it would seem to me that saying "I support our troops" in one instance, but saying, "we should cut off funding for the Iraq war" in another is hypocritical.
> 
> But, perhaps there is something I am missing here. I am wondering about some of your opinions, as they often vary from from my point of view.


 
well, I think if the tap is instantly turned off, this may happen.  But if it is done over a concrete and established period of time, it ought to force the "powers that be" to recognize a certain window during which our forces must be brought home and end our activities over there.  Only a fool of a Commander in Chief would try to continue to deploy our forces if there is no funding and no ability to supply our forces in a foreign war.

I think "support our troops" arouses a very strong emotion, but it's important to separate the war itself from the soldiers.  I feel the soldiers have been misused and abused in an immoral and unethical act of aggression on the part of the United States.  The soldiers have my complete support.  But the instigators of this war do not.  I certainly do not blame the soldiers for the fact that we are in the middle of a screwed up war that we should never have started in the first place.  That blame lies with our politicians.  The soldiers are just doing their jobs, but they have been put to immoral use and the politicians who are the highest in the chain of command are the ones who must answer to that.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 26, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?
> 
> This has been proposed by a number of sources as a means to try to put an end to the Iraq war. The idea is that if the legislature votes to decrease or stop the funding for the war, that it will effectively cause us to reduce or end our efforts in Iraq.
> 
> ...


You are missing something. Nobody is asking anyone to send troops in without armor but say the president. Funding future operations and keeping soldiers armed, fed, and protected are two entirely different things and to be led into believing they are the same is a little John Dunn Scottus-esque. What we as a people are asking the president to do is to give up on the "fight until the oil deal goes through" mentality. No one in the parliment is going to vote for it; so, settling for less is all anyone is asking for. We don't wish to see future offensives. Thats about it.
Sean
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As I recall, we have discussed on this board whether it is appropriate for a soldier to justify an illegal or unethical question with the phrase "I was only following orders". I thought it was encumbant on the American soldier to disobey an illegal order.
> 
> If this is true ~ if the American soldier is required to act ethically on the battlefield, even if it is insubordinate to his commander (and if it is not, let's clarify and discuss).


 
This is an interesting issue, and I hope I don't derail the discussion too heavily by probing into this.

If a soldier disobeys his commander, if it is severe enough, he can be disciplined and court martialled.  How does a soldier raise a defense of "my commander's orders were unethical and illegal, and it was just that I did not obey his orders."  

What happens next?  How does a soldier defend this plea?  Is his commander put on trial for the orders he gave that the soldier felt were unethical and illegal?  How often does a soldier successfully defend himself in this way?  Is this a defense that gets any credibility, or is it sort of there in theory but not really given any credence?

I guess I should really be asking my brother, he served in the US Army JAG corps as a prosecutor...but if anyone has any knowledge of this, I'd be interested in hearing it.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 26, 2007)

Do Senators Murtha, Kerry and Durbin's statements about the troops raise their morale? Is calling the troops stupid, or murderous supporting? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



The statement that led to that sign's creation was not too supporting, IMHO.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 26, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> This is an interesting issue, and I hope I don't derail the discussion too heavily by probing into this.
> 
> If a soldier disobeys his commander, if it is severe enough, he can be disciplined and court martialled.  How does a soldier raise a defense of "my commander's orders were unethical and illegal, and it was just that I did not obey his orders."
> 
> ...


It is a very complex area. However, the bare bones runs something like this:
Soldiers should be able to tell right from wrong. If the soldier is ordered to do something wrong, he should ask his commander for clarification, and if not satisfied, take it up the chain of command. This is one of those areas where you have to be 100% right, anything less could cost you.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 26, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Do Senators Murtha, Kerry and Durbin's statements about the troops raise their morale? Is calling the troops stupid, or murderous supporting?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He was talking about the president. How long are you going to hang on to the mole hill?
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Do Senators Murtha, Kerry and Durbin's statements about the troops raise their morale? Is calling the troops stupid, or murderous supporting?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

umm... I think the topic was really about cutting funding, not about calling them stupid or murderous...


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2007)

Big Don said:


> It is a very complex area. However, the bare bones runs something like this:
> Soldiers should be able to tell right from wrong. *If the soldier is ordered to do something wrong, he should ask his commander for clarification, and if not satisfied, take it up the chain of command.* This is one of those areas where you have to be 100% right, anything less could cost you.


 

Hmmm... seems like this could be a tough one to do if you happen to be in a volatile situation like a firefight during a night patrol or something.  

What if a company comes under fire in an urban setting with lots of people around, and the commander orders that all persons in the vicinity be shot on sight?  A soldier might object to that, but under the circumstances it's pretty tough to take it up the chain of command considering that bullets are flying all around...


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 26, 2007)

> Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?



Yes, by which I mean it is possible for individuals to support the troops but not the mission. What Congress has done, or failed to do, is politically motivated, and I don't think has anything to do with the welfare of troops at all.

I thought Lewis Black put the issue of troop support very well. (Note: I've crossed out all the cusses.)



> I didn't ++++++ spend my time living through the era of Vietnam to +++++++ come around to this ++++++ time and not having learned that the +++++++ situation boils down to this: If you're against the war it doesn't mean that you're f-for the other side! If people show up with signs that go, 'GO IRAQ, YOU +++++++ GO!' then you go, "Holy ++++," then you beat the ++++ out of them.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2007)

I think that you all are providing some pretty valid opinions and points. Also, I don't believe that you have to be in support of our Iraq occupation in order to be in support of our troops at all. Furthermore, I realize that the statement "support the troops" is very emotionally charged, and used for political gain on both sides.

I do believe, however, that trying to snuff funding for the war in order to put a stop to it is a dangerous game that shouldn't be played. Especially if one has only limited control to how these funds are allocated, and how much of it ends up actually going to our soldiers on the ground. I disagree with anyone who would take away funds to our soldiers on the ground, period, no matter what their political party or bias, and such a person can't say that they "support our troops" without being a hypocrite, IMO.

It doesn't look like anyone is trying to impliment such a strategy in Washington just yet, which is good. It was just a little alarming to hear it suggested as it was on the news...

C.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 26, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> umm... I think the topic was really about cutting funding, not about calling them stupid or murderous...


My point was, the same people who claim to support the troops and accuse them of stupidity are the same people who claim to support them and try to cut their funding.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 27, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I disagree with anyone who would take away funds to our soldiers on the ground, period, no matter what their political party or bias, and such a person can't say that they "support our troops" without being a hypocrite, IMO.



I agree.

Anyone who has been in their nation's military can probably recall a few cases where choices were made to go ahead with the mission without as many resources as possible because of something like a budget. The soldiers, God bless them, keep going on despite the lack of gear and such that would make things safer for them because they are taught to complete the mission no matter the cost.

Change the mission if you don't want them in there. Cutting back on their funds will only lead to them still trying to do the same thing, but with less resources.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2007)

The amount of money the United States appropriates for the military is so far beyond the measure of any other country on the planet as to make any comparison just silly. 

If it were possible to not approve the "Emergency Supplemental" of 190 Billion dollars the Secretary of Defense asked for yesterday (When does a permanant occupation stop being an 'emergency'?). The United States military is still going to receive close to 500 billlion dollars for "normal" operations - and perhaps another 150 billion dollars a year through 'other channels (NASA, VA, etc). 

Who controls where the Department of Defense spends it appropriate tax dollars? 


I don't know who Larry Saboto is, but he has just released a new book. In his book he suggests looking to reshape the American Constitution, in order to make it more fair. One of his suggestions, I believe is relavant. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-sabato/its-time-to-reshape-the-_b_66030.html



> 1. Both the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts have illustrated a modern imbalance in the constitutional power to wage war. Once Congress consented to these wars, presidents were able to continue them for many years long after popular support had drastically declined. Limit the president's war-making authority by creating a provision that requires Congress to vote affirmatively every six months to continue American military involvement. Debate in both houses would be limited so that the vote could not be delayed. If either house of Congress voted to end a war, the president would have one year to withdraw all combat troops.


 
It seems to me, that the idea being presented in this original, consolodates power in the Executive. There is no way for the populace to say "STOP" to a war without challenges and attacks on his patriotism.


In the tangible world, here and now, the American people have recognized the occupation in Iraq as a very bad idea that needs to stop. But they are allowed no tools to make that happen, that do not open them up to political and personal attacks. Just ask Senator Cleland.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The amount of money the United States appropriates for the military is so far beyond the measure of any other country on the planet as to make any comparison just silly.



The amount of money the United States appropriates for the United Nations is so far beyond the measure of any other country as to make any comparison just silly.

And it is not just that, when a tsunami killed millions of people a couple of years ago, it was the US military that took the lead in helping people. And people complained that the US did not do enough- even though it put more money into things than anyone else.

Same for the Pakistan earthquake....

Kosovo....

Keeping the peace in Asia for Japan, Korea and the Philipines.

People also want to US to take the lead in Darfur, Bosnia, Rawanda and other places like that. Not with speeches, but with troops if needed.

Of course, people complain if the US sends troops for its own reasons, as well as complain if it _does not_ contribute troops and money for something that is not in its own self interest. That is just the nature of the game.

And yes, there are people who would use any excuse to tear down the military if they think it will get them what they want. Some of the people that marched under the banner "we will support our troops if they kill their officers" are probably now saying that they want the troops back for fear for their safety because they gets more sympathy than their old excuse.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> And yes, there are people who would use any excuse to tear down the military if they think it will get them what they want. Some of the people that marched under the banner "we will support our troops if they kill their officers" are probably now saying that they want the troops back for fear for their safety because they gets more sympathy than their old excuse.


 
I'm wondering if there is evidence that can point to any identifiable person who said what is include in quotes in this paragraph.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm wondering if there is evidence that can point to any identifiable person who said what is include in quotes in this paragraph.



I am just talking about the general situation. Some people may take offense thinking that I am talking about them in particular- but that is probably because they have a guilty conscious.

The original people that marched with that banner kept thier heads concealed and their identaties secret. They may be anyone, anywhere.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 27, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> The amount of money the United States appropriates for the United Nations is so far beyond the measure of any other country as to make any comparison just silly.


 
Given the $1.3 Billion (give or take a penny or two) arrears that the US has with the UN makes that not such a good example.

I can't speak to the other stated instances of selfless global generosity but as it's not relevant to the point that doesn't really matter.

*Mikes* point was, I think, that the military budget is inconceivably vast and that attempts to control current hostile engagements via present-tense funding cuts are made practically as well as morally problematic i.e. you may be able to diminish the influx but you can't control where the existing funds are directed .


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 27, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Given the $1.3 Billion (give or take a penny or two) arrears that the US has with the UN makes that not such a good example.


 
Unless you have a problem with the fact that the United States is supposed to fund more than the rest of the UN security council _combined_ then the point is valid I think.

Here is the thing- everything the US sends to the UN is spent according to the desire of the UN with countries like China and Venuzuela having a say in how US taxpayer money is spent and its might is used.

The US military is under the control of the US and the  US has the final say in how it is used.

So it is strange to hear people complain that the US spends a lot on the military and never complain about how much it spends on the UN. People expect the US to contribute troops and money to events that do not impact it like Kosovo or Bosnia. When it does not, it is complained about more than other countries.



Sukerkin said:


> *Mikes* point was, I think, that the military budget is inconceivably vast and that attempts to control current hostile engagements via present-tense funding cuts are made practically as well as morally problematic i.e. you may be able to diminish the influx but you can't control where the existing funds are directed .



All I saw was complaints about how much the US spends on the military. 

If you want to change how it is spent, you change it from the top rather than try to starve it in the hope that it may change its ways.

If you say you want the funding to be cut ten percent in the hopes that ten percent of the troops will be brought home (with increases later as you cut more), you are either a liar or a fool. In the civilian world if you do not have enough resources you refuse to go along with the plan and that is that. The poor bloody infantry just takes what it can get and does the best it can.

Maybe if their driving on without as much material support gets enough of them killed that the voters support a new policy and pull them all out, then some people will be happy. Maybe that is what some people want. They get the troops out as they want for whatever reason. But that is not supporting the troops as far as I can see.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm wondering if there is evidence that can point to any identifiable person who said what is include in quotes in this paragraph.


As far as I know, none of the people in this picture, who's very existence the left denies, have ever identified themselves, or been identified. 
Gee, when people are so proud of what they say that they won't admit saying it, that is telling in itself, isn't it?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 27, 2007)

Big Don said:


> As far as I know, none of the people in this picture, who's very existence the left denies, have ever identified themselves, or been identified.
> Gee, when people are so proud of what they say that they won't admit saying it, that is telling in itself, isn't it?


 
I see that one of the cowards is wearing a mask.


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 27, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Can one say they support our troops AND a decrease in funding for the Iraq war?




Yes, absolutely!   The best way to support them is to bring them home.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2007)

Big Don said:


> As far as I know, none of the people in this picture, who's very existence the left denies, have ever identified themselves, or been identified.
> Gee, when people are so proud of what they say that they won't admit saying it, that is telling in itself, isn't it?


 
Who is denying the existance ? ... Not me. Although I wonder who these people are? 

And, if you conflate these people with Wolf Blitzer's question, I think you are mis-representing the argument and position as well. Do you believe Mr. Blitzer was asking Speaker Pelosi his question on behalf of these people?


P.S. ... and incidentally, I was not aware of this photo's existance prior to its inclusion in this thread. What is the source of this photo? When and where was it taken?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2007)

Corollary Question. 

If, as suggested in this thread, it is not possible to support reducing funding to the Department of Defense for combat zone operations, without showing a level of non-support for the troops. 

Is is true, that every American must support the independent contractors operating within the Combat Zone to the same level as received by the Department of Defense. 


Currently, The Department of State has approximately 100,000 contractors on service in the combat zone, some of which (Blackwater) are engaged in military operations. 

Do Blackwater Agents deserve the same support as the Military?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 27, 2007)

It's very hard to debate a point with someone when observations raised are reflected back in a form morphed to fit a singular vision and the underlying issue that caused the observation is not addressed.

Purity of purpose is always admirable but is not helpful for a rounded discussion that touches on something as messy and contentious as the state of global geo-politics.

Those that utilise this debating tactic here at MT, tend to write well and are generally polite (always have been to me at any rate) and I have no wish to be anything other in return.  That makes it difficult to take issue with the approach that 'America can do no wrong' without it seeming to be directly a dig at your goodselves or at best de-railing threads with side-issues.

So, as fascinating as I generally find discourse on the machievellian world of international relations, I think I shall have to stand back and let the stream flow untramelled by me from now on lest I become a disruptive influence.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2007)

Some interesting facts about our budget I thought I'd throw in...

Here is the allocation for 2007:

*Total Funding**$439.3 Billion*Operations and maintenance$152.2 Bil.Military Personnel$110.8 Bil.Procurement$84.2 Bil.Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation$73.2 Bil.Military Construction$12.6 Bil.Family Housing$4.1 Bil.Working Capital Funds$2.4 Bil.


That doesn't include an additional $120 Bil. for "War on Terror" (Iraq/Afganastan).

That seem's like a hell of a lot of money. Really, too much money, on the surface, but it is really difficult for someone to think in terms of "Billions" of dollars. So here are some additional facts:

1. We have the highest military spending in the world, in terms of dollar amount.

2. We also have been the most tasked out as far as our military being spead around the world for everything from peace-keeping missions, foreign relations, and aid, as well as combat operations like the "war on terror." We are the largest contributer of resources in most joint alliance or projects, U.N. as one example. And we are yet criticized often for not doing more, in places like Africa, for example.

3. Although our budget is huge, our military budget is only 19% of the federal budget.

4. Although our military budget is only 19% of the federal budget, it is approx. 50% (half) of our discretionary spending. This is a lot that could arguably be used for other things.

5. Although we have the highest budget, our budget ranks 3rd in per capita spending, behind Isreal and Singapore.

6. Also we rank* 27* in military dollars per GDP. We only spend 3.7% of our GDP on military spending. This is lower than, for example, Saudia Arabia which spends 10% of their GDP on their military.

When you put it in perspective, yes we do have a high military budget. However, it is not outragous in comparison to our population, % of our federal budget, what we produce as a country, and the responsabilities that we have undertaken in other countries.

So, to me the solution to "spending" on our military or our budget isn't simply to cut funding. 

That 439 Billion that comes from the federal budget is what it costs to support all of our activities outside of Iraq and Afganistan. If we want to reduce that budget, we need to reduce those activities as the solutions, thus creating a surplus that would be reallocated elseware. Because we certainly can't have it both ways; that is maintain all our activities as they are while simultaniously cutting the budget.

Furthermore, cutting the additional funding ($120 Billion) that is outside the federal budget for the War on Terror, or not voting for the additional funding, only endangers our troops. This is because they won't be pulled out of Iraq, at least not right away, because the funds aren't there. They will just be required to operate with what they can from the general budget, which is not enough. They will be under equiped because they will be underfunded. 

So, if we don't want to spend the extra 120 billion or so, then the answer is coming up with a solution that would allow us to remove troops and activities and support from that area safely, thus eliminating the need for the extra funding. To say "don't vote to allow additional funding" before removing our troops is backwards, and dangerous to our soldiers if implimented. 

Because of this, its worth saying that we can't fault democrats (who are criticized the most for this) or republicans in the congress/senate for voting for the additional funding, as by doing so, they are just protecting our soldiers.

So, I think that upon examining the evidence, it would seem to me that one really can't say they support our troops and want them to be safe while supporting cutting the additional surplus for the war. I think I am maintaining my opinion on this one.

C. 

Here are two articles from WIKI that sum up the budget stuff nicely. I know WIKI is not always a valid source, but these are well done and backed by real sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense#_note-4


----------



## Kreth (Sep 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm wondering if there is evidence that can point to any identifiable person who said what is include in quotes in this paragraph.


 


michaeledward said:


> Who is denying the existance ? ... Not me.


You were saying...?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 27, 2007)

I may have decided not to stir the pot of such subjects myself anymore but I have to congratulate *Crue* on another of a series of good posts over the past few days.  Post #40 above is a level-headed espousal of the 'military budget' point :tup:.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 27, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Some interesting facts about our budget I thought I'd throw in...
> 
> Here is the allocation for 2007:
> 
> ...


 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

US = 623 Billion/year
Rest of world = 500 Billion/year
China (number two on the all time high list) = 65 Billion

These are some eye opening numbers and they beg a few questions, IMO.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 27, 2007)

It is worth noting that China's military spending will ALWAYS be lower than ours, even with China having more troops. Conscripts are cheaper than professionals. Add to that, China, being a communist country doesn't have to deal with bids, unions, or many of the multitude of idiotic rules the US has.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
> 
> US = 623 Billion/year
> Rest of world = 500 Billion/year
> ...


 
They don't really beg any questions, in my opinion, at least as to why our spending is as it is. As explained in my previous thread, we have a presence all over the world and that costs money. If we want to reduce our spending, then we need to reduce our activity. Some of our activity could be reduced really for the better; but to stop some activities might come at a great cost. It all depends, and it is really a matter of what consequences are we willing to live with for either choice.

The other reason is because although everyone wants to support our military and all, that pretty much goes out the window when contracts are bid out to private companies, it seems. Private corporations often *** rape our federal government on price for goods, materials, and services. **** falls through the cracks in the bureaucracy, and next thing ya know Joe Private is wiping his *** with toilet paper that we bid out at $10 a roll. And it's not like these companies are quick to complain about it when that happens.

So, the reasons the budget is what it is shouldn't be a question to anyone. The real question is how much do we really need to participate in world affairs. But that is probably worth a different thread.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2007)

And sorry to double tap here, but...

It is also worth mentioning again that our military spending makes up only about 3-4% or our GDP, which is pretty low in comparison to the rest of the world, considering that we're ranked 27th. I am not saying that we can't tighten things up a bit in regards to our budget, but our spending actually seems reasonable in comparison to what we produce, as hard as that is to believe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2007)

Rebuilding America's Defenses has been the guidebook to how this administration runs our military.  By the end of President Bush's 2nd term, the goal is to raise military spending up to 7% or GDP or twice the level it was during the Clinton years.  They would like to have force capabilities to fight three regional conflicts at once, reposition the current forces we have through Southern Europe, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, and create a new wing of the military that has space based capabilities.

Repositioning our military in Iraq has been part of this plan from the beginning.  Deposing Saddam, installing a pro-west government, and building permanent military bases is all implicit.  This isn't just a Republican thing.  The Democrats have signed on to this too.  Thus, I don't think that we really need to worry about anyone cutting funding any time soon.  It's all talk IMO.

Whether we need to do all of this stuff is another debate.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> So, I think that upon examining the evidence, it would seem to me that one really can't say they support our troops and want them to be safe while supporting cutting the additional surplus for the war. I think I am maintaining my opinion on this one.


 
I think there are some gaps in the numbers you present. Such as the military portion of NASA's budget is not shown here. And the Veterans Administration and its expenses are not included in these numbers. 

But, in general, I can live with these numbers. 


Now that we have come right back around to your original premise, the question is. How are you going to pay for it. 

Since the Bush Administration took office, they have implemented a number of tax cuts, and spending policies that have placed the country in a worse financial condition than when the Clinton Administration left office. 

From your reasoning, it is not possible to call for funding cuts, and support the troops, and each day that passes the countries ledger is showing more and more read, 

what specific taxes are you going to proprose to demonstrate your support for the troops?


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 28, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think there are some gaps in the numbers you present. Such as the military portion of NASA's budget is not shown here. And the Veterans Administration and its expenses are not included in these numbers.
> 
> But, in general, I can live with these numbers.
> 
> ...


 
That is a very good point. I never understood why we would have tax cuts while we are waging a war, or even how that can logistically work... :idunno:


----------



## Big Don (Sep 28, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> That is a very good point. I never understood why we would have tax cuts while we are waging a war, or even how that can logistically work... :idunno:


Tax cuts increase revenues. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2869105 Not the best article to illustrate it, but, the inclusion of the phrase "
*Federal Deficit Shrinks Sharply Thanks to Continued Gusher of Revenues"*

is telling. This is a 2007, post Bush Tax cut, article. Whenever taxes are cut, revenues skyrocket. They did when Reagan cut taxes, they did when Bush cut taxes. This is not a coincidence, this is one of the planned for goals of cutting taxes.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2007)

If what you say is true, I don't understand why there were record federal deficits when Presidents Reagan and Bush left office; and how the current President Bush has generated so much red ink. 

Let's see, has any President in the last couple of decades left office with a surplus? Seems to me, there was one. .... Hmm. President Clinton did that, didn't he.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 28, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If what you say is true, I don't understand why there were record federal deficits when Presidents Reagan and Bush left office; and how the current President Bush has generated so much red ink.
> 
> Let's see, has any President in the last couple of decades left office with a surplus? Seems to me, there was one. .... Hmm. President Clinton did that, didn't he.


 He was impeached too... was that admirable?


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 28, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Tax cuts increase revenues. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2869105 Not the best article to illustrate it, but, the inclusion of the phrase "
> *Federal Deficit Shrinks Sharply Thanks to Continued Gusher of Revenues"*
> 
> is telling. This is a 2007, post Bush Tax cut, article. Whenever taxes are cut, revenues skyrocket. They did when Reagan cut taxes, they did when Bush cut taxes. This is not a coincidence, this is one of the planned for goals of cutting taxes.


 
Hmmmm %think%

I need to think about this more really. I understand the point about a revenues increase, but I am not so sure that has to do with tax cuts, at least not by itself. The increase in revenues, argueably could be due to the natural recovery process that we are still in from a severe drop in revenues that we experienced from 2000-2003, as evidence from the S&P 500 which showed a total loss of almost 1/2 it's value within that 3 year period. The past 3 1/2 years we have been recoving from this, with 2006 showing the most increase. This is part of the natural fluctuation of the markets. Plus, we went from record levels of unemployment during that period to a recovery from that, which is also a natural product of this fluctuation. So we are going to show increased revenues, especially from 06-07, due to this. 

But obviously tax cuts play a role. My thing is the long term implication of these cuts. When we hit a bear market in 2000, added with Sept. 11 in 2001 and Iraq, it was wise for the Fed to run a deficit as we did. But now that we are recovering, there comes a point where we need to be thinking about trying to run a surplus, pay back our dept., and increase the value of the U.S. dollar. Where tax cuts helped in the short term, Long term tax cuts probably won't help us run a surplus now, and might actually hurt our ability to do that (although I am not sure to what degree).

To answer M. Edwards question, the answer to how we payed for the war is the same answer as to how we delt with the bear markets, we cut taxes while spending money, borrowing what we needed, which (in theory) increases revenues and helps turn the economy around. 

The real question is, how do we now pay back our debts, get into surplus,  and get the value of the dollar back up again?

Tax cuts, by the way, is pretty controversial. Professional economists can't agree as to whether it is a good idea or not, and to what degree it helps or doesn't help to turn an economic downturn around. So I doubt we'll come to agreement or even a full understanding here on Martial Talk!


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 28, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If what you say is true, I don't understand why there were record federal deficits when Presidents Reagan and Bush left office; and how the current President Bush has generated so much red ink.
> 
> Let's see, has any President in the last couple of decades left office with a surplus? Seems to me, there was one. .... Hmm. President Clinton did that, didn't he.


 
Because our politicians in general don't think far enough ahead, usually. This problem is not isolated to a single party or canidate.

Example: Kennedy proposed tax cuts to combat unemployment rates in 1960. Good idea, but they weren't instituted until 1964, thus impacting the economy in 1965/66. Turned out to be counter productive, as it encouraged inflation around a very inopportune time (Vietnam).

We face the same problem now. Tax cuts and deficit spending was a great way of handling things up until about 2004. But some of these cuts are still going to be in effect now, thus being counterproductive to our efforts to prevent inflation, raise our dollar value, etc.

And the cycle continues...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 28, 2007)

Big Don said:


> He was impeached too... was that admirable?


 
No. Not at all. 

And I am so relieved that those involved in that impeachment process have been shown to be un-admirable. 

Speaker Newt Gingrich was run out of the House of Representatives .... of course he was diddling his girlfriend while crying foul about President Clinton doing so. 

Who was supposed to be the Speaker after Gingrich ... Livingston ... him too. Seems he had to leave Congress because of improprieties. And Livingston's successor from Louisiana, Congressman Vitter. He decried Clinton publicly, all while wearing diapers for his prostitute. 

There was also Congressman Delay, then Majority Whip, He was run out of the House of Representatives, too. I don't know if Mr. Delay was in the "I'm upset because I have to pay for it crowd" or not, but it does seem that you reep what you sow. 

It seems that whole impeachment displayed the 'less than admirable' side of everyone. What was that old saying .... about Glass Houses and submitting articles of impeachment. 


Cruentus, I am not certain that tax cuts and deficit spending made sense until 2004 ... but as the budget is projected right now, the red ink keeps piling up. It is not being reduced in any significant manner. (Don't be fooled by the WH OMB mirage numbers from early in the year, which are always high, so they can announce progress later in the year, when the numbers aren't as high as they predicted.). 


Can one support deficit spending and tax cuts, AND support the troops?

And, continuing with my unaddressed corollary ... if combat ended tomorrow, the costs of this war will continue for the rest of these soldiers lives, through VA Benefits. 

Will the Contractor/Soldiers serving our Department of State be eligible to receive the same types of mental health/physical theraphy benefits currently extended to veterans?


----------



## grydth (Sep 28, 2007)

Can one support the soldiers and oppose what's going on in Iraq? 

Absolutely.


----------



## crushing (Sep 28, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If what you say is true, I don't understand why there were record federal deficits when Presidents Reagan and Bush left office; and how the current President Bush has generated so much red ink.
> 
> Let's see, has any President in the last couple of decades left office with a surplus? Seems to me, there was one. .... Hmm. President Clinton did that, didn't he.


 
It's too bad that the budget surplus never turned into an actual surplus.  Sure, the Republican congress played a little shell game with the purse strings in the late 90s to give the appearance of a surplus, but it was mostly political posturing.

The national debt has increased EVERY year since the 1957, independent of the political party affiliation of the president.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 28, 2007)

grydth said:


> Can one support the soldiers and oppose what's going on in Iraq?
> 
> Absolutely.


 
You need to read the thread brutha; the question is in regards to funding. Of course someone can be against what is happening in Iraq while supporting the troops; to me, it seems silly to assert otherwise so I wouldn't even ask that question.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 28, 2007)

crushing said:


> It's too bad that the budget surplus never turned into an actual surplus. Sure, the Republican congress played a little shell game with the purse strings in the late 90s to give the appearance of a surplus, but it was mostly political posturing.
> 
> The national debt has increased EVERY year since the 1957, independent of the political party affiliation of the president.


 
True, but that actually doesn't matter nor is that what they mean when we talk of surplus.

What count's is the GND (Gross National Debt) in comparison to the GNP (Gross national Product). This takes into account our growth and inflation. Just looking at a chart that plots the GND and saying, "hey our debt. has been increasing for decades now," is misleading. The GND was at it's lowest point (wanna say 30%) in 1981. Under Clinton, we were operating under "surplus" in that the GND to GNP ratio was going down significantly. Now that ratio is back up to right around where it was before Clinton took office. 

We need to think about reducing that ratio again. Good luck during a period of tax cuts and wartime, unfortunatily.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 28, 2007)

One can say it. Of course, saying it doesn't really mean anything...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 28, 2007)

O.K.; here is what I am talking about!!!!

I just watched _Real Time_ with Bill Mahr. Keep in mind, I am not bi-partisan, and I listen, read, and watch a variety of different media to get different views.

They had rep. Rahm Emanuel from Ill., and the Mahr asked the question of why doesn't Congress simply vote to stop funding to the war in Iraq. And Emanuel made the exact point that I have been making.

To paraphrase, he said, "I have constituents who have kids who are in Iraq. I can't vote to not send them the best equipment that money can buy. I can't vote to send them with HMMWV's without enough armor, or without the right body armor or protection. That's going to endanger them even more, and that is the wrong way to try to end it."

Sure enough, Mahr and the other guests jumped up his *** with ye ol' mantra, "Support the Troops, Bring em home, dur, dur, dur.." The crowd was hollering and everything. As if they didn't propose bills to do just that!

These deuch-hats obviously don't give a crap, in my opinion. I view this attitude as wanting to "win" at all cost, even if it results in soldiers being in harms way without proper protection and equipment. See, and I am of the opinion that individuals like that have no business saying that they "support our troops," when they don't really.

This obviously pisses me off, but Democrates need to look at this as a major reason why they can't seem to get people elected. How can a Democrate get elected when their own supporting base and media sources are so quick to throw their asses under the bus just cause things aren't going their way? Here is a Congressman who is making the right decision to protect our soldiers, even if it means funding a war that he doesn't agree with, yet he catches hell for it. And that is Bullcrap, in my opinion. His own voting base should be friggin' praising him and others who are willing to set aside personal agenda to do the right thing, but they don't. Hell, I don't even like Emanuel's views on a lot of things, but I am willing to give credit where it's due.

And that is the kind of crap I'm talking about in this thread...

C.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 29, 2007)

The congress was granted the constitutional ability to cut funding for unpopular wars by our founding fathers.  They viewed the "power of the purse" as being a check on the executive branches ability to wage war.  With the thought being that a concientious executive would pull our troops out of harms way if they didn't have the funding to continue with whatever policy decision was made.  

If congress decided to cut funding for the war, it would be entirely in their right to do so.  The president should respond as constitutionally mandated.  There is an assumed moral imperitive to remove our troops from harms way if this happens.

Instead, we get spin.  Instead, we get arguments that basically undermine the very methodology the constitution set in motion.

What else can you expect from a president who says "the constitution is just a god damned peice of paper."

If congress does cut funding for the war and the commander in cheif keeps the troops there without adequate funding, then it is entirely the presidents fault for ignoring constitutional checks on his power.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 29, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The congress was granted the constitutional ability to cut funding for unpopular wars by our founding fathers.



This is not about cutting off funding. This is about _decreasing_ funding.

On one hand, you have people say that the president does not care about the troops so something  has to be done to bring them home.

But by _reducing_ the amount of funding they expect this same president to cut back on the number of troops so as to not put them in harms way without sufficient material. In other words, they expect him to do the right thing for the troops while thier reasoning for this type of thing is that he is not.

As I said before, soldiers from the top to the bottom are used to doing the job with whatever resources they have. If congress cuts funding 20 percent with the stated reason that 20 percent of the troops will come home, then all the military will do is sut back on all the things Cruentus talked about while keeping the troops there to complete the mission. Ask anyone who has served as an NCO or higher and they will tell you that the idea of refusing to do something because you don't have the best equipment, etc is just not part of the thinking process.

But this might help bring  the troops home like some want. If these troops with their reduced ability to fight due to lack of materials are killed off in greater numbers, then maybe there will be calls for a new president and to yank all the troops home. That would get the troops home, as some want more than anything else. But it would be at the cost of more dead US soldiers- which moderate voters really would not support if they thought about it.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 29, 2007)

There are politicians serving our nation, who I believe are courageous in their demonstration to end the occupation of Iraq. 

While we weren't paying attention, the Congress authorized / sort of / an additional 70 billion dollars for the Iraqi occupation. This matches up with SecDef Gates recent 'updated' request for 190 billion dollars to run the Iraq war this fiscal year. 

One Senator voted against these increased funds. Mr. Feingold. 

Interstingly, five senators did not record a roll. Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, McCain, and Brownback were absent. I wonder if they have something in common. 

On the other side of the Capitol, 14 Congressmen voted no to these additional funds. 


> The "no" votes in the House, all cast by anti-war members, came from one Republican, Ron Paul of Texas, and 13 Democrats: Oregon's Earl Blumenauer, Missouri's William Clay, Minnesota's Keith Ellison, California's Bob Filner, Massachusetts' Barney Frank, New York's Maurice Hinchey, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, Washington's Jim McDermott, New Jersey's Donald Payne, California's Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey


 
In my opinion, the occupation is illegal, and unethical, and counter to America's greatest traditions. (Especially in light of the recent news that President Hussien was willing to exile himself to stop the invasion ~ a position refused by President Bush). 

However, Cruentus' position is that the actions of these Representatives refute any claims that they support the troops in military. Now that we have names to go with this position. What is the appropriate response to these representatives?


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=237751


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 29, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> This is not about cutting off funding. This is about _decreasing_ funding.
> 
> On one hand, you have people say that the president does not care about the troops so something has to be done to bring them home.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you here.  Reducing funding is shortsighted and dangerous to the troops.  If people really oppose the war, they need to grow a pair and pull the plug.  One senator and 14 representatives is hardly opposition.

I feel that congress should exercise is constitutionally mandated ability in this case.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=237751


 
Right; and based on that article, the dems base supporting media once again would rather see funding not get passed, regardless of cost to our troops, in order to "win" the argument. And that, I think, is BS.

Like it or not, it costs at least 120 bil over the general fund yearly to provide our troops with what they need. That means that special funding will need to get passed yearly to keep our troops protected while they are overseas fighting. 

We need to bring them home before we cut that funding, not the other way around...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 30, 2007)

Again, if the Congress cut the funds, from the requested 190 billion dollars for the year, to zero. The Department of Defense does have the contingency plans to re-allocate money from State-side operations in order to continue to provide the financial resources to keep the troops safe. In fact, in the most recent Congressional appropriations bill, all members of Congress (Democratic and Republican) made certain that the language was specifically included; the DOD can re-allocate money as needed. 

So, if Congress did cut funding, the Executive Branch of government would be able to re-allocate funds to ensure the soldiers protection while they were withdrawn from the combat zone. The executive and DOD could choose which projects to stop funding for the timely withdrawl from combat activities.

I think for the sake of the sound-bite, the language has become a sort of 'short hand', accepted by all parties involved. Cutting the funds for Iraq becomes the mechanism by which Congress 'un-declares' war. 




With what you are proposing, Cruentus, what controls are in place to check a president, hell bent on a war, of which the citizenry has grown tired? 



It begins to appear to me that the lessons of Vietnam were not learned. What used to be talked about, was that you can't go to war without the support of the American people. President Bush has lost that support. It is a lesson, unlearned, I guess.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> We need to bring them home before we cut that funding, not the other way around...


 
But that isn't how the Constitution works.  The decision to bring the troops home is the commander in cheifs.  The only power the congress has is the power of the purse when it comes to war (other then declaring war and that is another discussion entirely).

In essence, you are arguing against the very highest mandate in this country.

And this isn't just an appeal to authority.  Think about it.  There is wisdom in what the Contitution says.  Cutting the funding is a check on the President's power.  If Congress does it, he MUST bring them home.  And if funding is cut, it's not like the troops are suddenly going to run out of bullets.  This current bill is about spending in the future.  Right now, the Pentagon still has billions and billions of dollars.  If the money stream gets cut off, they have more then enough to bring everyone home safely.

The bottom line is that cutting funding is not going to be the disaster that is propagandized.  This little drama is exactly what should happen in our Constitutional Republic.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 30, 2007)

Why are the troops still fighting with broken gear, and no bullets while they're also no longer being paid? Is Bush gonna buy lottery tickets that'll award an annuity that will only allow the troops to be paid, but not equipped or what?

You pull funding for the war, the deployment ends. That's the understanding informing the cut funding concept. They don't just leave the troops over there to fight on regardless. 

Either side of the issue, cutting funding's not likely to happen. Bush will simply veto any such measures that come across his desk, and there aren't the votes to override it. The measure would be political poision, and it's doomed regardless.


----------



## Karatedrifter7 (Sep 30, 2007)

Well I think that if we keep up the war and "say stay the course" all the time we add to the dead, wounded, and disenfranchised young americans coming home. We should have had a plan to begin with. Supporting the troops isint about sticking a select 0verextended to do all the work . While another group of people ride around towns in America, with "Support our troops stickers" on theyre pick-ups.
 In other words time to bring em home. Thats supporting the troops. Bring them out of harms way. 
Nobody is advocating sticking soldiers out there without weapons. Thats the big lie that conservatives want to promote so that they can continue to get us to pay for
the lemon they bought with Iraq.
Difference between Vietnam,and Iraq for Bush. Bush had a plan for Vietnam!


----------



## Big Don (Sep 30, 2007)

Karatedrifter7 said:


> Well I think that if we keep up the war and "say stay the course" all the time we add to the dead, wounded, and disenfranchised young americans coming home.


 Disenfranchised by those that support them and their mission? Or Disenfranchised by those who say they support the troops, while calling them murderers? 





> We should have had a plan to begin with.


 Winning is and always has been the plan. Part of that is staying to the end. 





> Supporting the troops isint about sticking a select 0verextended to do all the work . While another group of people ride around towns in America, with "Support our troops stickers" on theyre pick-ups.
> In other words time to bring em home. Thats supporting the troops. Bring them out of harms way.


 How did pulling out of Vietnam  work  out for the Vietnamese people? Not so well... 





> Nobody is advocating sticking soldiers out there without weapons. Thats the big lie that conservatives want to promote so that they can continue to get us to pay for the lemon they bought with Iraq.


 That is the big lie conservatives never stated. What conservatives actually have said, it that getting the job done will take YEARS and Money.





> Difference between Vietnam,and Iraq for Bush. Bush had a plan for Vietnam!


Yeah, Bush did have a plan for Vietnam, volunteering._The standard rap against Bush is that he was ducking combat by joining the Guard. Actually, the Texas Air Guard had a program called Palace Alert that allowed pilots to volunteer for flight time in Vietnam. Three of Bush's fellow pilotsUdell, Woodfin and Fred Bradleyrecalled to NEWSWEEK that Bush inquired with the base commander about signing up for Palace Alert. He was told no; he had too few flying hours at the time and his plane, the F-102, was by then deemed obsolete for air combat._http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271922/


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 30, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Disenfranchised by those that support them and their mission? Or Disenfranchised by those who say they support the troops, while calling them murderers?



No doubt, there are those Americans and others who oppose the war and have chosen to call US personnel, "murderers." I don't think that has been the tenor of this thread among those who decry the invasion of Iraq. To edit the title of this thread a bit, _Can one say, "Our troops are murderers," and still want them home safe and sound?

_


> That is the big lie conservatives never stated. What conservatives actually have said, it that getting the job done will take YEARS and Money.



Anybody who thought seriously about this conflict before it began should have realized that it _would_ take years and money, whether they were in favour of it or not. To that extent, I agree with you. 

Personally, I believe that a lot of people wanted terrorists punished so badly, they would follow their President into the wrong country, all the while believing everything he said. At some point, a lot of Americans got fed up with this war and with the inconsistent messages coming out of the Oval Office and wanted out of it. The whole thing should have unraveled here...



> THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html



It took another four years of Iraq getting neither secured nor reconstructed before a lot of American people got up and said, "Enough." That doesn't make them traitors or troop haters. It means they think their President has done a terrible job. Problem is, Congress is not listening either.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 30, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Winning is and always has been the plan. Part of that is staying to the end.


Yes, that's been the oft quoted strategy. The troops would have been better served if the administration had payed more than lip service to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, honoring international treaties etc however.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 30, 2007)

Marginal said:


> Yes, that's been the oft quoted strategy. The troops would have been better served if the administration had payed more than lip service to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, honoring international treaties etc however.


Of course Iraq would have been better served had Hussein honored international borders...
Who do you think is paying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure? In less than four years after bombing the hell out of them, the US  government assisted by the EVIL Halliburton has Iraqi oil pumping again. Electricity and water service in most areas are coming online. In less than four years. How much infrastructure has the palestinian "authority" built?


----------



## Marginal (Sep 30, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Of course Iraq would have been better served had Hussein honored international borders...


Haven't we established that Saddam was a poopie head yet? But you're right, if one country throws out the rulebook, it's a free for all  from then on. (Even if you wait a decade.) 


> Who do you think is paying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure? In less than four years after bombing the hell out of them, the US  government assisted by the EVIL Halliburton has Iraqi oil pumping again. Electricity and water service in most areas are coming online.


How much could've been built without the administration funneling money into contractors who openly defrauded the government? How does the administration covering for these frauds help the troops? How does sending loyal to the GOP, but wholly unqualified cronies over to oversee the reconstruction help the troops? Heck, how much good will was blown upon disbanding the Iraqi army alone?

Ignoring gross wastes of taxpayer money, and the subsequent damage such abuses actually do to the efforts the troops are putting in both in moral and personal peril won't make the problems go away. Rather than piss away the US army over some GOP glad handing, shouldn't we be just a little concerned about their welfare and how our actions at home are directly interfering with their duties abroad?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 30, 2007)

The troops would have been better served by a Congress that backed them better. The troops would have been better served by the media giving less publicity to the kooks like code pink and jesse mac beth. The troops would have been better served had Jack Murtha not called them murderers. The troops would have been better served by lots of things. Pointing the finger at the Bush administration about how the troops would have been better served is disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 30, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The troops would have been better served by a Congress that backed them better. The troops would have been better served by the media giving less publicity to the kooks like code pink and jesse mac beth. The troops would have been better served had Jack Murtha not called them murderers. The troops would have been better served by lots of things. Pointing the finger at the Bush administration about how the troops would have been better served is disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst.


Actually, I was simply saying that looking the other way gives aid and comfort the the enemy and damages the moral of our troops. I don't understand why some folks want to flag wave but balk at actually supporting our national interests.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 1, 2007)

Goodness. Let me try to get this thread back on track. I don't really want to get into bi-partisen debates or discussions on personal backgrounds of the elected (like Bush's military record, for example). Those are probably worthy topics for other threads. So here we go...



> With what you are proposing, Cruentus, what controls are in place to check a president, hell bent on a war, of which the citizenry has grown tired?


 
MichealEdward brings up a very good point of discussion here, and raising a few fundamental questions.

How does one "check" the Pres. regarding military decisions?

*I can say with certainty, constitutional or not, the way to NOT do it is through cutting funding.* 

Now, keep in mind we aren't talking about controlling costs and making sure that funds aren't overexessive, as I believe this is a nessicary check. We are talking about cutting costs as a means to stop an unpopular war.

The idea of the "power of the purse" as a means to check the Presidents power was put in place during a time of powder and ball ammo where soldiers didn't have to worry about IED's, for example. Yet, even with the lack of technology, wars before the Industrial age involved more casualties then we can even imagine today. We lost about 620,000 soldiers during the Civil war in about a 4 year period in comparison to the 3,000 or so we have lost in about the same length of time in Iraq. We lost over 400,000 in U.S. troops during WWII. They didn't have armored vehicles and body armor and the technology that we have today, and the numbers show.

The amount of killed and wounded in Iraq is terrible, period. But I cannot even imagine losing even 100,000 people, let alone over 600,000 or 400,000.

Now, I am not saying that these wars are a fair comparison to Iraq, because they are not. But what I am saying is that, when pondering these questions, we have to ask ourselves if we want to go back to fighting wars the old fashion way? Because the fact of the matter is, 28,000 or so have been injured in this Iraq war, and many of these soldiers (as in by the thousands) would have been dead if it wasn't for the equipment and technology that we are paying for.

Cutting funding for troops doesn't translate into an immediate troop withdraw. It translates into soldiers having to go without, and people dying because of it. Because back in the early days when control of the purse was valid, the "purse" only paid for the bare essentials to run a war, because the technology didn't exist to have anything but the essentials. So, this was much more impacting, because with pre-industrial revolution wars, troop withdrawl would have been nessicary if extra funding was cut. Today, if the extra funding was cut, we could still run a war and pay for the bare essentials through other means and the general budget for quite sometime. Therefore, our troops would still be deployed at the Presidents command; they just won't have the life saving equipment that they need.

This is evident from the beginning of the war, where there were equipment shortages, and soldiers were having to buy and rig their own equipment. This or go without, as they more often did.

But, do we have any historical precidence in the post WWII era where "controlling the purse" has been used as an effective means to stop a war, and where troops didn't suffer for that decision? We really don't. But the evidence from this war with soldiers not having good gear or going without due to budgetary constrains does speak to what would actually happen with a cut budget.

So, I know that in this day and age, "controlling the purse" is the wrong way to check the president's power based on the results that the evidence shows it will bring, regardless of it being constitutional.

So...

*How do we then check the Presidents power, if not through "power of the purse"?*

This goes back to M.Edwards original question. Let's explore what we have available today.

1. Congress had the power in the beginning to authorize the war in the first place.

This is something we forget. Congress had every opportunity in the beginning to not allow the Iraq war to happen. But, because many of these people who are against the war today were more worried about their careers and their popularity ratings, most of them opted to allow the administration to do what they wanted to do. Sure, they insult our intelligence as the American public now by saying stuff like "we didn't vote to go to war, we voted to let the President make his own decision," and "We were dupped and lied too just like everyone else," and so forth. Well, don't believe the hype. I am of the opinion that most, if not all people in Congress knew that by allowing the Administration to make the decision regarding Iraq, they were effectively authorizing the war. Furthermore, I know that most of these legislators knew that this ment a lengthy occupation that would cost us an astronomical amount of resources.  

So for all of those "anti-war" congress members who voted for the war originally, shame on them. They had their chance then, they made their decision, and now they have to live with the consequences of their decision; this, rather then allow the troops to die further while the try to reverse those consequences because now everyone is mad at them.

2. Since Congress didn't utilize their first and most effective line of defense above, they can try to check the Presidents power through a figurative game of tug-o-war with legislation. 

They can try to pass bills for things like time-lines and strategies and so forth, of which the president can veto. They can also refuse to pass through any legislation that supports the administrations agenda. This is what the democratically controlled congress is in the process of doing now.

None of this will directly stop the war, as evident by today's situation. But, if the legislative tug-o-war game doesn't persuede the President to stop the war himself, these strategies frame the approval ratings for all sides, and these ratings and discussions carry over into the next election, as we can also see happening today.

Leading us to...

3. Elect someone else who will stop the war.

This is exactly why we have term limits, folks. The fact that the Presidential seat faces an election every 4 years, and the same President can't be elected more then twice, is a check and balance of the Presidents power in and of itself. No matter what happends, under our constitution our current President will no longer be in charge in 2009. Who we put in charge will be what will determine the outcome in Iraq for that term. At the very least, waiting for this to occur is a better option then leaving our soldiers high and dry.

Yet, there is one more option...

4. Impeachment is an option if the President or his administration has done something unconstitutional or illegal.

If the President isn't doing anything illegal, then this isn't really an option. But, many of the anti-war officials and voting base are often quoted saying that this administration has behaved illegally and unconstitutionally in regards to this war. This may or may not be true. It is certainly a valid thing to explore. 

But I will say that if it is true, then Congress does need to impeach the president, as it is their DUTY and RESPONSABILITY to do so as a means of protecting our nation, not just their perrogative based on popularity. However, if it is not true, or at least if they aren't going to go through impeachment trials to find out, then they need to stop saying otherwise (that the administration is criminal, and so forth), as it is just negative rhetoric that only fosters hate and polarization, and accomplishes nothing constructive.

These are the 4 things congress can do besides cut funding. This leads us to another question...

*3. Does the executive branch have too much power?*

If we go on the assumption that in today's wars, "power of the purse" as a means to choke out a war is no longer a valid way to check the Presidents power, then that begs the question. Does the President have too much power?

I don't know, at least as it applies to waging war. I think the executive branch, as with the Federal government, has too much power in general, which is worthy of another topic. However, as it applies to waging war, I am not so sure.

I am inclined to say that because Congress has the ability to give or deny permission in the beginning, and that they know their limits as well as the administrations agenda prior to giving that permission, that they have to weigh the consequences and live with those consequences if they do authorize war. I am inclined to say that once given permission to start a conflict, the executive branch ("commander and chief") needs to be given the opportunity to do what it is designed for in this situation; that is, wage that conflict within the 'rules of war' in the most effective way possible for the sake of our own security. And this needs to happen without the restriction of a congress who's mind tends to change with the opinion polls.

So, I lean towards the idea that when it comes to waging war, the Presidents power isn't too excessive, even with the "power of the purse" not being a valid means to end a war is our day and age. However, this is really open for discussion, as I am not solid on this particular point. 

_Well, this post addresses a number of on-topic points to think about. I apologize for the spelling and gramatical errors that are no doubt numerous, as it is now late and I need to sleep rather then proofread..._

Good night and good luck,

C.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 1, 2007)

So, you are saying that there is no way to stop a meglomaniacal, insane President until his term is up. And, it also seems you are saying that any who wish to end a futile war, started by the insane bastard at the top, are cowards and traitors. It doesn't matter what the citizenry think, or want to have happen. They must live with their bad decision, for at least four years. Probably longer, because of the nature of the political hiring.

Seems to me, that there should be some other check on a Unitary Executive. 

A revolution every now and then, I guess is required.


P.S. Some young man once asked the powerful in Congress, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake." Based on the defense of your position, this question must be asked over and over again. Good soldiers they may be, but bad leaders do them a dis-service, I believe.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 1, 2007)

Let congress run a war? Lord help us. You cant fight wars by committee. Cru is right on IMO. Congress was riding the fence. They didnt want to declare war and take responsibility, but if it was going to be a quick "mission accomplished" they wanted to be part of it. God help them if they STOOD against the war and it turned into a cake walk heros welcome. So they let the Pres make the decision and take the blame. Well now that it has turned into hard work they want to distance themselves and make excuses. ALL of them are pathetic excuses for leaders IMO.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 1, 2007)

Yes, Congress, by Constitutional decree, has the authority to raise an army and to declare war. I have said it many times ... including times when I was in the small minority that opposed the war ... that Congress abdicated its responsibility with the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. Much blame lies with them. 

But not all, much blame also resides with the political operations within the White House, who manipulated the disaster events into a political weapon. (see Senator Max Cleland). The Congressional Resolution was an attempt to split the baby presented by Misters Bush, Cheney and Rove; well played by them.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So, you are saying that there is no way to stop a meglomaniacal, insane President until his term is up.


 
See, here is what I mean. If he really is an "insane meglomaniac," I mean REALLY, then he could be impeached. Since he isn't, then we have to assume that as unpopular and possibly as bad as he is, he isn't bad enough for impeachment.

Of course, another option is that he really is "insane" or "Crooked" or whatever, and Congress is to weak willed to pursue an impeachment. If that is true, then this is a Congress that we should not trust to make decisons, and that means we need to do some house cleaning on voting day. I digress here, because I don't really believe that this is completely true.



> And, it also seems you are saying that any who wish to end a futile war, started by the insane bastard at the top, are cowards and traitors.


 
I needed to isolate this point to be CLEAR that I am not saying that at all. I think I have been clear on this, but I will say it again, *I am not saying that people who are against the war are cowards or traitors or even unpatriotic. *I am saying that people who are willing to try to use a strategy to end the war that would involve further risking the lives of our soldiers on the ground is morally corrupt.



> It doesn't matter what the citizenry think, or want to have happen. They must live with their bad decision, for at least four years. Probably longer, because of the nature of the political hiring.


 
Well, Congresses power is limited once permission is granted, which is why that decision needs to be taken a lot more seriously then it was. And yes, if you make a decision, you have to live with the consequences. Some of these overprivledged buffons in office (on all sides and branches) forget that there is an element of personal responsability that you can't talk or buy your way out of.



> Seems to me, that there should be some other check on a Unitary Executive.


 
You are possibly correct here. It would be something I would entertain. The difficulty here is that this check couldn't tip the balance in such a way that it would make Congress too powerful. This is important to our security because as I mentioned, the opinions in congress sway with the polls. The way it is right now, we are safeguarded from that volitility. So with whatever changes were made, these safeguards would have to continue.



> Good soldiers they may be, but bad leaders do them a dis-service, I believe.


 
Here is something that we both agree on.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I needed to isolate this point to be CLEAR that I am not saying that at all. I think I have been clear on this, but I will say it again, *I am not saying that people who are against the war are cowards or traitors or even unpatriotic. *I am saying that people who are willing to try to use a strategy to end the war that would involve further risking the lives of our soldiers on the ground is morally corrupt.


 
The irony of the phrase "morally corrupt", with regard to the current situation in Iraq and Washington, and the events leading to this situation, is heartbreaking and painful.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2007)

The only person that can put the Troops in danger is the President.  If congress defunded the war, the only person responsible for keeping the troops in harms way is the Commander in Cheif.  The current funding bill is for future spending.  If the President had to pull troops out, the Pentagon would have to reallocate the money that already exists to do that.  Thus, there really isn't any point here.  *Cutting future spending doesn't endanger the troops.*  The only thing that does that is keeping them in Iraq.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 1, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The only person that can put the Troops in danger is the President. If congress defunded the war, the only person responsible for keeping the troops in harms way is the Commander in Cheif. The current funding bill is for future spending. If the President had to pull troops out, the Pentagon would have to reallocate the money that already exists to do that. Thus, there really isn't any point here. *Cutting future spending doesn't endanger the troops.* The only thing that does that is keeping them in Iraq.


 
As I understand it, that statement is basically wrong. When funding is cut for future spending, as I understand it Officers see their budget reduced pretty quick as a defense mechanism; in case they have to sustain the mission for longer then what the current funds would provide. The impact on our ground troops of a budget cut happens very quickly.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> As I understand it, that statement is basically wrong. When funding is cut for future spending, as I understand it Officers see their budget reduced pretty quick as a defense mechanism; in case they have to sustain the mission for longer then what the current funds would provide. The impact on our ground troops of a budget cut happens very quickly.


 
That assumes that the mission continues as usual.  If funding gets cut, the hard decision falls on the President.  The soldiers are only following orders...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> As I understand it, that statement is basically wrong. When funding is cut for future spending, as I understand it Officers see their budget reduced pretty quick as a defense mechanism; in case they have to sustain the mission for longer then what the current funds would provide. The impact on our ground troops of a budget cut happens very quickly.


 
Again, the Officers who would see their budgets reduced are Stateside. Money from the 500 billion dollar annual defense appropriate would be reallocated to Iraq. 

So, you may not have a successful missle defense test ... oh, wait. OK, so you may not have a successful deployment of the Osprey .... well, that doesn't work either.

Some programs here in the States may suffer for lack of funds, but the troops would be able to deploy out of the combat zone in safety.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 1, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> See, here is what I mean. If he really is an "insane meglomaniac," I mean REALLY, then he could be impeached. Since he isn't, then we have to assume that as unpopular and possibly as bad as he is, he isn't bad enough for impeachment.See, here is what I mean. If he really is an "insane meglomaniac," I mean REALLY, then he could be impeached. Since he isn't, then we have to assume that as unpopular and possibly as bad as he is, he isn't bad enough for impeachment.



I have to ask the question: Is that how the impeachment process really works? Is there really that much logic to it? 

Without the benefit of encyclopedic knowledge of US history, I can only draw upon events in my lifetime. During that time, apart from the Bush presidency, I can recall only two other administrations when the subject came up seriously: Nixon's and Clinton's. Nixon left office mid-way through his second term if memory serves, and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford. Impeachment hearings for Clinton took place near the end of his second term, and _what happened?_ He sat in White House for a few months and then left. 

Ford probably had good reason to pardon Nixon. After the era of Kent State, Watergate, Vietnam, impeachment proceedings and possible criminal trials would have been disastrous to the American psyche. Lord knows how many years that would have dragged on.

Impeachment today? First of all, the Democratic Congress took it off the table -- what was it? -- the day after the mid-terms practically. So it never really was on the table; it was a ploy to get elected. The way I see it, for a Democratic Congress to impeach the current President, they would be re-inviting a lengthy discussion about Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq, particularly those who purportedly had access to the same intel the Oval Office did. How many Democratic Presidential hopefuls would be sunk?

It's one thing to impeach a President for lies or misdeeds emanating from the Oval Office; quite another to impeach the President for acts that Congress contributed to. I see impeachment in my lifetime as a matter of politics and opportunity, not a matter of a President's character or crimes.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 2, 2007)

M.Edwards and Upnorth;

You guys are assuming that with a budget cut, the administration would have to reallocate funds to buy time, and that they would at some point bring the troops out.

But, what is it in this administrations record and history that makes you think that they would decide to reallocate enough funds to keep our troops protected, or that they would opt to remove troops?

No, I don't think so. 

I think that their record and stance on this war points to the likelihood that they would keep troops in Iraq while allocating the bare minimum required to keep the war going. Furthermore, I think that bare minimum will be all they will have unless they significantly cut programs, which I don't see happening on a large enough scale.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 2, 2007)

Gordon Nore said:


> It's one thing to impeach a President for lies or misdeeds emanating from the Oval Office; quite another to impeach the President for acts that Congress contributed to. I see impeachment in my lifetime as a matter of politics and opportunity, not a matter of a President's character or crimes.


 
You may have a point on how impeachment has been used in the past; but that doesn't discount it as an available option for a legitiment abuse of power...


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> M.Edwards and Upnorth;
> 
> You guys are assuming that with a budget cut, the administration would have to reallocate funds to buy time, and that they would at some point bring the troops out.
> 
> ...


 
Two points.

We are back to an discussion of 'good leaders'.

And, I think the funds would be reallocated because I read the article that explained these contingency plans. SecDef Gates discussed these options in front of one of the committees earlier this summer. I have searched for the committee records and articles, but can't seem to lock in on the key words that filter out the chaff. And, the language in the Defense Appropriations bill specifically includes permission to reallocate funds as I described. 

The fact is, demonstrated with your position, is that politically, any Congressional Representative that attempts to act on the wishes of 75% -80% of the American people and stop this war,  will be portrayed as a traitor come October 2008.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Two points.
> 
> We are back to an discussion of 'good leaders'.
> 
> And, I think the funds would be reallocated because I read the article that explained these contingency plans. SecDef Gates discussed these options in front of one of the committees earlier this summer. I have searched for the committee records and articles, but can't seem to lock in on the key words that filter out the chaff. And, the language in the Defense Appropriations bill specifically includes permission to reallocate funds as I described.


 
If you can find info on that, make sure to post it. I'll look too. I actually hope your right on this, as my main concern is that soldiers on the ground are going to get appropriately taken care of regardless of what happends in Washington. I just can't hope something like that will be true without seeing the evidence.



> The fact is, demonstrated with your position, is that politically, any Congressional Representative that attempts to act on the wishes of 75% -80% of the American people and stop this war, will be portrayed as a traitor come October 2008.


 
Sadly, you are probably correct, and this will happen whether it is true or not. I don't know if my "position" demonstrates that, because I am not looking for an opportunity to call someone a traitor, I am just trying to get to the truth of the matter. Unfortunatily, the political game around election time is really more about the name calling then truth, and *** covering then responsibility. That is why the facts around these issues aren't as clear as they should be... :idunno:


----------



## Big Don (Oct 2, 2007)

The poll numbers that are quoted ad naseum are very misleading. 
Ask a few people if we should abandon Iraq at the cost of losing, damn few will say yes.


----------

