I'm not asking whether or not we should fund the war, whether we should cut&run, or whatever. This is a serious question, so please read it as such and nothing more. If the dems want a time line, why don't they fund the troops to the level of the time line they have in mind? That is, if they want the troops out in, say, 6 months, why don't they provide enough money, and only enough, to support that objective? And make it clear what it is they are funding. Then, wouldn't Bush be forced to used the funds in exactly that way? If Bush did not begin withdrawing troops according to the level of funding, then it would be Bush who would be putting the troops in danger, and he could not blame the dems.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Apr 26 2007, 10:49 PM) [snapback]430928[/snapback]</div> I believe they appropriate the money - the DoD can spend it how it sees fit - it is or will start drawing other money(s) to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from other portions of its budget. BTW- do the dhimocrats still want to fund the troops in Afghanistan? and what is their opinion of US troops in Germany, SoKo, England, and other foreign bases where they are in danger or in combat operations against our enemies?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 30 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]432601[/snapback]</div> We need the overseas bases to domicile our troops, since the current administration (under Rumsfeld) 'streamlined' the military...in part by closing facilities here at home. As a result, we actually don't have enough capacity to house the returning troops if they all came back today.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Apr 26 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]430928[/snapback]</div> That is exactly how the bill is written. It actually gives Bush more money than he asked for.
Oh no...it is so much more complicated than that. One cant cut funding to just one part or one operation. What needs to really happen is Haliburton would need to find a less expensive security force...but US troops are free. So why bother hiring mercenaries to protect your interests when you can use a governments army under the label of bringing democracy to get public support. Quite frankly I would be far more comfortable with a government and company that as just honest about it. We are going to take this country for its natural resources and other reasons, you as citizens will benefit from less expensive prices of natural resources and it will provide jobs ect. And for giggles they can say its benefiting the local populations by bringing "freedom" We as Americans freely elect openly corporatist people into government positions then act shocked and deny it...WHY?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 30 2007, 10:53 AM) [snapback]432630[/snapback]</div> Clinton "streamlined" the military thank you very much! That's how he reduced the budget enough to show a surplus. Well that and an incredible amount of frivolous investing in the tech sector.
Bush would veto it, and the dems lack the votes to override the veto. That's essentially where we are right now. The next step is a compromise between the white house and congress, otherwise the troops go unfunded. Tom
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Apr 30 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]432667[/snapback]</div> My point is about housing for our soldiers, domestically; not a general tirade about the damage done by the Clinton administration. Care to comment on this issue, specifically...the lack of domestic housing for our returning troops? Am I right or am I wrong?
I dont see how there is a lack of domestic housing due to troops coming home. Its not like they are all a bunch of homeless bums. Most of the soldiers I have encountered and know personally already have homes. Things called wives, families and yes even kids. Some of them are kids right out of mom and dads. My god, some of them when they are off duty still live at home...by the same note there are 35 year olds still living with there mothers so how and where lack of housing comes in? Most of them continue to pay rent on empty apartments while they are over there. Or there mortgages etc. So I have to say pinto girl, your are quite wrong in your assessment and expertise on US troop housing. One would think that they dont earn income based on such a statement. As for "damage" by the Clinton Admin. Todays military has become more efficient and less wasteful. If you look to the history books the ways war is fought and won has been changing ever since the first battles were ever though, Id cite examples but all wars and battles are examples of one idea winning over another. Also the way in witch the military is supposed to be used in this day and age it has won all its battles and objectives. Go in, quick strike, stop the enemy from waging war, and move on. Works really well with Clintons Army. In fact correct me if I am wrong but didnt bush himself claim we already won in Iraq like 3 years ago or something, maybe it was 4. Bush wants to expand troop size but its an unpopular war. No one wants to go, its lack of bush leadership and inefficient propaganda that is a failure here. He has had 7 years and look how its going. We are using a very efficient fighting machine to to the work of security guards and mercenaries.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 30 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]432630[/snapback]</div> If we assume for a moment you're not being facetious, I'd love a serious link to this seemingly crackpot theory.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 30 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]432601[/snapback]</div> Drug money was used to partially fund the Vietnam war under Nixon.The CIA's airline, Air America, was the smuggler.Those enterprising patriots then went to central America under Reagan and sold Cocaine and weapons to fund the Contras.Today the same spooks are sitting on the worlds largest supply of heroin in Afghanistan. If all funding were cut ,the Iraq war would not end.Maybe Bush would sell weapons to North Korea.
