NationStates Jolt Archive

So, i logged on today to check some of the headlines. Lately many of us, at least americans, have seen stories about how the dems just passed their anti war bill. For those who dont know, bush submitted his budget which asked for 100 or so billion dollars for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. Added to that bill is a troop withdrawl date. So in order for bush to get his money, he must withdraw US troops from iraq. If he vetoes it, he loses the money. Bush is going to veto it. duh... What the hell were the american people thinking? the congress they voted into power in november just signed the death sentences for untold thousands of troops. The troops can only effectively fight the war with the last 70 billion until July. After that they're up shit's creek without a paddle. I know bush screwed up. But congress is going to kill more troops by restricting the ability to fight a war then bush ever could have. America has the strongest army in the world, when its funded. If the democrats acheive their goal of suspending funding for the war, god only knows how many thousands of troops will die because they dont have the money to fight. The war is sickening, but the fact that the people who so vehemantly oppose the war, just decided that they would strand the good men and women whom they claim to support is even worse. Oh and might i add that techincially congress has no power to decide when troops come home. Its called unconstitutional. Dont try to avoid it, in black and white in the constitution it says that the president is to be commander in chief of the armed forces. So not only are they literally going to kill thousands of US troops and god only knows how many innocent iraqi's, they're adding and illegal withraw date to their bill. and yeah...read the constitution, its illegal.

I thought that the bill asked for a withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq (Afghanistan is a NATO mission, and U.S. troops will probably not be withdrawn from there unless there was a general NATO withdrawal)? Maybe this was a different bill.

Adding it to the bill was genius. No funding = forced to bring them back.

They'll pass another funding bill.

But even if they didn't, the consequences of Bush contradicting the will of Congress, the Iraqi people, and the American people would be his own fault.

Or Bush could stop being an arrogant ass and to accept what Congress and the American people want. An end to the war in Iraq. He signs the bill, the troops get their money and will come home next March. Or he could doom the army to a lack of funds, force them to stay and fight and than shrug and blame the ebil Democrats for HIS denial of funding. Of course this is from a guy who didn't supply the troops sufficiently to begin with when he started his war.

I thought that the bill asked for a withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq (Afghanistan is a NATO mission, and U.S. troops will probably not be withdrawn from there unless there was a general NATO withdrawal)? Maybe this was a different bill.


was i not clear when i said afghanistand AND IRAQ...and what about when i said innocent iraqi's. uhhh...you sure you can read over there. and no, its not a different bill, its the same bullshit legislation thats been going through congress for a month.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif

So in order for bush to get his money, he must withdraw US troops from iraq. If he vetoes it, he loses the money. Bush is going to veto it. duh... What the hell were the american people thinking? the congress they voted into power in november just signed the death sentences for untold thousands of troops.

What, it's their fault Dubya's the sort of douche that would veto it? :rolleyes:

They'll pass another funding bill.

But even if they didn't, the consequences of Bush contradicting the will of Congress, the Iraqi people, and the American people would be his own fault.

uhh, do you understand how american government works. cuz i dont think you do. Funding is entirely out of bush's hands. the executive branch, in all its mystical powers, lacks the ability to get money for the war. If funding is cut off, he has no earthly way to stop that. It is legally impossible for bush to do anythign with iraq money. his hands are tied behind his back. cutting funding is entirely a legislative branch issue. democrats fault.

What, it's their fault Dubya's the sort of douche that would veto it? :rolleyes:

not his fault. its his constitutional duty to stop unconstitutional legislation. a bill that says when troops come home is not legal. congress has no power to say when troops come home. none...utterly none.

uhh, do you understand how american government works. cuz i dont think you do. Funding is entirely out of bush's hands. the executive branch, in all its mystical powers, lacks the ability to get money for the war. If funding is cut off, he has no earthly way to stop that. It is legally impossible for bush to do anythign with iraq money. his hands are tied behind his back. cutting funding is entirely a legislative branch issue. democrats fault.

*sigh* He meant CONGRESS will pass another funding bill.

So, i logged on today to check some of the headlines. Lately many of us, at least americans, have seen stories about how the dems just passed their anti war bill. For those who dont know, bush submitted his budget which asked for 100 or so billion dollars for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. Added to that bill is a troop withdrawl date. So in order for bush to get his money, he must withdraw US troops from iraq. If he vetoes it, he loses the money. Bush is going to veto it. duh... What the hell were the american people thinking? the congress they voted into power in november just signed the death sentences for untold thousands of troops. The troops can only effectively fight the war with the last 70 billion until July. After that they're up shit's creek without a paddle. I know bush screwed up. But congress is going to kill more troops by restricting the ability to fight a war then bush ever could have. America has the strongest army in the world, when its funded. If the democrats acheive their goal of suspending funding for the war, god only knows how many thousands of troops will die because they dont have the money to fight. The war is sickening, but the fact that the people who so vehemantly oppose the war, just decided that they would strand the good men and women whom they claim to support is even worse. Oh and might i add that techincially congress has no power to decide when troops come home. Its called unconstitutional. Dont try to avoid it, in black and white in the constitution it says that the president is to be commander in chief of the armed forces. So not only are they literally going to kill thousands of US troops and god only knows how many innocent iraqi's, they're adding and illegal withraw date to their bill. and yeah...read the constitution, its illegal.

It's legal. Congress gets to write the budget.

Also no troops will die if the US leaves Iraq. While the president gets to run the war, the congress decides when to declare war. Since the President lied to trick congress into declaring war it's only right that congress gets to revoke that declaration. Ending the funding of the war is one way of doing that.

Also, why does the Bush administration have so little respect for the troops that it's willing to send them to kill and die for absolutely no reason whatsoever? Why do they hate America and the troops so much?

Or Bush could stop being an arrogant ass and to accept what Congress and the American people want. An end to the war in Iraq. He signs the bill, the troops get their money and will come home next March. Or he could doom the army to a lack of funds, force them to stay and fight and than shrug and blame the ebil Democrats for HIS denial of funding. Of course this is from a guy who didn't supply the troops sufficiently to begin with when he started his war.

if troops come home the terrorists he created are going to mark their calendars. and while we probably wont have to fight them here, the iraqi's will be alone. God, people we started this bullshit war and its our fault for killing the troops. i know that, but i dont want my country to be directly responsible for the genocide that ensues if troops leave early. if he passes the withdraw date, he sets the date for the biggest bloodbath in mideast history. he's fucked either way.

if troops come home the terrorists he created are going to mark their calendars. and while we probably wont have to fight them here, the iraqi's will be alone. God, people we started this bullshit war and its our fault for killing the troops. i know that, but i dont want my country to be directly responsible for the genocide that ensues if troops leave early. if he passes the withdraw date, he sets the date for the biggest bloodbath in mideast history. he's fucked either way.

So...when are you enlisting, then?

It's legal. Congress gets to write the budget.

Also no troops will die if the US leaves Iraq. While the president gets to run the war, the congress decides when to declare war. Since the President lied to trick congress into declaring war it's only right that congress gets to revoke that declaration. Ending the funding of the war is one way of doing that.

Also, why does the Bush administration have so little respect for the troops that it's willing to send them to kill and die for absolutely no reason whatsoever? Why do they hate America and the troops so much?

and congress approved military action, bush is controlling the war, democrats are controlling the money. everything is ok. technically, but now the democrats arent giving money, bush cant control the war, troops die because they have no money. vicious circle, no?

The congress said that same thing, bush having so little respect. But CONGRESS are the ones who just cut off their fuding. Jesus, i know bush f'd up, but congress is only going to make it worse by not giving them money.

<nods> A fourth thread about this was completely necessary.

Congress gave them money. Bush vetoed it.

This is why the Consitution gave the power to fund the army to Congress and the power to command the army to the President. Limits the control and abuse of our brave men and women against us and the people of the world.

Though I personally disagree with what Congress is doing. I also disagree wit hthe way Bush is running the war as well. I think he should be running it like Gen. Patton would have: Napalm the whole middle east, send in massive troops (more than the pathetic 165,000 they had) and tell Europe and the liberals to stuff it ... that this ain't a football game".

If you're gonna conduct a war, make sure it's for the right reasons and make sure you do it right the first time.

and congress approved military action, bush is controlling the war, democrats are controlling the money. everything is ok. technically, but now the democrats arent giving money, bush cant control the war, troops die because they have no money. vicious circle, no?

The congress said that same thing, bush having so little respect. But CONGRESS are the ones who just cut off their fuding. Jesus, i know bush f'd up, but congress is only going to make it worse by not giving them money.

Congress is cutting off the funding to force the troops to come back home. What's so hard to understand about that? If the President decides to keep the troops in Iraq fighting with no cash, HE is responsible for those deaths, along with all the previous deaths. Not congress. If some scumbag terrorist demands money or he'll kill a hostage is it my fault when the hostage is killed because I don't want to fund terrorism?

Oh, by the way, most of the enemies in Iraq are insurgents fighting for a piece of the oil wealth or partial autonomy for their region. NOT Islamist terrorists.

Or Bush could stop being an arrogant ass and to accept what Congress and the American people want. An end to the war in Iraq. He signs the bill, the troops get their money and will come home next March. Or he could doom the army to a lack of funds, force them to stay and fight and than shrug and blame the ebil Democrats for HIS denial of funding. Of course this is from a guy who didn't supply the troops sufficiently to begin with when he started his war.

I'd like to second that on a more relaxed and kind note (removing the negative commentary).

If one wanted to promote democracy, they should abide by the wishes of the system America voted in. It's evident any more efforts in Iraq aren't going to amount to hardly anything though. We've spent trillions already and the only thing we have to show for it is terrorists who are now twice as determined to attack us, and a crappy camera shot of Saddam's execution. It's nice we have a sense of joy and charity towards the people over there... but in all honesty you can spend millions of dollars constructing dozens of schools, but it won't stop a single terrorist in our lifetime. You can build & arm Iraqi forces, but if they need us to hand feed them constantly - it's not their military, it's just men with guns who choose to follow American Soldiers all over the desert.

You can advise them on how to build a free society, but the only way it will succeed is through a strong enough passion, that empowers the effort with enough strength to get the job done. Soviet Russia tried to convert all kinds of countries to their form of government, after a while they realized the only way it'll stick is if they have a constant military occupation. America's not communist, but it's time that Bush at least gives that much credit to the situation.

if troops come home the terrorists he created are going to mark their calendars. and while we probably wont have to fight them here, the iraqi's will be alone. God, people we started this bullshit war and its our fault for killing the troops. i know that, but i dont want my country to be directly responsible for the genocide that ensues if troops leave early. if he passes the withdraw date, he sets the date for the biggest bloodbath in mideast history. he's fucked either way.

"Mark their calenders?" Do you honestly think these insurgents are going to stop fighting whether we leave or not? Or that the fighting is going to stop anytime soon? Unless you want us to be there for a very long time we are going to have to leave eventually. Besides, this is irrelevant, what matters is if Bush vetoes this bill and his funding dries up, if he leaves the troops in Iraq than it is BUSH who is at fault for the results. Keeping an army in the field without the proper equipment is intolerable and excusing Bush if he does this is simply criminal.

Though it is good to hear you admit that this war was bullshit. That is certainly something I wish everyone agreed with.

not his fault. its his constitutional duty to stop unconstitutional legislation. a bill that says when troops come home is not legal. congress has no power to say when troops come home. none...utterly none.

So much crock in such a small paragraph. Congress aren't the ones keeping them there with no money. Bush is. Not that I care about the fate of US soldiers, but still.

They won't still have their weapons? If they have no money won't they have to be withdrawn? And honestly I couldn't care less if they were killed. I hope the dems refuse funding until a deadline is passed. Bush should just let it go unsigned if he doesnt like it. This war has to end. If he wants to continue it, Halliburton can work for free and spend it's own stolen money on the war.

So, i logged on today to check some of the headlines. Lately many of us, at least americans, have seen stories about how the dems just passed their anti war bill. For those who dont know, bush submitted his budget which asked for 100 or so billion dollars for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. Added to that bill is a troop withdrawl date. So in order for bush to get his money, he must withdraw US troops from iraq. If he vetoes it, he loses the money. Bush is going to veto it. duh... What the hell were the american people thinking? the congress they voted into power in november just signed the death sentences for untold thousands of troops. The troops can only effectively fight the war with the last 70 billion until July. After that they're up shit's creek without a paddle. I know bush screwed up. But congress is going to kill more troops by restricting the ability to fight a war then bush ever could have. America has the strongest army in the world, when its funded. If the democrats acheive their goal of suspending funding for the war, god only knows how many thousands of troops will die because they dont have the money to fight. The war is sickening, but the fact that the people who so vehemantly oppose the war, just decided that they would strand the good men and women whom they claim to support is even worse. Oh and might i add that techincially congress has no power to decide when troops come home. Its called unconstitutional. Dont try to avoid it, in black and white in the constitution it says that the president is to be commander in chief of the armed forces. So not only are they literally going to kill thousands of US troops and god only knows how many innocent iraqi's, they're adding and illegal withraw date to their bill. and yeah...read the constitution, its illegal.

The dems are lefty and thus relativistic, they probably don't honor the constitution anymore, but then again neither do many Americans for they matter.

The dems are lefty and thus relativistic, they probably don't honor the constitution anymore, but then again neither do many Americans for they matter.

Wiretapping anyone?

Wiretapping anyone?

what for? I'm not a threat, I can't do anything against the masses overusing their "right" to break the rules nor can anyone else. The reasonable people are grievously outnumbered by belligerent minority groups hiding behind the 1st amendment in order to continue their operations in an attempt to meet their agendas.

well i disagree that this is the dems fault, its bush's he a dumbass, this way we can see some troops returning to the US, the americans have had it with bush and congress is trying see an end to the war but we are however running, if we do leave we have left something unfinished no matter how bad of a job bush did on it

what for? I'm not a threat, I can't do anything against the masses overusing their "right" to break the rules nor can anyone else. The reasonable people are grievously outnumbered by belligerent minority groups hiding behind the 1st amendment in order to continue their operations in an attempt to meet their agendas.

Now I know you're being sarcastic.

techincially congress has no power to decide when troops come home. Its called unconstitutional. Dont try to avoid it, in black and white in the constitution it says that the president is to be commander in chief of the armed forces.

Actually, it was specifically written so that, while the President decides what the army does, Congress decides whether or not they get to do anyhting at all. (Congressional approval is required for all military actions.). It is also designed so that Congress makes the budget to assure that the President doesn't get carried away againt the wishes of the nation's representatives. That happens to be the case here. Congress doesn't need to approve a budget at all according to the Constitution. Under those circumstances, Bush would simply have to bring the troops home.

However, it's more likely he wouldn't; that he would keep them there with quickly thinning rations and ammunitions so that he could say "look what you've done to them; give me funding now, because I'm not going to bring them home." Congress doesn't want to leave the troops hanging so they're giving them the budget, but attatching a condition to it. That's all perfectly legal.

So not only are they literally going to kill thousands of US troops

You are a god damn idiot.

Or Bush could stop being an arrogant ass and to accept what Congress and the American people want. An end to the war in Iraq. He signs the bill, the troops get their money and will come home next March. Or he could doom the army to a lack of funds, force them to stay and fight and than shrug and blame the ebil Democrats for HIS denial of funding. Of course this is from a guy who didn't supply the troops sufficiently to begin with when he started his war.Well, I do not think it should be called the Iraq war anymore it is more of a civil war now.