Iraq Supplemental Bill

[acejoca]

I just have a question for everyone. With that Iraq supplemental bill, how would one stop the war without defunding it. I believe i heard ron paul say its not congress's job to control how was the war is fought. how else would we stop it? Does congress have the power to end war? If so could they still vote on this iraq war since it wasnt declared though? Could you guys and gals explain this to me. Thanks.

Matthew

[mconder]

Congress can rescend the original authorization or can defund the war. Those are the two constitutional methods. Bush can do nothing, except in his own mind.

[acejoca]

does this mean that congress could make a new bill that says the war must end now and we have to bring the troops home now? I dont like the idea of defunding the war because I feel that bush would keep our underfunded troops there in danger and the media would make it congress's fault then inturn congresss would give money. i just couldnt see allowing our troops to get hurt even though it would be bush's fault and maybe eventually bush would bring them home but they would just have to suffer more without any funds ot buy needed supplies. also if congress has the power to just end the war why are the democrats offering to give bush any money. why not just end the war if thats what they really want. its obvious bush would veto any bill that defunded the war so why not just go all out.

[wwycher]

Congress can stop this war, they just don't want to. War promotes the state. It gives them more power. Why would they not want more power. They are lying to us if they say they don't want more power. Ron Paul reminds me of Maximus in the movie Gladiator when Marcus Arilius asks Maximus to be emperor to restore the Republic. Maximus replies he does not want to and Marus Arilius says "This is why it must be you."

[beermotor]

You have to understand - if they stopped funding the war, it would end, period. Bush wouldn't keep troops on the ground, because he would not be able to, period. No money for fuel, bullets, paychecks. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that our military personnel would continue to do their "mission" when they realized they were not being paid at all. They'd revolt. The commanders know better - no funds and they'd be organizing a full scale withdrawal in a heartbeat; no sense having a bunch of dead men on your hands, eh? Especially considering so many of those generals want to further their own political careers, post-military service.

People who talk about Congress "not funding the troops" as being traitors to those troops are simply ignoring logic and common sense. Explain it to 'em.

[beermotor]

As an addendum - always reiterate to people, MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. In this country, it's either (a) taxes or (b) credit. Credit takes the form of complicated securities deals with China and other Asian countries, mostly, plus the Arab petrodollar agreement. When there's shortfalls, and there has been a shitpile of them lately, guess what happens?

The FED prints more dollars.

Congressional "authorization" for spending basically means "FED, print some more dollars to pay for the President's war on the Arabs."