If Bush Vetos the war spending bill...
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
Does that mean he cant get the 124 billion promised to him in the bill?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Yes. Veto means no go.
The bad thing is... the soldiers need the money. Their equipment needs to be repaired and/or replaced. You know that the President will not reduce the staff... like companies reduce their staff... if the money isn't there. The troops will be made to 'make do' with what they've got. As the politicians bicker about this and that... the guys in the shitmire just have to deal with it.
...
It really IS time to shut down this operation. It is a failure and no one has a good idea on how to fix it. I think that if we are really serious about 'winning' this thing... we need about 300,000 to 4000,000 quality troops on the ground in order to provide overall security throughout the country. QUALITY troops, not Shi'ite Death Squad militias. We are playing a game of 'Whack-a-Mole' over there... surge in Baghdad and the troublemakers pop up somepleace else. We need a hammer on each hole in order to get this thing up and running. But, no one wants this... more troops... more money. So, if no one wants this... get our guys out of that shithole.
Hail, Hail!!!
The problem with that... oil. Who gets the oil?
And the Iraqis are the ones who need to decide this... not us... not the U.N.... them. Until they figure this out, no amount of outside military force or tactics will change their mindset and/or culture. The only way to make Iraq look like Kansas is to kill everyone in Iraq and move everybody in Kansas to Iraq.
Hail, Hail!!!
I go back and forth on Biden with a lot of things, but he has consistently made the most sense to me on Iraq.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln