If YOU were in the House, how would YOU vote in today's $33B Afghan War funding?

[Stinky The Clown]

The question simple. It is "yes", "no", or "present".

Explanations for votes, of course, can be considerably more involved.

[unhappycamper]

1. No fucking way.

You can take that as a 'no'.

[Upton]

2. NO

[Bragi]

3. Big no from me! /nt

[Lost4words]

4. I would vote against additional funding of this phony war!

[Forkboy]

5. No

[Deep13]

6. The big "N."

:thumbsdown:

[prairierose]

7. NO............

It is past time for this disaster to end. Leave now before it get worse and destroys the army as that country has destroyed every army before ours.

It is and has been all about enriching war profiteers and not about security or any other "noble cause".

[gratuitous]

8. No.

The High Church of Redemptive Violence can go elsewhere looking for acolytes.

[Prism]

9. Nope. n/t

[mmonk]

10. No.

40 years of involvement in Afghanistan is probably enough. If the day hasn't been carried in that amount of time, it appears to be more a stituation of throwing good money after bad.

[RedCloud]

11. Hell No. We won't go!

[MineralMan]

12. No.

[hobbit709]

13. not only no but HELL NO!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. No.

[xiamiam]

15. No..war is unnecessary and uncivilized..nt

[immoderate]

16. I would vote NO. But that's just me.

A DU profile in courage.

--imm

[deminwi]

17. Absolutely not!!!

I would vote no. I wish we would bring a close to both wars and bring our people back home.

[TBF]

18. NO! and it's simply stunning on this website that people went from

anti-war under Bush to pro-war under Obama.

[bdamomma]

19. No

[bluethruandthru]

20. NO!!! n/t

[LWolf]

21. No. nt

[femmocrat]

22. I would only vote for enough money to bring the troops home. n/t

[truebrit71]

23. Yes. Get the job done. This is where the focus should have been all along.

There are some seriously bad guys that need to be eliminated and the US/Coalition Forces need whatever back-up they need to get the job done.

[Deep13]

24. I actually agree with that.

I just don't think it is possible to do any good anymore, or at least to do more good than harm.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Let's talk about that. You call them "bad guys". I assume you see it as I do, a rather small but . .

. . . deeply committed coterie of true believers. What good does a standing army do against a group like that? Might it not be better to do some good police and intelligence work and get them that way? What advantage does an army have over a concentrated surgical mission?

That question is not rhetorical. I hope we can have a discussion about it.

[truebrit71]

41. Good question. Can't the funding be used for both though?

I think that is sort of the overall plan isn't it? Have our guys train their guys how to do the job whilst at the same timne keep looking for the bad guys.

There is no "win" here, but "Lose" is definitely on the table if we simply up sticks and walk out..

[Stinky The Clown]

45. That theory would hold water were it not for the sheer numbers

How many seriously dangerous AQ are there?

10?

100?

1000?

10000?

How many? Probably in the 1000 range, but I don't know. The rest that make up the larger organization are, as in almost any such organization, not committed true believers and will fade away at the end.

So that leaves a very few. Our agents can use good police tactics to bring them down surgically.

The last thing we need is one and a half hundred thousand heavy boots under heavily armed and armored troops pounding *their* ground.

The numbers are one point (of several) that belies the need for an invading/occupying army.

Now, if one were using AG as a ruse to protect some other interests, then the more boots the better.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. Let me hop into my time machine and go back to late 2001 so I can agree with you.

Now? Not so much.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. No. We lost. Get out. Get over it.

[PADemD]

26. NO

[taught_me_patience]

28. No - War is bleeding the treasury dry.

[doc03]

29. No! Isn't that about the same as the unemployment extension

cost? Does that mean this has to be paid for?

[ladjf]

30. NO!

[Romulox]

31. I would vote "yes", then begin referring to myself as a "progressive"

whenever possible. Then I could say (with a straight face), "See? Progressives (like me!) support wars of aggression all the time."

[upi402]

34. No!

Now just stop that! lol


and NO to the Bush/Obama war.

[izquierdista]

32. Let me see if I can do this right...

NO!
Do I get the Ted Stevens award for being emphatic??

[jimlup]

33. No!

[madmom]

35. NO!!!

[Owl]

36. No!

[Donnachaidh]

37. no n/t

[grahamhgreen]

38. No, I do not want to be complicit in war crimes.

[mikelgb]

39. No

and may the noes have it

[frylock]

40. nay

[lame54]

42. bleed it dry

[bemildred]

43. No. nt

[Hawkeye-X]

44. FUCK NO.

The war has to be declared a loss, and I'm still wondering why the hell we're over there.

Both were countries with oil/oil pipelines. If those oil companies want their shit, hire mercenaries, not the US Government.

Therefore, the taxpayers of the United States would like to bill the entire defense budget to the private companies who profiteered. It's called windfall profit tax, set at 99.99%.

They can keep the penny.

Hawkeye-X

[AngryAmish]

46. thumbs down

Bring them home. Who gives a shit?

[Individualist]

47. NO!

[Bluebear]

48. Rep. Bluebear of New Hampshire votes nay.

[Raineyb]

49. No!

I cannot in good conscience look people in the eye, complain we don't have money to fix our unemployment problem, our health care problem, our infrastructure problems etc and then turn around and say we ought to fund this immoral war.

[Karmadillo]

50. Yes! My corporate ma$$$ter$$$ would love me more & if it looked like I might lose my seat,

I'd chant "Palin! Supreme Court! Support the Troops! Hurt the Poor! Teabaggers!" and magically, more than enough liberals would fall into line so I'd win. What a deal!

[bvar22]

52. No

Not just NO, but Fuck NO,
AND, I demand the return of all the other money wasted,
AND, I demand a full audit,
AND, I demand the prosecution of War Profiteers.

[Ignis]

53. Negatory, good buddy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

54. Not one more goddamn penny for this shit.

No more funding ever for any war that is not in the direct and actual defense of the United States of America, from an enemy that actually exists.

[demigoddess]

55. NO NO NO

bout time.

[golddigger]

56. NO!

[branders seine]

57. Not a fucking chance in hell.

No.

Ain't gonna happen.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[onethatcares]

58. no

nothing else needs to be said.

[cornermouse]

59. N. O. - NO!

[lonestarnot]

60. No fucking way!

[AnArmyVeteran]

61. Hell no!!!

[Eyerish]

62. Not just no,

but HELL NO!!

[kiva]

63. No. n/t

[HEyHEY]

64. Yes

We went in, we fucked that place up extra well and we have to stay and clean it up. It's our responsiblity.

[LostinRed]

65. NO!

[CreekDog]

66. No, it's time to start packing to go home

.

[Prometheus Bound]

67. No. Only 100 Al-qaeda left. We won the war. Time to go home.

I would keep repeating that in TV soundbites, rearranging the words slightly each time to make it sound different. Then I would call my fiends in the media and pay them to repeat that unrelentingly in headlines, bombarding the country and world with that meme until everyone started nodding in unison.

You know, the same thing I would do if I wanted to start a war, but in reverse.

[Catherina]

68. No way in hell. And I'm not voting for anyone who supported this. Ever again. n/t

[Naturyl]

69. NO.

And don't ever ask again.

[Ross K]

70. Uh wood b petreeotick

and say FUCK NO!!!