What does "Supporting the Troops" mean?

[MikeK]

MikeK, 9thIDdoc, et al,

This is too funny.

[...]

The fighting the ME is no more or less immoral than our war against Japan for exactly the same reasons.

You probably have based this conclusion on the notion that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center is analogous to the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the following circumstances declare that reasoning to be flawed.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war by the military forces of a recognized nation. The attack on the World Trade Center was a monumental criminal act, not an act of war. If in his 1993 sabotage effort Ramseh Yousef had positioned his van in front of rather then behind a support column of World Trade Center Tower One the huge bomb inside would successfully have toppled that building onto several blocks of downtown Manhattan, which would have done more damage and caused more deaths than did the 9/11/2001 attack.

The 9/11 attack was not an act of war any more than was Ramseh Yousef's failed attempt to bring down Tower One, mainly because it was not implemented by the government of any recognized nation. It was a crime. A well-planned, well-executed criminal act, perpetrated by a loosely organized group of fanatical Islamists in response to America's support of Israel and our military presence on the holy ground of Mecca.

The Pearl Harbor bombing was effected by the air force of the Japanese Empire, a nation with the military capability to invade and occupy the United States. Our conflict with Japan was a war in every sense of the word. Our actions in the Middle East are, without exception, unnecessary military aggressions occurring far in excess of the need to retaliate for a crime committed by an elusive cult of religious fanatics.

(COMMENT)

US troops never went to Mecca or anywhere near it that I am aware.

This is a case of someone trying to make a justification where none is to be made. We are taking about barbaric Arab Islamic fundamentalist.

Most Respectfully,
R

(Excerpt)

[...]"The drastically reduced American profile could simplify the government's position among Saudis who espouse Osama bin Laden's contention that the American military foothold was an affront to the kingdom's sovereignty. For years, the American presence not far from Islam's two holiest sites, at Mecca and Medina, has provided Al Qaeda with an important rallying cry."[...]

Last American Combat Troops Quit Saudi Arabia - NYTimes.com

(Close)

The Prince Sultan airbase was established on holy ground in Saudi Arabia supposedly to facilitate H.W. Bush's 1990 air assault on Iraq (the "Gulf War"). The fact that it remained there for years rather than being promptly removed as promised was bin Laden's stated secondary provocation for the 9/11 attack, the primary provocation being U.S. support of Israel. If you'd like to read the PBS Frontline transcript of the 1998 interview in which bin Laden made this issue, demand, and threat quite clear, just ask and I'll post it.

The reason G.W. Bush is credited with "keeping us safe" from further attacks after 9/11 is he quietly complied with bin Laden's demands by removing the airbase and by pressuring Sharon to evict settlers from the Gaza region.

 

[RoccoR]

MikeK, et al,

I'm still confused. Prince Sultan Airbase is a 110 km Southeast of Riyadh, about 20 km outside the City of Khajr. (I've been there.)

Whereas, Mecca is nearly a 1000 km Southwest of Riyadh.

[...]"The drastically reduced American profile could simplify the government's position among Saudis who espouse Osama bin Laden's contention that the American military foothold was an affront to the kingdom's sovereignty. For years, the American presence not far from Islam's two holiest sites, at Mecca and Medina, has provided Al Qaeda with an important rallying cry."[...]

The Prince Sultan airbase was established on holy ground in Saudi Arabia supposedly to facilitate H.W. Bush's 1990 air assault on Iraq (the "Gulf War"). The fact that it remained there for years rather than being promptly removed as promised was bin Laden's stated secondary provocation for the 9/11 attack, the primary provocation being U.S. support of Israel. If you'd like to read the PBS Frontline transcript of the 1998 interview in which bin Laden made this issue, demand, and threat quite clear, just ask and I'll post it.

The reason G.W. Bush is credited with "keeping us safe" from further attacks after 9/11 is he quietly complied with bin Laden's demands by removing the airbase and by pressuring Sharon to evict settlers from the Gaza region.

(QUESTION)

So, am I to assume that the entire country of Saudi Arabia is 'Holy Ground" and Americans being anywhere in SA is contaminating Mecca?

(COMMENT)

Maybe we should have let Saddam Hussein take SA. That would have been and interesting Sunni-Shi'ite mix. I wonder how much better-off we would be?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[daveman]

Your "fail to learn" part is absolutely wrong. Bush did not demonize all Muslims (which isn't a race, retard),

Not demonizing "all" muslims, infers some muslim's were demonized. Which, in turn, blows your "absolutely wrong" theory out the window. At best, he was partially wrong.

He (correctly) demonized Islamic terrorists.

You leftards hated that, because you and the terrorists share the same enemy.

nor did he lie,

When he said, one of the reasons for going into Iraq was because Hussein wouldn't allow UN inspectors back into the country, at a time when UN inspectors were driving all around that country in white vans, wasn't a lie?

I suggest you don't know what the hell you're talking about. That's not at all surprising.

Iraq disarmament timeline 1990

nor was the invasion unprovoked.

Thanks for proving me correct!

What do you mean it wasn't un-provoked? You need to explain this point in more detail. How did Hussein provoke Bush, when Bush already had told the British he was going to attack Iraq in the first place?

Iraq was not in compliance with the terms of the GW1 cease-fire, nor with UNSC Resolution 1441.

Saddam thanks you for your mindless support, but regrets to inform you he's dead due to justice administered by the people he oppressed for decades.

You wept bitterly when he was hung, didn't you?

 

[MikeK]

MikeK, et al,

I'm still confused. Prince Sultan Airbase is a 110 km Southeast of Riyadh, about 20 km outside the City of Khajr. (I've been there.)

Whereas, Mecca is nearly a 1000 km Southwest of Riyadh.

[...]"The drastically reduced American profile could simplify the government's position among Saudis who espouse Osama bin Laden's contention that the American military foothold was an affront to the kingdom's sovereignty. For years, the American presence not far from Islam's two holiest sites, at Mecca and Medina, has provided Al Qaeda with an important rallying cry."[...]

The Prince Sultan airbase was established on holy ground in Saudi Arabia supposedly to facilitate H.W. Bush's 1990 air assault on Iraq (the "Gulf War"). The fact that it remained there for years rather than being promptly removed as promised was bin Laden's stated secondary provocation for the 9/11 attack, the primary provocation being U.S. support of Israel. If you'd like to read the PBS Frontline transcript of the 1998 interview in which bin Laden made this issue, demand, and threat quite clear, just ask and I'll post it.

The reason G.W. Bush is credited with "keeping us safe" from further attacks after 9/11 is he quietly complied with bin Laden's demands by removing the airbase and by pressuring Sharon to evict settlers from the Gaza region.

(QUESTION)

So, am I to assume that the entire country of Saudi Arabia is 'Holy Ground" and Americans being anywhere in SA is contaminating Mecca?

(COMMENT)

Maybe we should have let Saddam Hussein take SA. That would have been and interesting Sunni-Shi'ite mix. I wonder how much better-off we would be?

Most Respectfully,
R

You may assume what you wish. But perhaps you should share all this academic brilliance with Osama bin Laden. It might change his mind about attacking the World Trade Center.

 

[MikeK]

Maybe we should have let Saddam Hussein take SA. That would have been and interesting Sunni-Shi'ite mix. I wonder how much better-off we would be?

I agree completely!

In terms of our national interest there was no good reason to attack Iraq. Had we supported Hussein in attacking Saudi Arabia we would be sitting in the catbird seat today, paying .50 a gallon for gas.

There is no question that after securing Kuwait Saudi Arabia was next on Hussein's list. And it should be obvious why we set Hussein up and finished him off. That gold the Saudis hung around Bush's neck is a very small example of the motivation for the gulf War and the Iraq invasion. And the bastards got away with it without a peep from Obama.

 

[Billo_Really]

He (correctly) demonized Islamic terrorists.

You leftards hated that, because you and the terrorists share the same enemy.

You said I was "absolutely wrong", then provided proof that I was, at best, "partially wrong". Which makes your claim about me being "absolutely wrong", absolutely wrong!

I suggest you don't know what the hell you're talking about. That's not at all surprising.

Iraq disarmament timeline 1990

I suggest you do your homework before making dumbass statements like that.

while it may be impossible to say for certain what Bush believed about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, it can’t be argued that Bush didn’t know that Iraq declared that it had destroyed its WMD stockpiles and let U.N. inspectors in to see for themselves in the months before the invasion.

Nevertheless, Bush followed up his false pre-war claims about Iraq’s WMD with a post-invasion insistence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had barred U.N. inspectors from his country, a decision that Bush said left him no choice but to invade.

On July 14, 2003, Bush told reporters: “We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”

On Jan. 27, 2004, for example, Bush said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”

At a March 21, 2006, news conference, Bush again blamed the war on Hussein’s defiance of U.N. demands for unfettered inspections. “I was hoping to solve this [Iraq] problem diplomatically,” Bush said. “The world said, ‘Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.’ … We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did.”

In one of his White House exit interviews – on Dec. 1, 2008 – Bush again revived his convenient version of history, that Hussein was responsible for the invasion because he wouldn’t let the U.N. inspectors in. ABC News anchor Charles Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?” Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”

I just gave you 4 instances where Bush told that lie about Hussein not allowing UN inspectors into the country. Four!

Now, when did UN inspectors come back into Iraq? From your own link...

November 13, 2002
Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.
Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

So a full 5 months before the invasion, weapons inspectors were back in Iraq doing their job.

And when did they leave? From your own link again...

March 16, 2003
The leaders of the United States, Britain, Portugal and Spain meet at a summit in the Azores Islands. President Bush calls Monday, March 17, the "moment of truth", meaning that the "coalition of the willing" would make its final effort to extract a resolution from the U.N. Security Council that would give Iraq an ultimatum to disarm immediately or to be disarmed by force.

The United States advises U.N. weapons inspectors to leave Iraq.

Here we have on the one hand, Bush saying Iraq wouldn't let inspectors back in the country and on the other, telling them to get the fuck out of the country.

And you said I didn't know what I was talking about?

Iraq was not in compliance with the terms of the GW1 cease-fire, nor with UNSC Resolution 1441.

That wasn't Bush's call to make! It wasn't his decision. 1441 did not authorize the use of military force and that document ended with the line "the UN remains seized on the issue". You have know idea what that means, do you? It's the Security Counsel's way of declaring they are the authority having jurisdiction in this matter and all allegations of non-compliance shall be referred back to them for a decision. Bush had no legal right to unilaterally decide for the UN what to do.

Saddam thanks you for your mindless support, but regrets to inform you he's dead due to justice administered by the people he oppressed for decades.

You wept bitterly when he was hung, didn't you?

Attacking a country that did not attack you first, is not administering justice. And don't give me this bullshit about how you care for the Iraqi people, when I say that over 1,000,000 of them died as a result of the invasion, you automatically dismiss it as bullshit. If you really did care about them, you wouldn't "automatically" dismiss the report.

 

[Desperado]

Support Our Troops means that when they come back injured we make sure the government full fills their responsibility to take care of them. There should be absolutely no need for Trace Akins to go around begging for money for the Wounded Warrior Project. The fact that he or anyone else has to do this is a total embarrassment to our country. Supporting our troops means holding our government responsible to the health and well being of our returning vets.

 

[daveman]

He (correctly) demonized Islamic terrorists.

You leftards hated that, because you and the terrorists share the same enemy.

You said I was "absolutely wrong", then provided proof that I was, at best, "partially wrong". Which makes your claim about me being "absolutely wrong", absolutely wrong!

I'm sure it comforts your fearful little mind to pretend that.

I suggest you don't know what the hell you're talking about. That's not at all surprising.

Iraq disarmament timeline 1990

I suggest you do your homework before making dumbass statements like that.

I just gave you 4 instances where Bush told that lie about Hussein not allowing UN inspectors into the country. Four!

Now, when did UN inspectors come back into Iraq? From your own link...

So a full 5 months before the invasion, weapons inspectors were back in Iraq doing their job.

And when did they leave? From your own link again...

Here we have on the one hand, Bush saying Iraq wouldn't let inspectors back in the country and on the other, telling them to get the fuck out of the country.

And you said I didn't know what I was talking about?

Yup. You didn't prove anything. You just regurgitated leftist talking points -- and they bear little resemblance to reality.

Iraq was not in compliance with the terms of the GW1 cease-fire, nor with UNSC Resolution 1441.

That wasn't Bush's call to make! It wasn't his decision. 1441 did not authorize the use of military force and that document ended with the line "the UN remains seized on the issue". You have know idea what that means, do you? It's the Security Counsel's way of declaring they are the authority having jurisdiction in this matter and all allegations of non-compliance shall be referred back to them for a decision. Bush had no legal right to unilaterally decide for the UN what to do.

The UN was locked up because France, among other countries, had lucrative oil and equipment contracts signed with Saddam. No Saddam, no contracts.

France didn't oppose the war out of any lofty notions of the value of peace. They opposed it "for the oil!!"

But your lefty echo chambers never told you that, did you?

Saddam thanks you for your mindless support, but regrets to inform you he's dead due to justice administered by the people he oppressed for decades.

You wept bitterly when he was hung, didn't you?

Attacking a country that did not attack you first, is not administering justice. And don't give me this bullshit about how you care for the Iraqi people, when I say that over 1,000,000 of them died as a result of the invasion, you automatically dismiss it as bullshit. If you really did care about them, you wouldn't "automatically" dismiss the report.

Yes, you DID cry when Saddam was hanged -- by his own people.

They knew more about it than you did, boy. I know you drooling idiot lefties never met a dictator you didn't love, but you weren't living under his rule. They were, and gave him what he deserved.

Now go cry about it some more. Light a candle on your shrine to Saddam.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm sure it comforts your fearful little mind to pretend that.

Commenting on your what you said, is not pretending. You provided the material, I merely put it in perspective.

Yup. You didn't prove anything. You just regurgitated leftist talking points -- and they bear little resemblance to reality.

I provided statements by George Bush that are a matter of public record and I used your own source to prove when inspectors came in (and left) the country.

How is a link you provided, a "leftist talking point"?

The UN was locked up because France, among other countries, had lucrative oil and equipment contracts signed with Saddam. No Saddam, no contracts.

France didn't oppose the war out of any lofty notions of the value of peace. They opposed it "for the oil!!"

But your lefty echo chambers never told you that, did you?

WTF does that have to do with the fact 1441 didn't authorize military force and it wasn't Bush's call to decide for the UNSC whether (or not) Hussein was in breach of that resolution?

Yes, you DID cry when Saddam was hanged -- by his own people.

They knew more about it than you did, boy. I know you drooling idiot lefties never met a dictator you didn't love, but you weren't living under his rule. They were, and gave him what he deserved.

Now go cry about it some more. Light a candle on your shrine to Saddam.

You talk like a 10 year old!

 

[Mushroom]

Support Our Troops means that when they come back injured we make sure the government full fills their responsibility to take care of them. There should be absolutely no need for Trace Akins to go around begging for money for the Wounded Warrior Project. The fact that he or anyone else has to do this is a total embarrassment to our country. Supporting our troops means holding our government responsible to the health and well being of our returning vets.

We Veterans are used to the Government breaking it's promise to us. In fact, it is so routine that there are a great many Veteran Organizations that do nothing but try and get the Government to stand up to's own promises.

And it still breaks them. Last year the President ordered a large increase to the PELL Grant, and took the money from the Veterans Education fund. For me this was just another broken promise laid upon a string of broken promises. But I am used to it, and know it will happen again and again and again.

In 1990, President Bush authorized this great retraining program for veterans who get out with few marketable job skills. Specifically those like me who were combat arms, which our skills were largely unuseable in the civilian sector. Then along comes 1993, and I am left on the beach because of injury and the new administration. I apply for the program, and am told there is a 9 month backlog. Seems that our new President has decided that this program would be great to help retrain all the out of work aerospace workers who have been laid off as well.

So I finally get my appointment, and am waiting in the office with guys from Boeing and Rockwell, one even has a PHD in Aeronautical Engineering. I am there for my first appointment, he is in for his 6 month progress report, as he is being retrained to be a computer networking specialist. Well, I finally see the case worker, who tells me that I am unable to use the program because the budget is now empty, and congress has killed it.

I have seen that kind of BS far to often. Go to the VA, get denied. Keep pushing and they might give you the absolute minimum care they can get away with. Find out about a new education or training benefit, apply as soon as you can, cause sure as flies attract shite, it will either be cut to pad some civilian sector benefit, or expanded to let in 10 millian civilians and leave the veterans with nothing.

The reason why programs like Wounded Warrior exist is to help protect those who have been injured the most from the Government that claims to support them. They become a one-stop-shop for the needed assistance, without 10,000 layers of red tape and beauro-rats who live to tell somebody no.

Because the simple fact is, these programs are all set up by politicians who then have to answer to and support their constituants. And with less then 10% having ever served, Veterans are a very minor care for them. They want to see A done, and then see B military program which may be under-used, so the solution to them is often combine A and B.

For example, look at one of the great programs we have available now, VRAP.

Or as I call it, "V-CRAP".

Oh, sounds good, "Veterans Retraining Assistance Program". It helps retrain veterans, right? Wrong. What are the pre-qualifiers?

•Are at least 35 but no more than 60 years old
•Are unemployed on the date of application
•Received an other than dishonorable discharge
•Are not be eligible for any other VA education benefit program (e.g.: the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Montgomery GI Bill, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Assistance)
•Are not in receipt of VA compensation due to unemployability
•Are not enrolled in a federal or state job training program

OK, now wait a minute. In order to qualify you must have no job, not eligable for any other VA program, and be between 35-60. Well, sucks if you are 30, or are getting compensation for PTSD. How many applicants do they accept? Well, at this time they accept 54,000 participants.

At this time, almost 90,000 have applied to use this benefit. So hopefully some will actually get into it before it is cut like so many others have been.

Oh, and this is financed by your Veterans. Yep, the money for this program comes from an increase in fees paid to the VA by applicants that use the VA Home Loan Program.

But it is almost impossible to "hold the government accountable", because they all live to pass the buck. You have Veterans with problems, and to the Government they are just another number. We know that trying to fight the VA is an absolute freaking nightmare, and if we ever try to apply through any other agency, they will just kick us right back out and tell us to go to the VA.

Trust me, been there, done that, got the brass ring.

 

[Billo_Really]

We Veterans are used to the Government breaking it's promise to us. In fact, it is so routine that there are a great many Veteran Organizations that do nothing but try and get the Government to stand up to's own promises.

And it still breaks them. Last year the President ordered a large increase to the PELL Grant, and took the money from the Veterans Education fund. For me this was just another broken promise laid upon a string of broken promises. But I am used to it, and know it will happen again and again and again.

In 1990, President Bush authorized this great retraining program for veterans who get out with few marketable job skills. Specifically those like me who were combat arms, which our skills were largely unuseable in the civilian sector. Then along comes 1993, and I am left on the beach because of injury and the new administration. I apply for the program, and am told there is a 9 month backlog. Seems that our new President has decided that this program would be great to help retrain all the out of work aerospace workers who have been laid off as well.

So I finally get my appointment, and am waiting in the office with guys from Boeing and Rockwell, one even has a PHD in Aeronautical Engineering. I am there for my first appointment, he is in for his 6 month progress report, as he is being retrained to be a computer networking specialist. Well, I finally see the case worker, who tells me that I am unable to use the program because the budget is now empty, and congress has killed it.

I have seen that kind of BS far to often. Go to the VA, get denied. Keep pushing and they might give you the absolute minimum care they can get away with. Find out about a new education or training benefit, apply as soon as you can, cause sure as flies attract shite, it will either be cut to pad some civilian sector benefit, or expanded to let in 10 millian civilians and leave the veterans with nothing.

The reason why programs like Wounded Warrior exist is to help protect those who have been injured the most from the Government that claims to support them. They become a one-stop-shop for the needed assistance, without 10,000 layers of red tape and beauro-rats who live to tell somebody no.

Because the simple fact is, these programs are all set up by politicians who then have to answer to and support their constituants. And with less then 10% having ever served, Veterans are a very minor care for them. They want to see A done, and then see B military program which may be under-used, so the solution to them is often combine A and B.

For example, look at one of the great programs we have available now, VRAP.

Or as I call it, "V-CRAP".

Oh, sounds good, "Veterans Retraining Assistance Program". It helps retrain veterans, right? Wrong. What are the pre-qualifiers?

•Are at least 35 but no more than 60 years old
•Are unemployed on the date of application
•Received an other than dishonorable discharge
•Are not be eligible for any other VA education benefit program (e.g.: the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Montgomery GI Bill, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Assistance)
•Are not in receipt of VA compensation due to unemployability
•Are not enrolled in a federal or state job training program

OK, now wait a minute. In order to qualify you must have no job, not eligable for any other VA program, and be between 35-60. Well, sucks if you are 30, or are getting compensation for PTSD. How many applicants do they accept? Well, at this time they accept 54,000 participants.

At this time, almost 90,000 have applied to use this benefit. So hopefully some will actually get into it before it is cut like so many others have been.

Oh, and this is financed by your Veterans. Yep, the money for this program comes from an increase in fees paid to the VA by applicants that use the VA Home Loan Program.

But it is almost impossible to "hold the government accountable", because they all live to pass the buck. You have Veterans with problems, and to the Government they are just another number. We know that trying to fight the VA is an absolute freaking nightmare, and if we ever try to apply through any other agency, they will just kick us right back out and tell us to go to the VA.

Trust me, been there, done that, got the brass ring.

You know, if the Pentagon spent more taxpayer dollars on the caring for their vets,
instead of the re-construction of some 3rd world nation we happen to have destroyed,
I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

If I was President, every veteran would get:

• a house, free of charge, in the state of their choosing
• all the medical coverage they need for the rest of their lives
• the GI Bill
• un-employment subsidies (without pre-conditions)

And to pay for that, I would:

• cut the defense budget in half
• end all the wars we're fighting
• close most of our over 800 bases around the world
• end the drone programs
• eliminate the Dept of Homeland Security
• prosecute defense contractors guilty of defrauding the government

 

[daveman]

I'm sure it comforts your fearful little mind to pretend that.

Commenting on your what you said, is not pretending. You provided the material, I merely put it in perspective.

Yup. You didn't prove anything. You just regurgitated leftist talking points -- and they bear little resemblance to reality.

I provided statements by George Bush that are a matter of public record and I used your own source to prove when inspectors came in (and left) the country.

How is a link you provided, a "leftist talking point"?

The UN was locked up because France, among other countries, had lucrative oil and equipment contracts signed with Saddam. No Saddam, no contracts.

France didn't oppose the war out of any lofty notions of the value of peace. They opposed it "for the oil!!"

But your lefty echo chambers never told you that, did you?

WTF does that have to do with the fact 1441 didn't authorize military force and it wasn't Bush's call to decide for the UNSC whether (or not) Hussein was in breach of that resolution?

Yes, you DID cry when Saddam was hanged -- by his own people.

They knew more about it than you did, boy. I know you drooling idiot lefties never met a dictator you didn't love, but you weren't living under his rule. They were, and gave him what he deserved.

Now go cry about it some more. Light a candle on your shrine to Saddam.

You talk like a 10 year old!

I'm not the one crying because my hero was executed, am I?

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm not the one crying because my hero was executed, am I?

Like I said, you talk like a 10 year old.

How's that crow taste?

 

[Mushroom]

You know, if the Pentagon spent more taxpayer dollars on the caring for their vets,
instead of the re-construction of some 3rd world nation we happen to have destroyed,
I wouldn't have such a problem with it.

Sorry, comprehension fail here.

The Pentagon has nothing to do with Veterans. Nada, zip, zilch, nothing.

Once somebody leaves the military, they are passed from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. A completely seperate Cabinet level position.

So no, it is not the job of the "Pentagon" (in reality the DoD) to take care of Veterans, that is the job of the Department of Veterans Affairs. You could cut the DoD budget to nothing, and it would not have a single thing to do with the military.

But the DVA gets robbed constantly to help give funding to this special interest program (think "Pell Grant"), or that program, and nobody really gives a damn.

They would rather just screw over the Veterans, and get them all to sign up for welfare and become lifelong dependents on that system. And one way to encourage that is to screw us out of the benefits we served and worked to earn.

Sorry, but it constantly pisses me off when I hear about some "welfare mom" who was a crackhead and prostitute who is able to get a college degree on my dime, yet at the same time seeing some combat vet who serves his country honorably and gets wounded can't even get his or her promised benefits because some politician wants to play games with the bank account to serve their own special interests.

Wanna cry? Do some checking into all the veterans who paid money to invest in the "Montgomery GI Bill". Only to now learn that that program is pretty much dead, replaced by the "9/11 GI Bill".

Thanks for that year of $100 a month payments, you get the same benefits now that Joe Schmo gets that paid $0, and don't ask for a refund.

Like most Leftists, you like to point the finger at your favorite boogieman. However, the actual problem is not the DoD at all, it is the VA, which is almost the ultimate expression of everything wrong with "Entitlement Programs".

 

[daveman]

I'm not the one crying because my hero was executed, am I?

Like I said, you talk like a 10 year old.

How's that crow taste?

What crow? I haven't been exposed as a dictator-loving idiot. That would be you.

 

[yidnar]

Cindy Sheehan's son died because Bush was so cavelier about soldiers lives, that he put them in harms way over a bunch of fictional bullshit. Her son died, defending lies!

I support the troops by only wanting them to be used as a last resort when there are no other options on the table. That's what this country owes them. And that's what this country has failed to deliver.

Cindy Sheehan's son VOLUNTEERED. This is what HE wanted to do. It's too bad he died, but he knew what could happen and he went. My son volunteered right after the war started, he's training in PSY OPS right now....and he said if anything happened to him he would NEVER want me to do what she did! You cannot blame anyone when her son made this decision himself and was not forced (drafted). Bush didn't take him by the arm with a gun to his head and send him over there!

you are a leftwing piece shit !!

 

[Billo_Really]

Cindy Sheehan's son VOLUNTEERED. This is what HE wanted to do. It's too bad he died, but he knew what could happen and he went. My son volunteered right after the war started, he's training in PSY OPS right now....and he said if anything happened to him he would NEVER want me to do what she did! You cannot blame anyone when her son made this decision himself and was not forced (drafted). Bush didn't take him by the arm with a gun to his head and send him over there!

But he did send him over there and it wasn't to defend this country.

I can blame the leaders who decided to put American troops in harms way for the benefit of corporate interests and at the expense the the American taxpayer. How much money have we spent on this bullshit GWOT? It's over $4 trillion.

What did we get in return?

 

[Billo_Really]

you are a leftwing piece shit !!

And you're an un-American asshole!

 

[Billo_Really]

Sorry, comprehension fail here.

The Pentagon has nothing to do with Veterans. Nada, zip, zilch, nothing.

Once somebody leaves the military, they are passed from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. A completely seperate Cabinet level position.

So no, it is not the job of the "Pentagon" (in reality the DoD) to take care of Veterans, that is the job of the Department of Veterans Affairs. You could cut the DoD budget to nothing, and it would not have a single thing to do with the military.

But the DVA gets robbed constantly to help give funding to this special interest program (think "Pell Grant"), or that program, and nobody really gives a damn.

They would rather just screw over the Veterans, and get them all to sign up for welfare and become lifelong dependents on that system. And one way to encourage that is to screw us out of the benefits we served and worked to earn.

Sorry, but it constantly pisses me off when I hear about some "welfare mom" who was a crackhead and prostitute who is able to get a college degree on my dime, yet at the same time seeing some combat vet who serves his country honorably and gets wounded can't even get his or her promised benefits because some politician wants to play games with the bank account to serve their own special interests.

Wanna cry? Do some checking into all the veterans who paid money to invest in the "Montgomery GI Bill". Only to now learn that that program is pretty much dead, replaced by the "9/11 GI Bill".

Thanks for that year of $100 a month payments, you get the same benefits now that Joe Schmo gets that paid $0, and don't ask for a refund.

Like most Leftists, you like to point the finger at your favorite boogieman. However, the actual problem is not the DoD at all, it is the VA, which is almost the ultimate expression of everything wrong with "Entitlement Programs".

Thanks for the correction.

So I'll revise my statement this way,

"As President, I'll cut the defense budget in half and use some of that money help the Dept of Veteran Affairs care for the veterans who served their country."​

Everything you said was pretty good, except for the last part, which was bullshit.

 

[daveman]

you are a leftwing piece shit !!

And you're an un-American asshole!

Coming from a dictator-lover like you, that's absolutely meaningless.