The Cellar - Supporting the troops

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Supporting the troops (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13466)

Supporting the troops

Why is it that trying to stop our soldiers from getting killed is labelled "not supporting our troops", while treating those injured in the war poorly, is not?

Quote:

The Bush administration’s drive to privatize government services and its push to reduce veterans’ benefits may be the cause of the disaster at Walter Reed Hospital.

Media reports last week exposed conditions in the VA hospital system. Wounded or sick soldiers are often forced to wait months for much needed services. Patients at Walter Reed Hospital have been forced to live in crumbling rooms with rodent feces and mold, according to one story in the Washington Post.

...
According to the Army Times, the memo described how privatization caused as many as 250 members of the staff to leave in what appears to be a cost-cutting measure.

Ok, repubicans, learn from this.

Privatization = not always good.
When you ask someone to sacrifice for their country, don't dis them after they do.
Cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans means you don't have the funds to spend elsewhere, like taking care of our troops.
I don't want us to be in Iraq, but those who are there and those who have come back need to be rewarded.
:mad: :smack: :bitching:

"Rewarded" might be a poor choice of words for given their due. :confused:

I have been saying this for some time... the best support one can give is to help get them the hell out of there and get rid of BushCo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 319903)

"Rewarded" might be a poor choice of words for given their due. :confused:

I would like to see them get more than just "their due".

Have you all seen Jarhead? It's been on cable here a lot lately. Just wondered what the perception of average US citizens is. That is, do you believe it's an accurate depiction of what it's like to be a marine? (maybe a couple of you ex soldiers can clear this one up for me)

They're not allowed to tell you. You're not a Marine. :lol:

Well that's just stupid then isn't it? Don't you think???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 319983)

I would like to see them get more than just "their due".

What to you think they should be given, over and above, their due?
Does each soldier get the same?
Do they get a certain amount per war?... per tour?
By rank? Number of Dependants?
How would you do this? :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 320123)

Well that's just stupid then isn't it? Don't you think???

I can't tell you, you're not a monk. ;)

well bugger that with a barge pole

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 320125)

I can't tell you, you're not a monk.

Actually, I have thought about specifics. In general terms, though, these folks have not only put their lives on the line, they've been injured/wounded. They've earned our appreciation - more than a paperwork nightmare, denial of care, and a sustenance living.

This is how you support em'!

Quote:

Anti-war House Dems demand 'clear timeline' for pullout
POSTED: 1:27 p.m. EST, March 8, 2007
Story Highlights
• Anti-war House Democrats propose plan to have troops out of Iraq by late 2007
• These lawmakers challenge fellow Democrats to assume political risk on war
• Out of Iraq Caucus accuses White House of playing "chicken" with war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Anti-war lawmakers Thursday called on colleagues in the House of Representatives to set a "clear timeline" for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, challenging fellow Democrats to assume the political risk of ending the war.

In a press conference, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus proposed legislation that would require Congress fully to fund the safe and secure withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31, 2007.

"Four and half years ago the president asked to give war a chance, and despite our objections he got that chance and he blew it," said Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Illinois.

"No more chances. No more waivers. No phony certifications. No more spending billions of dollars to send our children into the meat grinder that is Iraq. It is time to spend the money to keep them safe and bring them home."

The groups' proposal comes as the Democratic House leadership unveiled a measure that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq by the fall of 2008 -- or by the end of this year if President Bush is unable to show the Iraqi government is meeting certain established benchmarks. (Full story)

The leadership's proposal is meant to bridge a divide among Democrats on how the party should address the war.

A growing number of Democratic House members are refusing to vote for more war spending, while more conservative members from states that have supported Bush worry that putting conditions on military funds could tie the hands of U.S. commanders on the ground.

The leadership proposal may not satisfy lawmakers who want an immediate withdrawal.

"[The leadership's] plan would require us to believe whatever the president would tell us about progress that was being made," said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California.

"This is same president that led us into a war with false information, [said there] no weapons of mass destruction, said we would be [welcome] with open arms, said that the mission had been accomplished. Now we expect him to give us a progress report in their plan by July?" she asked of the proposed measure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California.

"We want a simple plan. We want a plan that will fund the safe and secure exit of our troops from Iraq in a reasonable period of time and that's not asking too much," Waters said.

In a letter sent to House colleagues Wednesday, the Out of Iraq Caucus accused the Bush administration of playing a game of "chicken" with the war, "where whoever acts to bring a responsible end to their failed policy will be accused of having lost Iraq."

"There is no question that moving to stop this folly carries a political risk -- the accusation that Democrats gave up on the Vietnam War, despite all evidence that it was an unwinnable conflict, hurt the party's credibility on national security issues for a generation," the lawmakers wrote.

But they argue the costs of the war have become "unsustainable," damaging efforts to battle terrorism and costing more than $8 billion a month.

"The longer we allow the administration to delay meaningful movement, and the longer we fail to extract ourselves from this quagmire, the more dangerous this failed foreign policy becomes to America and the rest of the world," the lawmakers said.

The caucus claims to include about 75 House members -- nearly a third of the Democratic majority. The signers of Wednesday's letter included Reps. Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Sam Farr and Waters of California; and Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Maurice Hinchey of New York.

Support for the war has fallen sharply in the past two years, with published polls indicating about twice as many Americans oppose Bush's handling of the war as support it.

But since assuming control of Congress in January with what leaders called a mandate to change course in Iraq, Democrats have struggled to craft acceptable, binding legislation to force the administration to bring U.S. troops home.

Anticipating Republican accusations that its members want Congress to micromanage the military, the Out of Iraq Caucus said its proposal is "macromanagement." And it argues the move would force GOP representatives to defend their support for the ongoing conflict, "which is a debate that Democrats win every time."

The House passed a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's deployment of more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq in February. Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in supporting that resolution.

Measures rebuking the president on the war face a tougher battle in the Senate. Democrats in that body failed to garner the 60 votes they needed to consider a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's troop increase. The vote was 56-34, with seven Republicans crossing the aisle to vote with senators who oppose the troop buildup.

CNN's Andrea Koppel contributed to this report.

I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but I support our troops. They're doing shit because they don't have much of a choice, and I sure as hell wouldn't do it...so for that, I thank 'em.

I put a magnetic ribbon on the back of my car. What more do you want?

I want you to vote against war mongers.

That's easy enough for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 320021)

It was a fairly accurate portrayal. A good portrayal of STA. My experience with STA guys is that they're very smart and act very crazy. That might be changing now, though; they've moved all STA platoons out from under intel and into weapons companies.

--Joe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 321764)

Yes, but I consider that their due, not a reward or something extra. Every soldier should receive, the best and complete care, for any problem incurred while in the service. No buts, no excuses, no bullshit. And it should never be considered as an extra...standard equipment.:rtfm:

Perhaps Spexxvet should have said "more than what is now considered to be their due."

Actually he said they should be rewarded which sounded to me like they were getting a bonus for going to war. I said their due, inferring soldiers should get this care automatically. If you want to give them a medal or a box of chocolates, over and above, fine. But medical care is as basic as food and bullets.

This really chafes my ass. War or peace, it's part of the deal with them. We pay them less and supply room, board, medical, pension, and materiel. This is their basic contract with the government....with me. I don't renege on contracts. :mad: