Why does Bush & McCain Hate their soldiers?

[CaptainManacles]

To set you straight, my thoughts are anyone serving a single combat tour should get a full ride.

Yes Darth, any school. In fact, combat vets should get priority over other applicants. They earned it. If you want to go to Harvard, and you put your life on the line, you’re in. Fully paid by the government.

So now government is not only in the business of financing their education, but making the school's entrance decisions for them? And they get to go even if they clearly won't pass or be able to understand the material, even if they push out other bright canidates who might have cured cancer or paralysis, but instead end up working at McDonalds for the rest of their lives, just because the soldier "deserved it" more? What about other dangerous proffessions? If laying your life on the line for any period of time should get you a full ride, then why not every profesion with such a risk?

You're entire worldview seems to be dominated by unrealistic platitudes. Yes, it would be cool if the world was fair and magic bags of money dumped out of mid-air for every person who deserved it, but it just doesn't work that way. Every time you force someone into a university you're forcing someone else out, besides destroying the basic concepts that those people are putting their life on the line for.

funnel money to friends (you have to love no-bid contracts)

No-bid contracts are often how things are done for such projects, and rightly so. You don't give the reconstruction of Iraq to the company willing to do it for the cheapest. You give it to whoever you know will do the job correctly. And these accusations reveal a gross ignorence of how these proccesses work. Haliburton wasn't the winner in that situation. Many other companies made much more money off of the Iraq project.

 

[Darth Rotor]

To set you straight, my thoughts are anyone serving a single combat tour should get a full ride.

Then write your Congressman and suggest just that. If you pull it off, I'll do more than buy you a beer. Telling me gets your idea nowhere. While my emotional feel is "yeah, what a great idea" it rather flies in the face of the original purpose of the GI Bill, and its resurrection.

I am fairly well versed in how the GI Bill works, and am a familiar with the matter of finite amounts of money and entitlements.

The GI Bill is one such.

See my comments for the idea on boosting the cap for a combat tour, or per tour. That might be within the realm of the fiscally possible.

The rest of your post is not worth commenting on, since I live in the real world.

For Aardvark: suggest you look up the GI Bill, the benefits, and the history behind it. Local Army educational office can help you there. My suggestion is just that, a suggestion based on trying to tip the dollars to those who ate the biggest turd sandwich. If you find that unfair, I don't know what to say to you.

DR

 

[SteveGrenard]

by Mark Silva

Sen. John McCain's campaign and allies rallied to the defense of McCain's televised comment today that an estimate for American troop withdrawals from Iraq is "not too important,'' and Democrats pounced on the Republican for displaying what they want to portray as little concern for the forces serving there.

"Appearing on NBC's Today show, McCain was asked if he has an estimate for when U.S. troops might leave Iraq.

"No, but that's not too important," McCain replied. "What's important is casualties in Iraq... Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. ... But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_iraq_withdrawal_not_too.html


I wonder how McCain's kid feels about this?

McCain has proved again his total disregard for the troops. He also fails to understand the difference between Korea, Germany and Japan and being in Iraq. Incredible....

 

[CaptainManacles]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_iraq_withdrawal_not_too.html


I wonder how McCain's kid feels about this?


McCain has proved again his total disregard for the troops.

What, that he wants soldiers to live? What he said was that stopping casualties is more important than withdrawing. We have bases all over the world. Being deployed outside the US isn't the problem, dying is the problem. The problem you seem to have is that McCain is a soldier, he understands the situation and you don't.

He also fails to understand the difference between Korea, Germany and Japan and being in Iraq. Incredible....

No, he was pointing out the difference. Learn to read.

 

[Sefarst]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_iraq_withdrawal_not_too.html


I wonder how McCain's kid feels about this?

McCain has proved again his total disregard for the troops. He also fails to understand the difference between Korea, Germany and Japan and being in Iraq. Incredible....

So John McCain has not only total disregard for his sons (Doug McCain was a Navy Pilot in the 1980's and Jimmy McCain is serving in Iraq), but he has total disregard for himself (a former "troop"), his father (a four star Navy Admiral), his grandfather (another four star Admiral), his fellow veterans and all men and women currently in the military? Do you ever reread your posts and realize how ridiculous you sound?

As has been pointed out, you're irritated because John McCain understands the military and you don't.

The re-imaging campaign being attempted by the Democrats this cycle is staggering. John "locked in a cage and beaten for five years in a POW camp" McCain is being painted as a warmonger and someone who has "total disregard for our troops." John McCain, famous for breaking with fellow Republicans and working with Democrats on key legislation and criticizing the White House, is being painted as "Bush's third term."

I can't wait to see what you guys will cook up next.

 

[SteveGrenard]

So John McCain has not only total disregard for his sons (Doug McCain was a Navy Pilot in the 1980's and Jimmy McCain is serving in Iraq), but he has total disregard for himself (a former "troop"), his father (a four star Navy Admiral), his grandfather (another four star Admiral), his fellow veterans and all men and women currently in the military? Do you ever reread your posts and realize how ridiculous you sound?

Iraq has nothing to do with McCain's personal experience mainly because the war in which he was so tragically involved was lost to the guerilla fighters of VietNam. Ditto for his
family history. Insofar as his son is concerned, you should know that the Iraq vets and the active duty soldiers hang on to every word uttered by our leaders here at home. The mere fact that coming home is "not important" so long as they don't get hurt, believe me, really hurts. You will be hearing more on this from veterans as the day go on. Try Countdown tonight on MSNBC.

As has been pointed out, you're irritated because John McCain understands the military and you don't.

I am really irritated because McCain has said, already, we could be in Iraq for a hundred years, then backtracked and now is back tracking his backtrack. Americans in Iraq are
flypaper for alQueda and insurgents/AlQueda is attarcted to them like flies. They will not go away unless we do. This has been proven in Saudi Arabia. These paranoid fanatic extremist psychopaths are offended by anything you can think of including and especially the presence of American forces in their "soverign" muslim nations. They will not change no matter how many political solutions there are or locals we train.

The re-imaging campaign being attempted by the Democrats this cycle is staggering. John "locked in a cage and beaten for five years in a POW camp" McCain is being painted as a warmonger and someone who has "total disregard for our troops." John McCain, famous for breaking with fellow Republicans and working with Democrats on key legislation and criticizing the White House, is being painted as "Bush's third term."

Viet Nam was a holdover from the cold war, communists against Catholics, how could JFK turn the Catholics down? It was a different war and we lost it and we are no longer there. The conflicts with Germany, Japan and Korea were not based on the same sort of religious fanaticism we are enduring now in Iraq.

I think the handwriting is pretty clear on the wall ... McCain is talking more like Bush every day so this is why he's being painted as Bush's third term. As a republican I would like nothing better than to be able to vote for McCain ...I have plenty of problems with Obama
which you can well imagine but yet again, darn it, I am faced with no choice at all.

 

[Sefarst]

Iraq has nothing to do with McCain's personal experience mainly because the war in which he was so tragically involved was lost to the guerilla fighters of VietNam. Ditto for his
family history.

In case you hadn't noticed, many of the tactics being used in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are guerilla tactics. But this is really neither here nor there, we're talking combat experience. And I'm not saying Iraq has something to do with McCain's personal experience, I'm saying WAR has a lot to do with McCain's personal experiences. What you're telling me is that, if a general proves himself to be resourceful and a good leader fighting in one part of the world, it means nothing about his ability to fight in another part of the world, regardless if the tactics in both wars are similar.

Insofar as his son is concerned, you should know that the Iraq vets and the active duty soldiers hang on to every word uttered by our leaders here at home. The mere fact that coming home is "not important" so long as they don't get hurt, believe me, really hurts. You will be hearing more on this from veterans as the day go on. Try Countdown tonight on MSNBC.

Seeing as how John McCain has been to Iraq, spoken with many soldiers, his son included, I'm going to trust him to tell me what his words mean rather than a rant from Keith Olberman.

I am really irritated because McCain has said, already, we could be in Iraq for a hundred years, then backtracked and now is back tracking his backtrack.

Where did he backtrack? Do you honestly believe that a presidential candidate was going to try and win an election by telling the American people that he wants to fight a hundred year war? McCain explained his position and has explained it time and time again.

McCain has plainly stated that casualties are what matter, not presence in terms of public opinion. Guess what? He's right. Ask yourself why the American people have accepted a troop presence in Japan, Germany and Korea for the last 50-60 years. Tell me if Keith Olberman or Barack Obama are going to put together a rant to yell about our troop presence there. You've been accusing McCain of backtracking while, in the same breath, confirming everything he's been saying.

Americans in Iraq are
flypaper for alQueda and insurgents/AlQueda is attarcted to them like flies. They will not go away unless we do. This has been proven in Saudi Arabia. These paranoid fanatic extremist psychopaths are offended by anything you can think of including and especially the presence of American forces in their "soverign" muslim nations. They will not change no matter how many political solutions there are or locals we train.

Now who's fear mongering? Should Osama bin Ladin dictate whether or not our government and the government of Saudi Arabia agree to have military bases on Saudi soil? Am I suppose to support withdrawal of American interests in the Middle East because terrorist psychopaths might be offended and try to kill me?

I think the handwriting is pretty clear on the wall ... McCain is talking more like Bush every day so this is why he's being painted as Bush's third term. As a republican I would like nothing better than to be able to vote for McCain ...I have plenty of problems with Obama
which you can well imagine but yet again, darn it, I am faced with no choice at all.

Of course you have a choice. Obama is going to have to stay in Iraq, regardless of much anything else that happens. There are better issues to have at the core of your decision of who to vote for.

 

[SteveGrenard]

In case you hadn't noticed, many of the tactics being used in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are guerilla tactics. But this is really neither here nor there, we're talking combat experience. And I'm not saying Iraq has something to do with McCain's personal experience, I'm saying WAR has a lot to do with McCain's personal experiences. What you're telling me is that, if a general proves himself to be resourceful and a good leader fighting in one part of the world, it means nothing about his ability to fight in another part of the world, regardless if the tactics in both wars are similar.

Eisenhower ended hostilities in Korea within six months. In fact the wars with Japan and Germany ended in less time than we are presently been in Iraq.

Seeing as how John McCain has been to Iraq, spoken with many soldiers, his son included, I'm going to trust him to tell me what his words mean rather than a rant from Keith Olberman.

Not to Olbermann, to the vets he has spoken to about this remark. You and I both know that no active duty soldier could voice their true feelings without risking serious
repercussions.

Where did he backtrack? Do you honestly believe that a presidential candidate was going to try and win an election by telling the American people that he wants to fight a hundred year war? McCain explained his position and has explained it time and time again.

When he first said we'd be in Iraq a hundred years, er, right after he had a sit down with Bush at the White House. Then he backtracked on that time table but now seems to be saying how long the troops are in Iraq is really not important, it's the casualties that are important. I am sure McCain knows that if there are no hostilities, no combat casualties, no IEDs or sniper attacks, then whatever it is is not deserving of the term war. And if there are no casualties, and if there is no war, why are we going to stay in Iraq again? It's not our country. They didn't attack us. The really bad people in Iraq have been jailed and/or executed.

McCain has plainly stated that casualties are what matter, not presence in terms of public opinion. Guess what? He's right. Ask yourself why the American people have accepted a troop presence in Japan, Germany and Korea for the last 50-60 years. Tell me if Keith Olberman or Barack Obama are going to put together a rant to yell about our troop presence there. You've been accusing McCain of backtracking while, in the same breath, confirming everything he's been saying.

We accepted a troop presence in Japan, Germany and Korea because there were no hostilties, no combat deaths (to speak of...) ...we were just hanging out enforcing peace treaties ... which, by the way, we don't have with Iraq.

Now who's fear mongering? Should Osama bin Ladin dictate whether or not our government and the government of Saudi Arabia agree to have military bases on Saudi soil? Am I suppose to support withdrawal of American interests in the Middle East because terrorist psychopaths might be offended and try to kill me?

Regardless of whether this is OBL and alQueda dictating whether we should have bases in say, Saudi Arabia, the fact is we were asked to leave by the sovergein government there and have done so. The Saudis obviously felt it was in their best interests to ask us to vacate.

 

[JoeEllison]

So John McCain has not only total disregard for his sons (Doug McCain was a Navy Pilot in the 1980's and Jimmy McCain is serving in Iraq), but he has total disregard for himself (a former "troop"), his father (a four star Navy Admiral), his grandfather (another four star Admiral), his fellow veterans and all men and women currently in the military? Do you ever reread your posts and realize how ridiculous you sound?

As has been pointed out, you're irritated because John McCain understands the military and you don't.

The re-imaging campaign being attempted by the Democrats this cycle is staggering. John "locked in a cage and beaten for five years in a POW camp" McCain is being painted as a warmonger and someone who has "total disregard for our troops." John McCain, famous for breaking with fellow Republicans and working with Democrats on key legislation and criticizing the White House, is being painted as "Bush's third term."

I can't wait to see what you guys will cook up next.

Everything you're saying about McCain is absolutely true, based on unedited quotes of what he actually says. You can whine about how it is "cooked up", but the truth is that McCain is being hung with his own words and actions, and he can no longer hide behind his POW status to avoid legitimate criticism.

 

[Sefarst]

Eisenhower ended hostilities in Korea within six months. In fact the wars with Japan and Germany ended in less time than we are presently been in Iraq.

This is only a matter of degrees. Think of it this way: there is a business looking to hire a driver for a tractor trailer. You and I both apply for the job. Neither of us has ever driven a tractor trailer before, but you go into the interview and tell the employer that you have had a driver's license for 20 years, you've driven sedans, vans, trucks and construction equipment. I walk into the interview and tell the employer that I've never driven ANYTHING before, in fact, I don't even have a driver's license. Which of us do you think has the advantage in applying for this job?

The principle holds in the case of military experience. You keep saying that Iraq is the not the same as Vietnam or Japan or Germany or Korea. In the same way, a tractor trailer is not the same as a sedan or a truck or a van. Catch my drift?

Not to Olbermann, to the vets he has spoken to about this remark. You and I both know that no active duty soldier could voice their true feelings without risking serious
repercussions.

I don't know. This is merely speculation. However, you seem to be blending two different issues. The first is John McCain's "100 years" comment and the second is the feelings of the troops on staying in Iraq. The 100 years comment has to do with casualties. In other words, McCain is saying that he's willing to set up a similar situation as what we have in other countries after hostilities in war time end, where we keep a troop presence in the area. You are leaving out that the 100 years remark is in the context of no casualties in Iraq, not perpetual 100 year fighting. You are leaving out the context of no casualties and then trying to link that issue with your suspicion that the troops secretly want to leave. I think that's being disengenuous.

When he first said we'd be in Iraq a hundred years, er, right after he had a sit down with Bush at the White House. Then he backtracked on that time table but now seems to be saying how long the troops are in Iraq is really not important, it's the casualties that are important. I am sure McCain knows that if there are no hostilities, no combat casualties, no IEDs or sniper attacks, then whatever it is is not deserving of the term war.

Which is why I think he said "presence" and not "war." As far as I know, this is the first public reference he made on that point (though if you have an earlier quote or video, I'd be happy to see it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

And if there are no casualties, and if there is no war, why are we going to stay in Iraq again? It's not our country. They didn't attack us. The really bad people in Iraq have been jailed and/or executed.

For training and to keep a military presence in a volatile part of the world.

We accepted a troop presence in Japan, Germany and Korea because there were no hostilties, no combat deaths (to speak of...) ...we were just hanging out enforcing peace treaties ... which, by the way, we don't have with Iraq.

Do you think we're hanging out in Germany, Korea and Japan today to enforce peace treaties? Do you think the Germans are just itching for us to leave so they can attack again?

Regardless of whether this is OBL and alQueda dictating whether we should have bases in say, Saudi Arabia, the fact is we were asked to leave by the sovergein government there and have done so. The Saudis obviously felt it was in their best interests to ask us to vacate.

But not, hopefully, at the behest of Al Qaeda. We make our own agreements on our own terms, independent of terrorists.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I figure that offering a bigger GI bill would encourage more people to initially enlist. Also, I think anyone who places their life on the line for 4+ years should get a full scholarship to college. Maybe I'm just weird that way.

 

[Sefarst]

Everything you're saying about McCain is absolutely true, based on unedited quotes of what he actually says. You can whine about how it is "cooked up", but the truth is that McCain is being hung with his own words and actions, and he can no longer hide behind his POW status to avoid legitimate criticism.

I don't think McCain has ever tried to hide behind his POW status to avoid criticism, as the 2000 primary campaign showed, as the current primary shows, etc.

And these issues are being cooked up. Case in point, the 100 years comment I was just discussing. McCain made a realistic assessment of the situation and now it's being used to try and make him look like he wants a century of perpetual warfare.

 

[Sefarst]

I figure that offering a bigger GI bill would encourage more people to initially enlist. Also, I think anyone who places their life on the line for 4+ years should get a full scholarship to college. Maybe I'm just weird that way.

I agree that they should, and in an ideal world they would. However, as has been stated elsewhere, it's a matter of finite resources and infinite demand.

 

[JoeEllison]

I don't think McCain has ever tried to hide behind his POW status to avoid criticism, as the 2000 primary campaign showed, as the current primary shows, etc.

And these issues are being cooked up. Case in point, the 100 years comment I was just discussing. McCain made a realistic assessment of the situation and now it's being used to try and make him look like he wants a century of perpetual warfare.

It is being used to show that he has no intention of ever withdrawing the troops. That's a fact. Pretty much whatever Bush says, McCain says. That's your "maverick"(are there still people deluded enough to believe that? Really?!?!)

 

[Sefarst]

It is being used to show that he has no intention of ever withdrawing the troops. That's a fact. Pretty much whatever Bush says, McCain says. That's your "maverick"(are there still people deluded enough to believe that? Really?!?!)

Then I'm confused. Why haven't I seen you making threads acting outraged over the fact that we have yet to withdraw troops from Germany, Japan and Korea?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I agree that they should, and in an ideal world they would. However, as has been stated elsewhere, it's a matter of finite resources and infinite demand.

That never seemed to stop Bush before. How much have we spent on the war so far?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then I'm confused. Why haven't I seen you making threads acting outraged over the fact that we have yet to withdraw troops from Germany, Japan and Korea?

I didn't realize we were still at war with these countries. What's the casualty rate of our soldiers in these countries?

 

[JoeEllison]

I didn't realize we were still at war with these countries. What's the casualty rate of our soldiers in these countries?

Remember, Germany is EXACTLY LIKE Iraq... Right-wingers believe any stupid talking point, don't they?

 

[Bob Klase]

"No, but that's not too important," McCain replied. "What's important is casualties in Iraq..."

I didn't realize we were still at war with these countries. What's the casualty rate of our soldiers in these countries?

So you agree with McCain that what's important is casualties.

 

[INRM]

I don't think Bush or McCain actually hate their soldiers. I think, though, that they have no empathy for them.

Bush and McCain see soldiers as slaves who only exist for their aims of gaining territory through conquest. With such an attitude, they don't want to give them anything more than they absolutely have to, and as most people who have no empathy towards a group of people (or any at all period), they have no gratitude.

INRM