Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush chose to go to war with Iraq. Not because of Saddam's being a dictator and a bastard, and not becuase of WMD, those were EXCUSES for the war, not reasons.
It predates Bush. In 1998, Congress passed and Clinton signed a resolution making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy.
Quote:
We simply cannot go to war with every dictator/bastard out there.
That's right. And we don't.
Quote:
And vets should be taken care of, there is no doubt about it. It's appalling that their needs are not being met post war, whoever is to blame. If we can send them off to war to risk their lives, then we need to be able to provide them care when they come home.
I agree. It is an outrage that the government provides handouts and aid to illegal aliens, but some vets have trouble getting aid for themselves.
No, Saddam did not cause this war. Yes, he was a dictator and a murderous bastard. But he wasn't the first leader of a country who was a dictator and a bastard and he won't be the last.
Bush chose to go to war with Iraq. Not because of Saddam's being a dictator and a bastard, and not becuase of WMD, those were EXCUSES for the war, not reasons.
We simply cannot go to war with every dictator/bastard out there.
And vets should be taken care of, there is no doubt about it. It's appalling that their needs are not being met post war, whoever is to blame. If we can send them off to war to risk their lives, then we need to be able to provide them care when they come home.
While I am not sure that a person that stays in the military for 6 years deserves medical care for the rest of their life (that would become prohibitively expensive), If a soldier comes back from a war with a lifetime injury due to the war, that soldier does deserve a lifetime of care, since his injury will require a lifetime of treatment.
If a soldier stays in the military until retirement they should get medical benefits for life. I have no idea how the medical benefits for vets work, but this is what I am thinking would be fair. How does it work? Does anyone know who gets medical benefits and for how long?
And frankly, veterans benefits should extend beyond medical care. My brother came back from Iraq, decided not to reenlist, and then had a very hard time finding a job. His work experience was sporadic at best due to the military and getting his education (paid for mostly by the military) while being in the military and being a single dad. He was sent off to Iraq, came back, and had a very hard time to find a job. It would be nice if the veterans services could help vets with things like that. If you expect a soldier to turn his life upside down to defend this country, someone should be helping the vet put his/her life back together when he/she gets back.
All veterans can receive medical/dental/optical/mental care by the VA. However, unless one is service-connected, meaning that their condition was contracted in the military, then they generally pay a small fee according to their income. Any service-connected condition IS treated for life and for no additional cost.
I was in the military during the Carter/Reagan years. The difference in morale was phenomenal from the Carter administration to the Reagan administration. When Reagan arrived we felt we had the support of the government and morale was much higher. We received well-deserved pay raises, our equipment was updated, and we were again respected.
It predates Bush. In 1998, Congress passed and Clinton signed a resolution making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy.
I am sorry, I don't care what Clinton signed, he didn't go to WAR.
And can you explain how the US can have an "official policy" regarding regime change in another country. Was the policy to "encourage" change. How could regime change in Iraq be a policy? Do we have any policies regarding regime change anywhere else? Forgive me, I don't get it.
I am sorry, I don't care what Clinton signed, he didn't go to WAR.
You can be sorry, but it doesn't change history. There was talk of removing Saddam from power long before Bush was president. Clinton didn't act because he was more concerned about his approval ratings!
Quote:
And can you explain how the US can have an "official policy" regarding regime change in another country. Was the policy to "encourage" change. How could regime change in Iraq be a policy? Do we have any policies regarding regime change anywhere else? Forgive me, I don't get it
The document has been posted on this board before. If I can find it, I'll post it again.
All veterans can receive medical/dental/optical/mental care by the VA. However, unless one is service-connected, meaning that their condition was contracted in the military, then they generally pay a small fee according to their income. Any service-connected condition IS treated for life and for no additional cost.
I was in the military during the Carter/Reagan years. The difference in morale was phenomenal from the Carter administration to the Reagan administration. When Reagan arrived we felt we had the support of the government and morale was much higher. We received well-deserved pay raises, our equipment was updated, and we were again respected.
Bush chose to go to war with Iraq. Not because of Saddam's being a dictator and a bastard, and not becuase of WMD, those were EXCUSES for the war, not reasons.
What I see from you and so many others is that you so very desperately want to cling to the "American Way of Life," but you aren't willing to do anything at all to maintain the "American Way of Life," which creates a bit of a paradox.
If you want a job and all of your little trivial trinkets, sometimes it's necessary to invade other countries.
I am sorry, I don't care what Clinton signed, he didn't go to WAR.
And can you explain how the US can have an "official policy" regarding regime change in another country. Was the policy to "encourage" change. How could regime change in Iraq be a policy? Do we have any policies regarding regime change anywhere else? Forgive me, I don't get it.
No he sent us on UN missions with impossible rules of engagement. He turned a humanitarian mission into a military operation without affording our troops the armor they requested. By armor I mean artillery as in tanks, apc's and adequate air support. That got good men killed. He sent special forces guys on missions to hunt down binladen at great person risk and then aborted. 9/11 was the result of Mr. Clintons lack of resolve. How many soldiers on those missions that died will never be known. So when you say he never sent us to war you are correct but please don't say he didn't send soldiers into battle. Please don't say his policies did not get soldiers killed. The republicans may well be insincere with their praise but at least they are not slandering us before the world. Can the Democrats make that same claim? Jack booted storm troopers? Comapred us to nazi storm troopers? Then in the next breath we care about you no really we do.
What I see from you and so many others is that you so very desperately want to cling to the "American Way of Life," but you aren't willing to do anything at all to maintain the "American Way of Life," which creates a bit of a paradox.
If you want a job and all of your little trivial trinkets, sometimes it's necessary to invade other countries.
Hilarious post. This is taking the Bush Doctrine to a whole new level.
Now invading sovereign nations using preemptive strikes is justified not only for the spreading of Democracy, but is justified if it will provide Americans "jobs and trivial trinkets".
Mommy why are we invading Japan now?
We need more Wiis in time for the Holiday Consumer Season, darling. It's the American Way.
The American Way is morphing prety quickly into Might Makes Right, and to Hell with the rest of Ya.
The issue, that Republicans would rather ignore, is the current situation. With vets dying or coming home seriously wounded, the GOP has consistently voted against increasing benefits, esp psychiatric ["30% suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome or depression"] Republicans, including Bush & McCain prefer to look the other way. Remember the Walter Reed Hospital scandal that Bush denied until the press exposed the terrible conditions?
Now the Democrats are trying to provide college tuition assistance [G.I. Bill that President Roosevelt instituted] but Republicans vote no because they could care less about helping the very people who fight in their\GOP wars!
That's what I mean by referring to Republicans as despicable cretins
Oh please, even die hard Republicans admit that Bush had no right to invade a sovereign nation on skimpy intelligence. Now America will have to find a solution to stop the madness [thanks Bush, what a man!
Really, I thought Clinton told us we would have to go Iraq...us die hards never forget...
BTW, my nephew who just returned from his 5th tour in the middle east, just bought his first home with his VA benefints and my friend who went to the army for a few years in the 70's was treated for breast cancer and had breast recontruction at the VA hospital last year and is doing great. She got sick after being laid off and luckily she had VA benefits that saved her life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
