We've all seen the extreme pressure on National Guard troops families. It has been very tough on the families in particular, with their family member's being used as regular military, in the main, to shore up rotations in Iraq. Around here, twenty miles from a major military base, maybe we see it more, I don't know. Employers have a hard time saving jobs for them, considering their absence has been so long, and so frequent, and the financial difference between their normal jobs and military pay has bankrupted more than a few. They have lost their homes, their self respect, and a parent, the worst of all. Regular military troops have suffered almost as much, due to the short rotation times, whole families are growing up without a dad, or a mom, for half the time. A relief law would have changed that for all of those troops, but made it harder to fill the president's quotas for Iraq. Let's face it, Bush has used private contractors, at the cost of our national treasury, the guard, anything he could to make sure he could play this war out without a draft, but it is entirely unfair to rely on these few people, and subject them to ruin for their partiotism. It is more than becoming obvious this war is over, and to continue to lean on these troops is unconscionable. But the Republicans, standing fast with the president's desire to leave this mess in the next guys lap, probably to try to shift the blame, blocked it entirely. They should be ashamed. This is not standing up for our troops, this is further proof that these soldiers have been being used, and there is no regard for the welfare, they are merely pawns, hostages, if you will, to Whitehouse stubborn bad policy. CLICK HERE
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
Yes, it is despicable the way they have processed this from the start. For one thing, they have contracted out all support work, at many times the cost of the troops doing things, because that freed up cooks to fight, typists to fight, truck drivers to fight, etc. It's been a real hog trough for private corporations, many of them this administrations contributors, and the worst is that it unfairly burdens our soldiers, who signed up as patriots, but didn't sign up to be abused as mere things to be used.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977122799
as well. Thank you.
Our mision, as outlined by Bush, has been completed so why are our troops still there? Because Iraq has not signed away their oil. This is NOT the reason our men and women join the service. They join to protect the Nation, Not Oil Companies. Our military, by the Constitution, is for National Defense not agression.
Read PNAC documents, go and find the testimony of both 'oniel, and Clarke that state on the record, that the White house was planning Iraq from the first day of the administration, then look at the Downing Street memos, and recent other revelations by EX CIA operatives, and there is only one, well, make that two reasons we invaded Iraq, and neither are the reasons we've been told. One, the oil, and two, the Neocon PNAC plan envisioned a land based, permanent, aircraft carrier, if you will, from which to continue expansion in, and to put pressure on, the rest of the Middle East, as we are about to see with Iran, want to bet?
These Radical Right Wing Wacko Republican senators are an embaressment. As is MDP and Ty.
Before we decided to invade every country we got a notion to, launching a few cruise missiles was an effective way to handle warnings and not be misunderstood, even a few bombers maybe, but invasion without naked aggression was never an option before Bush, maybe a covert op, something like that, but it took this crazy little cowboy to go with PNAC measures. Also, Saddam tried to kill his daddy once, and he wasn't going to let him live after that. PNAC was a think tank that's founding members just happened to make up most of Bush's administration when they started out, and well into the war. I haven''t noticed any representatives of MoveOn sitting in the last Democratic Administration, and I seriously doubt you will, or they would lose half of their members that are not Democratic, like me. That was just stupid, Publius. Do you even know who Move On is?
Give you a hint, name starts with a "C"
The peace dividend is a political slogan popularized by US President George H.W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the early 1990s, purporting to describe the economic benefit of a decrease in defense spending. It is used primarily in discussions relating to the guns versus butter theory. The term was frequently used at the end of the Cold War, when many Western nations significantly cut military spending.
While economies do undergo a recession after the end of a major conflict as the economy is forced to adjust and retool, a "peace dividend" refers to a potential long-term benefit as budgets for defense spending are assumed to be at least partially redirected to social programs and/or economic growth. The existence of a peace dividend in real economies is still debated, but some research points to its reality[1].
A political discussion about the peace dividend resulting from the end of the Cold War involves a debate about which countries have actually scaled back military spending and which have not. The scale back in defense spending was mainly noticeable in Western Europe and originally in the Russian Federation. In contrast to this the United States have not done so, as the country has been engaged in several military conflicts since the end of the Cold War, most notably the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, which are both consuming large sums of money. Moreover, investment in possible missile defense systems have cost and will continue to cost large sums. The latest of these missile defense systems involves a plan to station defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, which according to the US government are mainly aimed at stopping missiles originating in the Middle East, most notably in Iran. However, the Russian administration has voiced significant oppositions to the plan, since it sees the stationing of these weapons as an imbalance in the global power structure and therefore a potential threat to Russia.
While European observers have criticized the US for not scaling back its defense spending, US politicians and commentators have accused Europe of free-riding on their defense budget."
Also he had a Republican congress that came in in the second half of his presidency, and wasn't any more worried about the size of our military than Clinton was. Their contract with America focused on fiscal propriety, and the downsizing of the Military was considered, at the time, the "Peace dividend" Remember that term? How about balancing the budget? I don't recall any outpouring of Republican angst over that, at the time, so you take your half the blame, and we'll assign liberals theirs, and go from there, how's that? I do assume you remember the term peace dividend, don't you?
"Without a significant threat posed by an international power, defense spending steadily decreased from 1998-2001. Moderate increases in military expenditures occured from 1998-2001, but it was nothing significant." comes from the site listed below and also has a nice easy to see graph. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/United%20States.html
Ty Phoon, the Republicans, Thursday, stopped Democratic efforts to bring the troops home. THIS IS A REPUBLICAN WAR.
Vietnam was a lesson. Democrats LEARNED IT. Republicans are apparently unteachable.
Then these companies are in violation of federal law. Now am not a lawyer, but it was MY understanding that if you are called up to serve then companies are REQUIRED to hold your job. So it would seem to me there ALREADY is a law and this is just grandstanding. Now if thats NOT the case then Dems are right and congress SHOULD pass a law to protect them.
But this is where we come full circle again to special interest groups. Controller unions wont let us fire incompetent ATC controllers, teachers union wont let us fire incompetent teachers. Police unions wont let us fire incompetent police and so on.
Far as ALL America wants our troops home..well I would love to see every American service member back here and they all be safe and with families. I have lost friends and family at war and understand that.
before everyone jumps on the peace bandwagon might want to consider what the Americans are attempting to provide, a ray of hope, a chance at freedom. Media is always mentioning death and destruction. Ask the troops returning, most say the time was worth it, that the mission does have meaning.
WHo realy wants the US out is the terrorists, Syria, Iran, and any cleric who doesnt want peace. Iraq was ruled by Saddam with an iron fist with a government secrect service much like the SS of Nazi Germany. Iraqi people are new at this freedom thing. They are also still in fear as insurgents attack any organized functions like the Iraqi police and military...they attack civilians in market places and at religous gatherings..
To me rushing all the troops out with no established government would be a waste of those Americans who have died. Everyone can be armchair generals and have the benefits of hindsight. Problem is in the real world it doesnt work that way.
I do not blame the Republicans, nor the Democrates... we are ONE NATION. Granted President Bush and Congress has made some choices I do not agree with however they are OUR representative. Want to change America spend more time getting people to vote.
Everyone running around bitching about one party or another, point the finger in the mirrors...
Maybe a couple of well placed sorties into Iran would settle the nuclear issue.
Big business does not want illigals the farmer that wants help getting his crop wants it. Just look at where the largest percentage of illigals work...its not for Birkshire Hathaway
Yeah, inviting Armageddon is a noble thing, let's bomb Iran, yeah, that's the ticket. Are any of you aware of the fact the CIA has run computer model after model on that, and none of them end without the whole middle East embroiled in war. We do not have the military left for that eventuality. The pentagon has said so. Armchair Generals indeed. Oh, and who REALLY wants us out of Iraq is the Iraqi people. they have once again expressed that in the newest poll, as well as their assertion that the surge was an utter and complete failure. Am I the only one that reads on this board?
No one said Petraeus was incompetent, they said he was lying, when did those become synonymous?
Osha has been gutted, take a look at how many of those fines and consequences have been levied since Bush took office. I think you are thinking of the old OSHA, my friend, today they are big business's leetle friend.
The Republicans in the senate voted this bill down, it's their policy, and as for this it's all of us crap, see my reply to Donald above. It's amazing how after six and a half years of our way or the highway, we're all to blame now. That's crap.
Sorry might be late and getting a little snippy but I am tired of you calling a decorated general a lier. If he did lie he would be court martialed.
Illigals workers are a proplem full stop. Most hotels while possibly part of a chain are individually owned. Big business is usually referred to as companies the size of Microsoft, Citigroup which are large multi national companies so I do not know of many of them that use signigicant numbers of Illigals.
Anyway, the problem has nothing to do with size of company although I know it does not sound as sexy. People break the laws with illigal workers that is not a problem with the law but its a problem with the lack of enforcement and funding. You are good at research ron, how much did clinton have in his budget for boarder protection? How much is it now? How many illigals were prosecuted under Clinton and how many under Bush? Would honestly like to know...have no idea how it will swing.
"Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-107.htm
You are either really, really tired, or you've gone simple on me. I don't argue there isn't a provision for it, but no one will invoke it. Who is going to charge him? Tell me that. Then when you realize no one is, no one can, will you get off of the "well if he was lying, they'd CM him, therefore, he can't be lying" crap. No one is or will even suggest he be CMed because no one can, over the protection of the CIC. You act like these people care about the rule of law, and they don't. That's an irrational argument.
I read, and I also think your claims are far from true.
Victory, whatever that means, is probably possible but unlikely. To make it happen, we would need a draft to get the requisite number of troops, and a tax increase to pay for it all instead of financing it by borrowing from the Chinese as we are now doing. Unfortunately none of our politicians has the balls to ask the American public to make those sacrifices and frankly, I don't think the public is willing to do it.
Here you go, moron, I avoid unsubstantiated comments, maybe you should too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/
http://thinkprogress.org/iran-military-option