True or False - Democrats Care About Troops??

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I think the implied issue is that the Army needs to go back up to 12 or 14 divisions, not 10, and extended deployments and stop-loss is a (typical) way of ****ing over troops when overall troop strength has been cut back too much in light of current world conditions.

Oh, I agree with this philosphy. Or even better, a higher paid, higher skilled permanent military. One that doesn't do red cycles and mow lawns but trains and prepares for their combat mission all year long.

But blaming this stop loss on the Bush Admin is off target, this forced stop loss due to lack of troops is the result of the Clinton Aministration's 8 years of military downsizing.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Wiggie is one of our old pet trolls. You're acting like you take anything he says even slightly seriously. Wake up, man!

Then I'm as guilty as everyone else in this thread, who has bothered to respond to him.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by GePap

Oh, so being "ahead of my my time" has become the new "special"

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by MrFun


Then I'm as guilty as everyone else in this thread, who has bothered to respond to him.

Not me. I've pretty much only posted incoherent nonsense in this thread.

'Xcept the bit about Wiglaf being a baby-eating bleeding-heart liberal. I'm death serious about that. Honest to God.

[mrmitchell]

Wiglaf = TERRORIST

Take the "a" from "laf" and the "i" from "Wig" and the "g" from WIglaf and you get osAma bIn laden[size=4]G[size]

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Not me. I've pretty much only posted incoherent nonsense in this thread.

'Xcept the bit about Wiglaf being a baby-eating bleeding-heart liberal. I'm death serious about that. Honest to God.

you are the epitomy of nonsense

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Wiglaf



They are not in battle! Who would you rather support, when push comes to shove? Or, take the John Kerry route. Both

:

Are you ****ing nuts? Why shouldn't I get hazard pay for getting shot at? Why shouldn't my family get good medical care while suffereing the military life?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Lonestar



Are you ****ing nuts? Why shouldn't I get hazard pay for getting shot at? Why shouldn't my family get good medical care while suffereing the military life?

You should, my family got full medical benefits when I was called up for active service last year. They still have them until November of this year too.

[Wiglaf]

I Think it was Sava who questioned that TAX BREAKS STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. I guess sky = red

Maybe you should look at this year's JOB GROWTH. Oh no wait! You are gonna quote some gibberish about how we have lost more jobs now than ever before in the history of the galaxy. BUT you would be FORGETTING SEPTEMBER 11th.

And No Good American, repeat No Good American, forgets September the 11th. Maybe you are not an American, which would mean you should not try to act like one.

Lonestar, I am 100% percent behind the military. But think about it. As for the older veterans, they are not in battle! They are not top of list of national concerns, unfortunately, they cannot be. They COULD write a book and make money in this way, as a suggestion. But if they cannot, and cannot afford heath costs, they should know that if they were paid, THEIR CHILDREN would have to pay for it later. I thought you liberals were for euthanasia? And now the elderly are your concern at the expense of future generations? Don't burn too many waffles with all those flip-floppers.

As for the troops in Iraq who want money, they volunteered. FOR AMERICA. Don't you liberals say they did it for $$$. Ridiculous.

And you want a FOX link? My internet is giving me problems (and I must get away from computer, it is starting to "spark" - go dells, right asher ) but if you want a link, go to their website www.foxnews.com and read about the war in Iraq. They are bound to tell you somewhere that DEMOCRATS are COMPLAINING about the DEFECIT, and that's all you need to know for this debate.

AND to those who think I am a communist - I do not read Marx and Lenin, I would not understand Marx and Lenin, I can barely stand to read for more than twenty minutes at a time, I am not a communist, maybe you are?

[Last Conformist]

Don't listen to the liberal. He eats children.

[dannubis]

man, i'll have what he is smoking

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
But blaming this stop loss on the Bush Admin is off target, this forced stop loss due to lack of troops is the result of the Clinton Aministration's 8 years of military downsizing.

All well and good but why does Bush continue to veto the increases in troops strength needed to end the stop lose? Luckily, Congress did force through a temperary increase of 20k but they did that by tacking it into one of his Iraq spending bills. Bush either had to accept the increase or not get his war money.

The fact also remains that recruitment wouldn't be so low and thus we wouldn't need to draft (opps... stop lose) people if the military was paid better. If the military can't find enough people to fill it's job openings then it should do what every single private employer does. Namely increase pay or benifits or improve working conditions. Bush has firmly declared he will do none of the above.

Instead he's solution is simply to keep shadow drafting people which is going to lead to a mass exidus of experienced NCOs and Officers the moment the stop lose is lifted; then the military will really be screwed.

[Guynemer]

It's been far, far too long.

[Wiglaf]

It's not stop lose, it's stop loss, guys.

My goodness. And If you want to call it a shadow draft, maybe you should realize the people in Iraq volunteered. That's spelled with a "v".

[Dinner]

Can you read? The volunteered for a set period of time and that time has since expired. I have one soldier on my team who will be stop lossed for a total of 18 months when he only enlisted for 36 months. There is no way someone who signed up for 36 months agreed to 58 months.