Bush's War

1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2537493
One Bin Laden created is too many.
That's the point... You say more terrorists are being created, yet Al Qaeda says they are losing members. Got to say, based in an educated guess as to who knows better, them or you, I'm gonna have to suspect they are more accurate.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2537495
We left them to die before, right? The mass genocide that keeps coming up as a reason to invade Iraq was the Kurds...Want to elaborate on the reason they were killed? ...
They sided with us we went into Iraq. They were seen as our allies. That's why.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2537498
...
You still have a good 30 years to practice what you preach.
And what do you preach Suzy? Here is what I hear: Bush is bad, Obama is sexy, America's military is secretly stealing oil from Iraq, we can't win, let our Iraqi allies get slaughtered again, bring the troops home and Al Qaeda will all melt their guns into farming implements and settle down to herd sheep?
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Iraq
There have been 4,308 coalition deaths -- 4,001 Americans, two Australians, 175 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of March 26, 2008, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department. At least 29,451 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View casualties in the war in Afghanistan and examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ira...es/casualties/
Bush caring for the Veterans he sent to Iraq - Because we (USA) care about oppressed people in the world and will pay anything (trilions) to liberate them, just not willing to pay for injured AMERICAN veterans involved in the liberation process. I can't find the Bush budget plan right now on the .gov site but it had huge budget cuts for veterans in it. As Papa Bush once said "a kinder, gentler nation"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207T.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/po.../07budget.html
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2537715
...
Bush caring for the Veterans he sent to Iraq - Because we (USA) care about oppressed people in the world and will pay anything (trilions) to liberate them, just not willing to pay for injured AMERICAN veterans involved in the liberation process. I can't find the Bush budget plan right now on the .gov site but it had huge budget cuts for veterans in it. AS Papa Bush once said "a kinder, gentler nation"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/po.../07budget.html
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207T.shtml
Taken from first article you posted: "The president would increase the co-payment for a month's supply of a prescription drug to $15, from the current $7. The administration says the co-payment and the $250 "user fee" would apply mainly to veterans in lower-priority categories, who have higher incomes and do not have service-related disabilities...."
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2537718
Zman, I think you made a mistake in your last post. Did you mean Iraq?
I corrected it, the CNN link had hot links on the page for the other two and they just got include in the paste.
Washington - The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now - even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.
I have seen the cut's on a .gov site of the bush plan, just can't find it now- This was what it included:
Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.
After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly - by more than 10 percent in many years - White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Journey, if you beleive Bush is looking out for the soldiers when they return from his assignment for them, then I do question your judgment....
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2537722
Taken from first article you posted: "The president would increase the co-payment for a month's supply of a prescription drug to $15, from the current $7. The administration says the co-payment and the $250 "user fee" would apply mainly to veterans in lower-priority categories, who have higher incomes and do not have service-related disabilities...."
Also from the Article
The government had no immediate estimate of how many veterans would be affected if the user fee and co-payment proposals were adopted. But veterans' groups said that hundreds of thousands of people would end up paying more and that many would be affected by both changes.
In Michigan, for example, thousands of veterans are on waiting lists for medical services, and some reservists returning from Iraq say they have been unable to obtain the care they were promised. A veterans clinic in Pontiac, Mich., put a limit on new enrollment. Cutbacks at a veterans hospital in Altoona, Pa., are forcing some veterans to seek treatment elsewhere.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2537729
Journey, if you beleive Bush is looking out for the soldiers when they return from his assignment for them, then I do question your judgment....
As I said to Rylan on another thread, that's a mute point. I assume you are going to question my judgment.
Find the actual budget, post it, and let's look at it. Let's look at who it really affects. if the drug plan affects every Vet it's an abomination and should be changed. If it only affects the average soldier who served 4 years in the mid 90's without ever seeing combat and who today is making $60,000 a year then it's reasonable. $15 a month Co-pay per month for Meds for life? Sounds pretty sweet to me.
Seriously, I haven't heard much about this, post some actual numbers on it and let's discuss it.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2537697
Ahh, let's not forget who "picked" that evidence. Was it not president Clinton and the leading Democrats who said Saddam was working on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in 1998?

I knew you would find a way to blame a Dem for this mess.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2537706
Again, no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.

Of course. The government is running strong and corruption free....
According to Faux news, life is wonderful there.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2537711
They sided with us we went into Iraq. They were seen as our allies. That's why.

I think you might want to look into that a bit more. It was more than siding with us. They were trying to overthrown Saddam with our help, and we backed out and left them to die.
 
suzy

suzy

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2537712
And what do you preach Suzy? Here is what I hear: Bush is bad, Obama is sexy, America's military is secretly stealing oil from Iraq, we can't win, let our Iraqi allies get slaughtered again, bring the troops home and Al Qaeda will all melt their guns into farming implements and settle down to herd sheep?

I preach getting our soldiers out of there, yesterday. Are you leaving for your tour soon?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2537722
Taken from first article you posted: "The president would increase the co-payment for a month's supply of a prescription drug to $15, from the current $7. The administration says the co-payment and the $250 "user fee" would apply mainly to veterans in lower-priority categories, who have higher incomes and do not have service-related disabilities...."

Gee, isn't that in the spirit of the soak it to the "rich" philosophy of the left?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2537843
I think you might want to look into that a bit more. It was more than siding with us. They were trying to overthrown Saddam with our help, and we backed out and left them to die.
I'm fully aware of that. That's exactly my point.
They agreed to help us, we bailed, they died.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2537485
What happened in Vietnam had to happen. We left, a civil war broke out, the people who lived there fought it out to become what they are now.
When (not if) we leave Iraq, they will have to find a way to live together or get another dictator or be ruled by religious leaders/ fanatics. Our meddling again comes back to bite us in the ass.
The problem I see with McCain saying he will stay for "as long as it takes" ( a lie to get elected) is that we cannot keep up this level of support for "as long as it takes". How can we afford to keep giving them money, and keep the "surge" going? How can we afford to keep losing our sons and daughters for this foreign policy blunder? Eventually, we have to leave and then the people who live there will have to work it out. We gave them "democracy", if they want it, they will have it. If not, they will have something else.
Now, direct question for you: How did our meddling in Iran, when we put in the Shaw, work for us? How did our giving weapons to Saddam to fight Iran work for us?
No a civil war did not break out after Vietnam. Check the history. The north vietnamese conquered south vietnam as they had been attempting and also invaded Cambodia.
Now you say if the want democracy they will have it if they so choose, but how is a country with no significant defense force that can stand up to Iran and Syria maintain their desire for democracy if Iran or Syria invades Iraq as they have been trying to do for decades. You address the issue as if it is from a standpoint as an intracountry issue. It isn't. Iran has been waiting to invade Iraq and gain the oil and land in the region for a longtime.
How does us pulling out solve this issue and problem?
 
rudedog40

rudedog40

Member
You're worried about some useless drug plan for vets coming back from this war? Who cares about that miniscule stipend? Bush and his cronies are pumping BILLIONS into Iraq to help the poor little people who live there that are affected by this war. On the flip side, our government doesn't do crap about helping the soldiers injured while on duty fighting THEIR war. Take sepulation's cousin for instance. He joins the military, serves his time, then gets half his face and leg blown to pieces. What's Uncle Sam doing for him? Sure they'll patch him up as best they can, but what then? Hand him a Purple Heart and an Honorable Discharge, because he surely can't continue to serve his country in this war. If he was making the military a lifelong career, that's over. He has to start over again in another profession. You think they'll hand him any money for the continual pain and suffering he received for protecting your freedom? Of course not. He's damaged goods and not their problem anymore. You have thousands of war veterans who suffered both mental and physical injuries that have been literally pushed aside by the American government. Their families anguished while they did their 2 or 3 'tours' that lasted for 6 months to a year at a time. Men and women have been deployed who were making 6-figure incomes. Does the military compensate them and pay them the difference in pay while they're deployed? NO. But hey, we can hand money out like candy to the poor defenseless Iraqis.
If Bush wants to 'stay the course' in his little war, he needs to start spending some of that money on the people who are risking their lives everyday to help defend it and keep it going. You get injured while serving a tour in Iraq? Automatic $100,000 payment when you get home, and full medical coverage with no deductible or out of pocket max for the rest of your life. Deployed as a Reservist? Government matches penny for penny the salary you were making in your normal profession while you are deployed. For all service personnel deployed on a tour for one year or longer with families- $50,000 bonus given to the family members to pay them for their part for 'serving' in the war.
We have what, approximately 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq right now? If you gave each of them a $100,000 bonus for doing this part to fight this war, that would be $15 billion. Shoot, Bush will spend that helping the Iraqis before he finally gets out of office next year. Who would you rather see get that money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top