What our Troops are really saying about Bush-Iraq!!!

[Sergeant Stinger1]

I have talked to about 90 of our Troops that came home from Iraq for a while and some were really pi$$ed at Bush! They were from R.I.-Mass. and Conn. They said that they soon would be making their 3rd trip back to Iraq.
Most were Pi$$ed about the hard ship it put on their familys with one of them losing their house partly because Bush took away their hazardous duty pay and some of their wifes supplement pay away from them. And also the money they had to get together to pay for their husbands-wifes armor and other things they had to pay out of their own pockets.
Thats a dirty rotten trick Bush did to our troops while they were fighting in Iraq.
NOT ONE OF THEM SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO GO BACK TO IRAQ!!!
Wonder where Bush got all those hand picked Troops to be around him for all of his Photo OPTS???
Now THATS what our Troops are really saying about Bush-Iraq!

 

[Gitdog]

How did they lose their house when they get TAX FREE BAH?
If they came back to the US then of course they would not be paid hazardous duty. You stop getting paid that the day you leave a hazardous zone.

 

[jallman]

I have talked to about 90 of our Troops that came home from Iraq for a while and some were really pi$$ed at Bush! They were from R.I.-Mass. and Conn. They said that they soon would be making their 3rd trip back to Iraq.
Most were Pi$$ed about the hard ship it put on their familys with one of them losing their house partly because Bush took away their hazardous duty pay and some of their wifes supplement pay away from them. And also the money they had to get together to pay for their husbands-wifes armor and other things they had to pay out of their own pockets.
Thats a dirty rotten trick Bush did to our troops while they were fighting in Iraq.
NOT ONE OF THEM SAID THAT THEY WANTED TO GO BACK TO IRAQ!!!
Wonder where Bush got all those hand picked Troops to be around him for all of his Photo OPTS???
Now THATS what our Troops are really saying about Bush-Iraq!

Need I point out that anecdotal evidence is worth nothing in a debate?

I live in Alaska and the troops I know have said, "yeah, its rough" but that they are doing a good thing. I keep hearing that they are afraid that the media is going to turn this into another Vietnam type issue and that Cindy Sheehan needs to STFU.

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

Can you try to clear this up it doesn't make sense ? Like Gitdog say when troops "come back to the US they would not be paid hazardous duty .You stop getting paid that the day you leave a hazardous zone." Also the supplemental armor troops use is just that isn't it? It is not promised when they join the armed forces so why are they complaining like it was suppose to be provided? I think congress was trying to get them some? The troops in WW2 had the same problem with the Sherman tank it armor was too thin and it had to be improvised in the field by adding logs, sand bags etc..The equipment came as is when they joined.

Personally I don't really trust all those reports glowing reports from troops saying the totally believe in the mission in Iraq etc.. I think those are selective reports. These troops make their living at this so they may tend not to want to risk their job and they may not speak up for that reason and other reasons as well. Can you imagine someone working at Walmart being interviewed by CBS and gripping and complaining about conditions at Walmart? No! Why? He want to keep his job that's why! These troops in Iraq are making some pretty good pay too from what I hear from other people who know about that from some of the troops serving there now.

I talked to a Marine who's done 3 tours in Iraq he says the troops are under pressure from higher ups no to complain about not liking the Iraq mission & situation. This Marine was real unhappy with they way Bush handled Iraq. I talk also to a Major in the US Army right before the '03 war, he was totally against going to war ..I guess maybe he knew it would be a mess taking responsibility for establishing the Iraq government ?

Any ways I think there's a real story to uncover here there seems to be too much positive propaganda covering up the real troops opinion on Iraq, it may be hard at uncovering the truth because of the conflicting interest the troops have in making a living and other reasons like it is not too popular to spread discontent when in a war situation since so many lives are at risk and bad moral may mean more lives lost etc,etc...

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Can you try to clear this up it doesn't make sense ? Like Gitdog say when troops "come back to the US they would not be paid hazardous duty .You stop getting paid that the day you leave a hazardous zone." Also the supplemental armor troops use is just that isn't it? It is not promised when they join the armed forces so why are they complaining like it was suppose to be provided? I think congress was trying to get them some? The troops in WW2 had the same problem with the Sherman tank it armor was too thin and it had to be improvised in the field by adding logs, sand bags etc..The equipment came as is when they joined.

Personally I don't really trust all those reports glowing reports from troops saying the totally believe in the mission in Iraq etc.. I think those are selective reports. These troops make their living at this so they may tend not to want to risk their job and they may not speak up for that reason and other reasons as well. Can you imagine someone working at Walmart being interviewed by CBS and gripping and complaining about conditions at Walmart? No! Why? He want to keep his job that's why! These troops in Iraq are making some pretty good pay too from what I hear from other people who know about that from some of the troops serving there now.

I talked to a Marine who's done 3 tours in Iraq he says the troops are under pressure from higher ups no to complain about not liking the Iraq mission & situation. This Marine was real unhappy with they way Bush handled Iraq. I talk also to a Major in the US Army right before the '03 war, he was totally against going to war ..I guess maybe he knew it would be a mess taking responsibility for establishing the Iraq government ?

Any ways I think there's a real story to uncover here there seems to be too much positive propaganda covering up the real troops opinion on Iraq, it may be hard at uncovering the truth because of the conflicting interest the troops have in making a living and other reasons like it is not too popular to spread discontent when in a war situation since so many lives are at risk and bad moral may mean more lives lost etc,etc...

_______
Do you even realise what you said?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Also the suplemental armour troops use is just that isn't it?"
"It is not promised when they join the armed forces so why are they complaining like it was supposed to be provided."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Geez! You don't think that our Troops not having armour is something to complain about? Family members had to chip in to buy armour protection for our Troops on the front lines is nothing to complain about?

______
Let me explain a little better.
Hazardous duty for our Troops was ">>>CUT<<<" by bush!
______

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

Sergeant Stinger1 ....I think you are injecting something into what I said that I never said .I am not debating or complaining that the troops have no right to complain about this or anything else. If the troops think they need extra armor I say by all means complain away I hope they get all they need. What I meant is that this armor was not promised when they joined up, supplemental armor means extra like "batteries not included", it is not a right they can demand that was unlawfully denied. EXAMPLE when you join the Army your promised to get rations, MRE etc, not fine gourmet foods, not fine wines etc.. if you want that you provide it yourself. What I am asking is are people complaining like they have had a right violated? Was it written in a contract somewhere that the government promised this or was obligated to provide this extra armor? If the US government never was under any obligation to provide such armor are people now falsely saying they were?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by realquest 6ggwr44q
If the US government never was under any obligation to provide such armor are people now falsely saying they were?

Welcome to Debate Politics!

If you're not obligated to get soldiers body armour,
then what do they mean by saying "Support the Troops?"

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

Hello Billo_Really how are you tonite? I am trying to discuss the legality of this matter not the patriotism or feelings of why it should be done. The troops have certain contractual facts they can use to obtain certain rights and requirements, they can't demand things because some slogan on a bumper sticker or because it's patriotic or because it's the warm hearted thing to do.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Sergeant Stinger1 ....I think you are injecting something into what I said that I never said .I am not debating or complaining that the troops have no right to complain about this or anything else. If the troops think they need extra armor I say by all means complain away I hope they get all they need. What I meant is that this armor was not promised when they joined up, supplemental armor means extra like "batteries not included", it is not a right they can demand that was unlawfully denied.


________
EXAMPLE when you join the Army your promised to get rations, MRE etc, not fine gourmet foods, not fine wines etc.. if you want that you provide it yourself. What I am asking is are people complaining like they have had a right violated? Was it written in a contract somewhere that the government promised this or was obligated to provide this extra armor? If the US government never was under any obligation to provide such armor are people now falsely saying they were?

__________

Uh! I don't know about any gov. contracts to give our Troops the armour they deserve and I did not say that they said that any of their rights were violated.
What I do know is that they were sent to battle WITHOUT the proper armour and even when our Gov-Bush knew they didn't have the proper armour Gov-Bush did nothing and thats when familys started buying the proper armour and sending it to our troops.
You make it seem like you are sticking up for our Gov-Bush for not providing the proper armour and that there has to be a "contract" before our Gov-bUsh will provide them with the proper armour.

That was one of the things that I was against from the beginning. Invading Iraq was pushed by bUsh-Repubs-Cons. Now we know that invading with out full armour protection and no pull out plans was a bad move.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Sergeant Stinger1 ....I think you are injecting something into what I said that I never said .I am not debating or complaining that the troops have no right to complain about this or anything else. If the troops think they need extra armor I say by all means complain away I hope they get all they need. What I meant is that this armor was not promised when they joined up, supplemental armor means extra like "batteries not included", it is not a right they can demand that was unlawfully denied.


________
EXAMPLE when you join the Army your promised to get rations, MRE etc, not fine gourmet foods, not fine wines etc.. if you want that you provide it yourself. What I am asking is are people complaining like they have had a right violated? Was it written in a contract somewhere that the government promised this or was obligated to provide this extra armor? If the US government never was under any obligation to provide such armor are people now falsely saying they were?

__________

Uh! I don't know about any gov. contracts to give our Troops the armour they deserve and I did not say that they said that any of their rights were violated.
What I do know is that they were sent to battle WITHOUT the proper armour and even when our Gov-Bush knew they didn't have the proper armour Gov-Bush did nothing and thats when familys started buying the proper armour and sending it to our troops.
You make it seem like you are sticking up for our Gov-Bush for not providing the proper armour and that there has to be a "contract" before our Gov-bUsh will provide them with the proper armour.

That was one of the things that I was against from the beginning. Invading Iraq was pushed by bUsh-Repubs-Cons. Now we know that invading with out full armour protection and no pull out plans was a bad move.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by realquest 6ggwr44q
Hello Billo_Really how are you tonite? I am trying to discuss the legality of this matter not the patriotism or feelings of why it should be done. The troops have certain contractual facts they can use to obtain certain rights and requirements, they can't demand things because some slogan on a bumper sticker or because it's patriotic or because it's the warm hearted thing to do.

I just find it ironic that they make such a big deal about supporting the troops, yet do not give them the tools of the trade they need to perform their work. That's not what I call support.

As far as contract law, you have a case.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

If you're not obligated to get soldiers body armour,
then what do they mean by saying "Support the Troops?"

The lack of up-armored vehicles and the lack of body armor is not the fault of the current administration, that is the fault of the Clinton administration, GWB has increased armor levels exponentially.

 

[Captain America]

I often wondered if the troops were all gathered in a huge arena and were posed the question, "How many of you want to say to hell with Iraq and go home?" How many would raise their hands. I also wonder how many of them would raise their hands when asked in private.


My bet is they want to come home more than they want to "free" Iraq. :roll:

 

[jallman]

I often wondered if the troops were all gathered in a huge arena and were posed the question, "How many of you want to say to hell with Iraq and go home?" How many would raise their hands. I also wonder how many of them would raise their hands when asked in private.


My bet is they want to come home more than they want to "free" Iraq. :roll:

My faith is in the fact that it doesn't matter what they want. Military personnel do not get to have an opinion about when or where they withdraw from the mission. They get to follow orders and, if their rank is of sufficient clearance, offer input as to the risk assessment of any course of policy.

We pay our military. They enter into a contractual agreement at the age of consent that binds them to do the will of our command. I also believe that our military is dignified enough to endure the charge of supporting their command through trial by fire.

What the individual soldier believes is irrelevant when dictating how the armed force is deployed in response to a threat.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jallman:
My faith is in the fact that it doesn't matter what they want. Military personnel do not get to have an opinion about when or where they withdraw from the mission. They get to follow orders and, if their rank is of sufficient clearance, offer input as to the risk assessment of any course of policy.

We pay our military. They enter into a contractual agreement at the age of consent that binds them to do the will of our command. I also believe that our military is dignified enough to endure the charge of supporting their command through trial by fire.

What the individual soldier believes is irrelevant when dictating how the armed force is deployed in response to a threat.

Would it not be our responsibility to at least make sure they had better commanders (starting at the top).

 

[jallman]

Would it not be our responsibility to at least make sure they had better commanders (starting at the top).

It is our social responsibility to categorically support our elected official's judgment until such a time as the authority we provided them, through an representative process, expires.

To continually undermine our chosen official's authority is nothing short of poor sportsmanship on a global scale.

Our justified response to poor leadership is the blatant and serious threat that we will elect different leadership in their stead at our next opportunity. Anything more is denying out most basic code of government conduct as a reaction to difficult circumstances.

Needless to say, I am not impressed with the idea of showing a dissention against our highest ELECTED official.

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

We have had similar problems in our history. In Vietnam the troops had a situation where the new M16's where having jamming problems because of residue build up in the breech. The M16 would often failed under combat conditions because this bug had not been worked out of the new weapon. GI's had to have their folks from back home in the states mail them the necessary cleaning kits since the government bureaucracy was such a failure at proving their needs for this weapon. Eventually the M16 was redesigned with a new chrome plated breech that solved the problem but that took some time.

What about agent orange? What a nightmare trying to prove it and get the Vets compensation for it from the Government, didn't it take what something like 25-30 years before the US government admitted they were wrong in misusing agent orange? Fact is the US government is slow, dumb, crooked and tight fisted about these deals. Who knows how many stories could be dug up on the unfair messes our military have had to endure because of our own government?

If our troops are suffering so much from the lack of armor or hazard duty pay why don't the public do some things? The private sector is always sending the troops packages of food, clothes, books, games etc.. Why not the private sector create some kind of fund so we can buy this armor and send it now? I think McCain and some other congressmen have tried fighting for this issue of body armor. Where are the movie stars,entertainers,famous figures etc..on this issue? I think I've heard of one or two doing something about the body armor but where's the rest? Too busy trying to create Bush hating fan clubs? Too busy doing coke? Where's the liberal media who has such a strangle hold on most of the News outlets? I don't see them devoting free air time to draw attention to this issue? But I do hear talk radio people (almost all conservatives) holding rallies and collecting funds for widows,orphans and badly injured soldiers.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jallman:
It is our social responsibility to categorically support our elected official's judgment until such a time as the authority we provided them, through an representative process, expires.

To continually undermine our chosen official's authority is nothing short of poor sportsmanship on a global scale.

Our justified response to poor leadership is the blatant and serious threat that we will elect different leadership in their stead at our next opportunity. Anything more is denying out most basic code of government conduct as a reaction to difficult circumstances.

Needless to say, I am not impressed with the idea of showing a dissention against our highest ELECTED official.

I guess that lets Hitler off the hook!

 

[jallman]

I guess that lets Hitler off the hook!

You know, I truly would have expected you to show something, anything that makes the Hitler comparison.

What happened?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jallman:
You know, I truly would have expected you to show something, anything that makes the Hitler comparison.

What happened?

The comparison is obvious. Un-provoked armed aggression is un-provoked armed aggression. If we wait 'till the elections before addressing our greivances, then were no better than the folks in Weimar. However, if you want a list, I will acquiesce:

• The leaders of both country's came to power primarily on the vote of Christians
• The leaders of both country's thought their ascention was due to a higher calling
• The leaders of both country's consolidated power using the existing laws of their state
• The leaders of both country's started un-provoked wars of aggression
• The leaders of both country's engaged in data mining
• The leaders of both country's were intolerant to criticism

And your wrong regarding the Presidents authority. He derives his authority from the consent of the governed.

 

[jallman]

And your wrong regarding the Presidents authority. He derives his authority from the consent of the governed.

He did that when he won the presidency. What's your point?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jallman:
He did that when he won the presidency. What's your point?

It doesn't say in the Constitution "greivances" can only be addressed during elections. I've written my elected officials and received a response from my Senator, which I, incidently, posted in this forum.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-political-platforms/18490-letter-my-senator.html

The point is, if we do not speak up and take our government to task, then this road of imperialism takes us farther and farther from our democratic roots.

A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can't be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, like the old Roman Republic, it will lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship.

-Chalmers Johnson

What we got going on now is what I call the Stalinization of America or more commonly refered too as Militarism.

Chalmers Johnson: "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic"
Democracy Now Tuesday 27 February 2007

Militarism is the - what the social side has called the "intervening variable," the causative connection. That is to say, to maintain an empire requires a very large standing army, huge expenditures on arms that leads to a military-industrial complex, and generally speaking, a vicious cycle sets up of interests that lead to perpetual series of wars.

It goes back to probably the earliest warning ever delivered to us by our first president, George Washington, in his famous farewell address. It's read at the opening of every new session of Congress. Washington said that the great enemy of the republic is standing armies; it is a particular enemy of republican liberty. What he meant by it is that it breaks down the separation of powers into an executive, legislative, and judicial branches that are intended to check each other - this is our most fundamental bulwark against dictatorship and tyranny - it causes it to break down, because standing armies, militarism, military establishment, military-industrial complex all draw power away from the rest of the country to Washington, including taxes, that within Washington they draw it to the presidency, and they begin to create an imperial presidency, who then implements the military's desire for secrecy, making oversight of the government almost impossible for a member of Congress, even, much less for a citizen.

You don't see any of this happening right now?

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

[*]The leaders of both country's came to power primarily on the vote of Christians

The word for Christian today is really quite meaningless, most of the time it is actually used to describe a concept that is a total distortion of what Jesus & the new testament teaches. Bush had help from real Christians in winning his presidential elections but in fact most were non Christian votes for Bush.

Not true of Hitler.Germany was one of the areas in Europe where Christianity grew under the Reformation but Germany didn't have very much true Christianity left by the time of Hitler. In the 1800's Germany was the birth place of much of the world's liberal theology & atheistic philosophy which eventually destroyed most of their faith in the Bible and much of what was called Christianity was no such thing.

In fact this shift in the Germans world view is what led to accepting the authoritarian dictatorship of Hitler. The Reformation was an reaction against Catholicism which is a false Christianity ( Catholicism being an authoritarian dictatorship itself ). The Reformation led to the freedoms in the reformation based countries in Europe, eventually this came to America and formed the base for our government & freedoms here.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted byrealquest 6ggwr44q:
The word for Christian today is really quite meaningless, most of the time it is actually used to describe a concept that is a total distortion of what Jesus & the new testament teaches. Bush had help from real Christians in winning his presidential elections but in fact most were non Christian votes for Bush.

Not true of Hitler.Germany was one of the areas in Europe where Christianity grew under the Reformation but Germany didn't have very much true Christianity left by the time of Hitler. In the 1800's Germany was the birth place of much of the world's liberal theology & atheistic philosophy which eventually destroyed most of their faith in the Bible and much of what was called Christianity was no such thing.

In fact this shift in the Germans world view is what led to accepting the authoritarian dictatorship of Hitler. The Reformation was an reaction against Catholicism which is a false Christianity ( Catholicism being an authoritarian dictatorship itself ). The Reformation led to the freedoms in the reformation based countries in Europe, eventually this came to America and formed the base for our government & freedoms here.

It was German Christians that voted for Hitler in Weimar and then got duped!

Why Did People Vote for Hitler?

One major factor that helped Nazis' rise to power was its religious component, called the German Faith Movement. This was an amalgamation of new ideas and Christian concepts, and played a pivotal role in paving the way for the rise of National Socialism, in Weimar Germany. Revisionist anti-Semitic theologians rewrote the Christian tradition: Christ was Aryan, not Jewish, they said, He was heroic, but not divine, and most of the Gospels were unreliable except for Mark, the oldest.

"One of the dangers of liberal Christianity, where all sorts of interpretations are permitted, is that it can easily slip into becoming a new religion," Poewe says. "This is what happened. In a bid to rid Germany of what it saw as Jewish Christianity, several home-grown practices sprang up, including some that incorporated Icelandic and pre-Christian sagas, as well as ideas from German Idealism."

These initially separated and disorganized new religions eventually came under the umbrella of a single entity, the German Faith Movement, which was used as a tool for advancing the Nazi political agenda. Hitler saw in the German Faith Movement a mechanism for transmitting and reinforcing the National Socialist worldview: "He shaped its followers into a disciplined political force but dismissed its leaders later when they were no longer needed," Poewe said. Thus the German Faith Movement eventually became completely subordinated to politics.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

The lack of up-armored vehicles and the lack of body armor is not the fault of the current administration, that is the fault of the Clinton administration, GWB has increased armor levels exponentially.

________
Bill Clinton? LOL! Bill did NOT invade anyone with out the proper armour and no pullout plan.
Come on now, Bush has been in office for nearly 7 years. Don't ya think its time Bush started taking the heat for his screwups?