Instead of whining about the need for more troops, shouldn't Washington finally send more supplies to troops?

Question

Bush and Rumsfeld are talking about the need for reinforcements, meanwhile they have rarely ever supported aiding our troops which have been begging since the war began for more weapons and vehicles.
Instead of more troops, more supplies could go a long way.
Many democratic senators such as Kerry have voted to support the troops more with the items they need to win the war in an effective manner. Republicans have not for the most part. This bewilders me.
It's time for our leaders to stop making empty claims.
Since our government claims to support the troops, shouldn't they back up their words through action?

Answer 1

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU HAVE YOUR EYE OUT FOR SOMETHING TO SUPPORT:::::::::::::After some of us began to ask which part of the war on terrorism Democrats support, BY ANN COULTER
Larry Kudlow put the question directly to Rep. Barney Frank on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company.
" Frank said: "What part of the war on terrorism do I support? I voted for war in Afghanistan."
On "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, aspiring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the war in Iraq
as not "part of the war on terror." The war on terror, she said "is the war in Afghanistan."
So that's it. The one part of the war on terror -- or "so-called war on terror," as New York Times so-called
columnist Bob Herbert calls it -- Democrats even pretend to support is the war in Afghanistan.
Immediately after the attacks of 9/11, Democrats had no choice but to vote in favor of that war --
of any war. (Save one member of Congress -- guess which party? Answer: Rep. Barbara Lee, Democrat, of California.)
If Bush had gone to war with Iraq immediately after 9/11 and waited to attack Afghanistan,
Democrats would now be pretending to support the Iraq war while pointlessly carping about Afghanistan.
Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11! The Taliban didn't attack us! What's our exit strategy?
How do you define "victory" in Afghanistan, anyway? It's a quagmire -- aahhhhh!
The beauty of Democrats' pretending to be hawks on Afghanistan is that most people can't remember
what liberals said five minutes after they said it, much less five years later.
In fact, during the brief five weeks it took American forces to take Kabul and send the Taliban scurrying,
liberals were not the flag-waving patriots they would have us believe.
In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations saying that
America's air war in Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech bully that thinks from
the air we can do whatever we want to do."
Four weeks before U.S. troops completely vanquished the Taliban, Kim Jong Il's pal, New Mexico
Gov. Bill Richardson, said on CNN's "Capital Gang" that the Taliban would not soon be toppled.
He cited his experience with the Taliban, saying: "I think they can hold on for a while. They were very resilient."
Howard Dean joined Michael Moore in arguing that Osama bin Laden was innocent until proved guilty.
Except for a few idiots like Biden, Richardson and Dean, most politicians -- who have to run for election --
duly voted in favor of the war in Afghanistan and let their mouthpieces in the media bash it for them. (Remember:
A lot of them voted for war in Iraq, too.)
Democrats who would not have to face voters -- we call them "reporters" -- were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire"
approximately six minutes after we invaded.
Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post reporter who currently has a book out saying the war in Iraq is not succeeding,
also said the war in Afghanistan was not succeeding.
On Oct. 27, 2001, Ricks said this about Afghanistan -- not Iraq: "Although there is little evidence -- yet -- that the U.S.
approach is succeeding, officials at the Pentagon and the White House said yesterday that they are sticking with their original strategy."
Our boys had taken Kabul before Ricks' article hit the recycling bin.
The media gave us gleeful reports on friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan, incessant body counts, numbers of civilian dead
and polls showing that the rest of world hated us. Christiane Amanpour reported on CNN in February 2002 that "77 percent
of those (Muslims) interviewed said the U.S. war in Afghanistan was morally unjustifiable." The Muslim world hates us --
because of the war Democrats claim to support.
In an Oct. 27, 2001, column titled "How to Lose a War," New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote that the Taliban
"are proving Viet Cong-like in their intractability." He stated categorically that "we're losing that battle for Afghan hearts and minds" --
proving Rich to be as competent a military analyst as any longtime New York Times theater critic could reasonably be expected to be.
Say, when is the Times going to hire generals to review the latest Broadway offerings? I think more people would like to read
Tommy Franks' review of "Rent" than Frank Rich's review of a war.
Times columnist Maureen Dowd, more macho than Rich, asked: "Are we quagmiring ourselves again?" Apparently so.
She cited Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem's denial that we were getting bogged down in Afghanistan as "a sure sign we're getting bogged down."
In October 2001, on ABC News' "World News Tonight," anchor Peter Jennings asked Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan:
"Do you believe that the United States is possibly facing a quagmire in Afghanistan?"
The first time liberals had a kind word for the war in Afghanistan was when they needed to pretend to support some war in order
to attack the war in Iraq with greater vigor. To get them to support the Iraq war, all we have to do is attack Iran.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Answer 2

What are you talking about? First off the republicans have voted along with the dems to support the military in Iraq, 2nd we have the best trained best equipped military in history, the things that some units didn't have 3 years ago have all been rectified, the main thing was guard and reserve unit without the proper body armour. The big flap about the hummers without armour was BS because the hummer wasn't designed to be an armored vehicle....All in all the troops are being supported well. After 22 years on active duty I can only wish I could go back and do it all again...

Answer 3

You are putting out misinformation, or you are misinformed. I was in Iraq, March 2004 to 2005 (Taji). The only supplies thing we had problems getting were the armored vehicles that were supposed to be there when we got there. Instead, we had to improvise with sheets of iron that was there. When it came to beans and bullets, there was plenty. I was a medic. We always had plenty of emergency medical supplies. Any thing else we needed, we ordered through the Division medical supply. It took a long time to get supplies that were not critical to our mission. We had our ballistic vests, with the ballistic plates, before we left Quait for Iraq. I do not know of any US Senator or Representative, Republican or Democrat that has voted against any appropriations to pay for the needs of those serving in Iraq or any where else we have them in war zones. Basically, if you did the proper paper work to request supplies and followed up on it, you got it. I do, however do take issue with one thing that the Medical units did not have. If you needed medical lab work, it was difficult to get for some routine tests that should have been done on those that were sick or wounded. They usually had to go to the division hospital, and you would have to take a convoy or fly there. But, over all, I feel that we had what we needed, and some convenience stuff.

Answer 4

Wait! Wait! Wait!!!

All I've been hearing from conservatives is that the enlistment quota has been met!!! SURELY Washington is not truly whining for more troops...

How... IRONIC... could this be becasue even though enlistment goals are being met they do not reflect the current needs of the military??

I sure hope they are working hard to get the troops all the things they need to to ensure thier safety!

Answer 5

What should happen is some of the regular military should be sent to our southern border...why are Iraqis more important than Americans?

Answer 6

Well, General Steve, why don't you just send them the money to do so? Or better yet, tell the Demorats to stop blocking funding to do so.

Answer 7

Utter nonsense..
Not true...
You have clearly been listening to the self-serving liberal dems propaganda ...