It's been reported numerous times that the troops sent to Iraq are sent without the proper equipment like body armour and properly armoured vehicles so our casualties are higher than they should be and now there are accounts that when the wounded come home to Walter Reed the conditions are pretty poor for many of them. Also Bush and the Republicans are always trying to reduce funds for the Veterans Administration. It seems like they pay a lot of lip service to the military but when it comes to reality their saving money at the soldiers and verterans expense so they can keep their tax cuts doesn't bother them at all. Do they really support the troops?
2007-02-21 10:34:54 · 14 answers · asked by Pop D 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
To tx girl. I am a vet and I see first hand what the veterans hospitals are like and to wait for treatment for months because there are not the facilities to treat vets in a timely manner. I was diagnosed for cancer and the next appointment for treatment couldn't be set up for 4 months because of their backlog. Thank God I also have private insurance and got the treatment needed on a timely basis.. Don't believe the bull crap this administration puts out. There are thousands of vets in the same situation and no one really cares, especially conservative Republicans.
2007-02-21 10:50:23 · update #1
To usmc It's you who better check out the facts. Yes, I am a veteran. Also check out the Iraq and Afghanistan Verterans of America before you go off on all veterans that don't agree with you. Not all military are as brainwashed as you seem to be. Thank God we do have some soldiers, sailors and marines that can think for themselves.
2007-02-21 10:55:39 · update #2
To all of you who keep blaming Clinton. It seems to me that George W. Bush and the Republicans have been in charge for 6 years. What have they done in that time? All of WW11 was fought in 3 and a half years. Blame Clinton, WOW what a hoot. What you are really saying is that it was Clintons' military that won the war militarily in about 4-5 months then because George bush really didn't have any time to train, supply and equip are military. You can't have it both ways. So all you military guys that answered this question really are giving credit for our swift defeat of Saddam Hussein to Bill Clintons army.
2007-02-21 11:07:41 · update #3
So you are claiming that President Bush does not support the troops because:
1) they did not have Interceptor Body Armor because of Clinton-era cost-cutting.
2) They did not have armor packages on their vehicles that had not been invented yet.
You really need to ask better questions. Then you _might_ learn something.
2007-02-21 10:49:10 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm a soldier myself, only from a different country, american soldiers are some of the best equipped in the world, your basic infantry mans combat load is some of the most complete and through i've seen before.
And regarding the body armor and armored kits, we all know how slow logistical trains are, not to mention there's the funding cuts that your military has had to put up with.
As for the armored vehicles, your people rely on humvees, which as i recall, are not meant to be armored. They were not designed for the role that they have been placed into, and for obvious reasons, you don't want to put tanks into a city. And even if you did, i can't imagine any infantry man who wants to walk next to a big, loud and very obvious target.
GunShow has a point, you're supposed to rely on your weapon, your head, and the man next to you. Not walk out there like a bullet proof rambo. As for the casualties, i think they'd be worse if soldiers began to rely on their armor more then a nice thick wall for cover.
2007-02-21 19:31:27 · answer #2 · answered by Dai S 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
first of all .. what is the definition of proper equipment to a civilian and what is the definition of proper equipment to a solder. I was in Iraq in 2003. Our equipment was our weapons and our heads. the idea of going into battle is not to become bullet proof and stand in the middle of a field. We have never had so much technology and equipment going into a war in US history. how many bullet proof vests were sent to troops to win world war II?. ...In Iraq, We had regular HumVs and took the canvas doors off them so we could shoot better without opening a door.
i am a veteran of Iraq and I support Bush and the war effort.. Some military people will disagree with for different reasons that i don't want to argue about, but a lot of military people are with me and upholding the faith in the soldiers and not the technology.
2007-02-21 18:52:58 · answer #3 · answered by GunShow 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your question is completely absurd; it's the liberals that do not care for the military! Clinton is the one that cut the military - closed bases - do some research! The Republicans are not the ones that arrange anti-war rallies! Get your facts straight before you post such ridiculous questions. Have you ever served your country & what do you do to support our troops? God Bless President Bush & our military.
2007-02-21 18:47:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is rather strange isn't it!! This guy sends our military to war without the proper equipment and yet they stand behind him. Guess it is like when we came home from the Nam and didn't want to admit that we fought for the damned politicans in DC. And to the little sweety that answered to this questions and injected that the VA is doing a heckofa job- think again young lady!! The VA is barely making it along with the funding that Bush has allocated. Ya know that you can be a Republican and still admit to the truth!!
2007-02-21 18:55:40 · answer #5 · answered by supressdesires 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It would seem that the men and women in the military know more than you give them credit for. Possibly they aren't fooled by the Democratic Party talking points that continue to harp on something that was true at the outset of the war, but is no longer the case.
2007-02-21 18:51:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obviously the troops know that the "numerous reports" are not the truth about W not giving the needed support. They see such accusations to be false with their own eyes.
The rest of us only see the biased press reports by agenda driven media, and wrongly come to your conclusion that GWB does not care.
2007-02-21 18:41:07 · answer #7 · answered by Dr Fred 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The military is trained to obey the orders of their superiors no matter what. Those that are in Iraq/Afghanistan are there because they have been assigned to duty there. They may or may not agree with the President's decision. But it would be a dangerous situation if our military refused to obey its commander-in-chief.
2007-02-21 19:07:26 · answer #8 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Realistically, the troops from the US are supported monetarily far better than from other countries but at the same time, not up to most of our standards. What would be nice to see is Bush putting a s s where his mouth is (as if his head is not already up there) and get out there himself if he thinks all of this is so justified.
2007-02-21 18:47:49 · answer #9 · answered by Caitlin M 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He does care about the military. They do have the body armour that's a Democratic Party line to inspire cutting and running du John Kerry and John Murtha. Who are both turncoats.
2007-02-21 18:39:00 · answer #10 · answered by stick man 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋