English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

It has always been that way, there have been veterans marches on DC back in the early 1900s which were met with force. When i came home from Viet Nam the VA benefits were not like WWII, but there was education and home loan guarentees, medical however was a sham and it still is, the VA is backlogged with over 400,000 calims, many fromn Nam, agent orange long denied claims are a good part of them. Whoile governemnts are all gung ho to sign up young people, they have too long of a hsitory of abuse and neglect of our countries heroes, and lets face it Cyndi, we wouldnt have the right to seak out on this fourm without their sacrifices.

Funding is lacking, dedicated brueaucrats dedicated to brueaucracy, admission of problems like agent orange, would help and more vets in congress will hopfully do a better job

2007-03-03 01:23:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

The officials have always maintained they fully support the veterans. Yet when push comes to shove, and those same officials need money somewhere else, or money gets tight, the easiest way to get money, or save it, is to cut it from veteran's programs. It used to be less of a problem. The elected officials used to be a higher percentage of war veterans. They knew from experience what servicemen and women went through in the military, and knew what veterans were going through. They had friends who served with them, and had a solid knowledge of veteran's issues. But during the 70s, the percentage of veterans dropped drastically, and some of the veterans who were elected only made it due to their opposition to anything regarding the military or veterans. So now, the elected group is made up of people who will claim they know what veterans must be going through, and that they care, but in reality don't have the background to actually know anything. So they continue to make those decisions, cutting veteran's funds and programs to funnel the funds to other things, like studying why bees fly. The "Walter Reed" thing isn't something that happened overnight. That facility has been in a sad state of decline for many years. The people who are being "fired" or are resigning aren't the ones who are responsible for it's current state. This has been an ongoing issue, just ignored and pushed away, to save money to spend elsewhere. If they were serious about this issue, they would open their eyes and expand their investigation to find all the other shortcomings in this county's veteran's care systems. But they won't. They will try to get everyone to focus on this single incident, so no one will notice anything else is wrong. Money is tight, and the cost of veteran care isn't cheap, yet they expect these Americans to go lay their lives on the line in service to their country without any support when they return home. It won't get better until the elected officials get a higher percentage of veterans who know what the real story is. Walter Reed will probably get a major facelift, done with funds redirected from other deteriating areas of the veteran programs, making them worse. It will be well advertised about what a wonderful job everyone did to make Walter Reed a shining example of veteran's care. However, it will be the equivelant of a shining new tower in the middle of the slum project. They will focus everyone to it, so the rest will not be seen, and these same officials will claim they did their job, that they care, and ask for votes. And the veterans will continue to be swept aside to the slums of the program, unless they are lucky enough to rate the care in that one, shining tower.

2007-03-03 01:28:33 · answer #2 · answered by fishing66833 6 · 3 1

Great question !
There are some officials in the government who are not doing the job they are supposed to be doing .
Walter Reed Army Hospital is a fine example ,sub health care of our veterans .Now they are trying to take away our benefits that we have earned as retired military .And others that laid their life on the line 24/ 7 for us all .We desperately need our medicines to be paid for .And half of what is wrong with us is from being over in the wars military zones .

2007-03-03 02:30:37 · answer #3 · answered by Elaine814 5 · 0 1

I fail to comprehend how somebody who would use the handle Martin Luther King, Jr. would be so anti-Israel. He was a big supporter of Israel and called out those who weren't. He was a passionate Zionist. Please, change you handle if you persist to ask these antisemitic questions. Another thing to think about as well. Where do you think we get most of our intelligence from in the middle east? Israel lets us know when bad things are coming our way. Do you think the Israeli army has not come across any Muslim radicals or extremist? They get the information and send it our way when they capture these psychos. That is another reason we support Israel. They are our only major allie in the middle east.

2016-03-28 22:12:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because "Supporting the troops" is only a GOP marketing campaign. Much of what cons believe are things that they dont put into real practice.

Thier marketing is that: liberals HATE Christ/ worship satan and the GOP is the party of Christ. They market that liberals hate the troops and love Osama and that republicans support the troops. They market that liberals all have wild and illicit sex and republicans always wait until marriage. They think libs are all commies who want govt to make all your decisions and republicans are pro individual responsibility. It goes on and on.


Cons truly believe their nonsense despite NEVER living up to their beliefs and never having any evidence that libs do such things.


Everything the GOP is, is jsut a PR campaign not based in reality.

None of their BS has any base in reality.

2007-03-03 01:19:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

The idealistic Administration doesn't want to deal with the harsh reality of war. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to keep sending new troops and insert a human face on the real toll of the price of their mistake. The wounded are too far removed from the decision makers, and don't have the power to change the course of it.

2007-03-03 01:06:05 · answer #6 · answered by Outside the box 6 · 2 1

This is really a complex issue.

The propaganda is designed to get them there. Understand, they are on the way to war, they are heros now, HIP, HIP HOORAY!!!
Then everybody gives them lots of encouragement, and pats on the back. This helps Psyche the troops up for the war.
When their enlistment is over, so is the fan fare, the recognition, and the encouragement. Now its just cold world time, the past is forgotten, as is any good you may have done.
Sometime, men and women come home with serious problems (Physical and Psychological) many prefer to turn their heads to these realities, because it is easier than supporting or helping a person suffering from the effects of war. Again something the Pentagon would prefer not to have covered by the media (shush tell no one if you can, and if they find out, then deny it always.

Additionally many veterans are being denied the benefits being promised them through legislative measures. (legal phraseology that both provides the benefits and removes them at the same time.) Not to mention timely bureaucratic pitfalls and mismanagement of those benefits that they actually receive.

If you have a criminal record your never forgotten.

The government does not really care, if they did cherish the human resource of our military. They would not send them to war on a bed of lies to fulfill their and their business partners agendas.
They would prefer that they just be quite and shut up, about their war experience. The more fanfare at home after the war, the more the men and women in our armed services have an opportunity to share their experiences with the rest of the world, the more the truth about our war is revealed. These truths, the pentagon, works very hard to hide.

Rest assured all of our heros will be remembered posthumously as all those before them were.

First thing you need to know, is that the mainstream media is as much a part of the war machine as is a tomahawk missile. It is the medias job to propagandize the war. They help the Pentagon sell you the war. This is why most Americans are in the dark about what is really going on in the Middle East, because the media is not telling the whole truth, and often times lies. At best the media gives you a quick blurb about an event, not a comprehensive view, but just enough information for you believe that war is the right thing to do. Much of the time the reports are scripted at the Pentagon (remember the Palistine Hotel in Bahgdad (en. wikipedia.org/wiki/ taras_protsyuk [remove the spaces]) US military approved media only. All others will be killed. If people really saw what war was about, it would stop fast (Just as we lost Viet-Nam at home, due to honest journalism, America saw how F**KING UGLY war is, and saw the false flag operations that brought it about). All is not lost, there are good independent sources of information. www.indymedia.org.
The Plan for the invasion for the Middle East was crafted by a member of the Counsel on Foreign Relations, Paul Wolfowitz, former cabinet member of the Reagan administration, in a paper produced by the Project for the New American Century in 1997

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...

and a paper written by Dick Cheny called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century

(www.newamericancentury.org/Re...

Now if you do the research, you will find the Middle East invasion is not about getting cheap gas to Americans, and it is not about 9/11. It is about global dominance, by controlling the worlds major energy source (oil), America controls all of the countries (and their military) that depend on the oil, get it? (Pinky and the Brain).
Now you need to know that 9/11 was a false flag operation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_f... an inside job.
OK, now you have a clue, google the rest. In fact check out "Loose Change" streaming on Google video: video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
Now is someone lying? Or are you in need of more information?.
OK, back to the media, as a war machine. Is this your only source of information. How unfortunate, because the war to control your perceptions IS ON. The objective - keeping your belief system as far away from reality as they can take it.
Patriotism is in desperate need of salvation, the enemy is at home, not abroad.
There are DVD's circulating amongst the population that give great detail to what is really going on, want one?
When you take the time to do the research you will find the war unjustified, oppressive, and wrong.
I do not get my education from ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, or the Associated Press. I get my education from books.

2007-03-03 01:20:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

In response to a previous answer, the country was not at war when Bush took office. Veteran's health care requirements weren't nearly what they are now.
I want to know why this issue with Walter Reed was not address when it was first exposed in 2003.

2007-03-03 01:07:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

i agree with stephanie....the people of America DO care and support the troops....it's the government that isn't supporting them..i bet they would be a lot less likely to start wars if their own children were being sent over to the front lines.

2007-03-03 01:00:47 · answer #9 · answered by Paulien 5 · 4 3

Because socialized medicine does not work. To much red tape and not enough Doctors. Our military deserves better, the reality is we will all experience this type of care if Liberals get their way and we change our health care system from private to governmental.

2007-03-03 01:05:11 · answer #10 · answered by Mother 6 · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers