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

supporting our troops means taking care of them when they come home. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_co/congress_veterans;_ylt=AkhXHPibxM3KCBJqzpUJ_HGyFz4D

2007-05-24 07:27:28 · 6 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government Politics

6 answers

They passed these, let us see if he actually will sign them It has already been documented that the Administration balked at every increase request from health care to survivor benefits.
"Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill."
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/

Maybe they were trying to preserve the pittance for the Blackwater contractors who get paid by the government at least 5 times more to do the same job our soldiers do.

So much for supporting the troops.

2007-05-24 07:30:56 · answer #1 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1 1

The GOP's idea that allocating more money to provide more armaments to extend the war in Iraq is supporting our troops is a fallacy and real mean and hypocritical. Although armed forces are established to fight wars for the purpose of defending their nation against a known enemy, this war in Iraq negates this principle in the sense that American soldiers are pitted between an insurgent war of Iraq Sunnis and Shiites fighting for control of their country - and this is basically a civil war. So why are our tropps in Iraq and which army are they fighting in Iraq and what American national borders are they defending in Iraq? This war is simply big business for corporate America of which majority of GOPs belong and have a huge share. The trillion dollars Bush wants for the trroops has nothing to do with supporting them There is no way you can support a people by exposing them to unnecessary danger. Supporting our troops is by finding the quickest way back home for them, then helping them financially and in all other ways to cope up with the trauma of war. These men and women have done their share, they now need to be back home with their families and friends.

2007-05-24 09:16:31 · answer #2 · answered by Leof 3 · 1 0

Of course!! Cons only SAY that they support the troops and love to fly flags around, but when the troops go to war, they are underprepared and with limited supplies. To make it worse, when the troops come home, Cons cut their benefits (too much money, they say. Let's give it instead to the OIL EXECS!). And people still vote Rep for some bizarre reason.

2007-05-24 07:40:02 · answer #3 · answered by Kookoo Bananas 2 · 3 0

Kudos to whoever is giving our veterans the care that they need when they come home, it should not be a political issue in the first place, and I don't think that we should pit Democrats and Republicans against each other on this issue either.

2007-05-24 07:35:13 · answer #4 · answered by SAV13 1 · 2 0

It seems to me that Clinton played a big part in cutting our the vets benefits, and with the democrats having just wanted to cut out supplies, basic supplies to our troops just where are you comming from?

2007-05-24 07:32:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

I knew that. It is par for the course.

2007-05-24 07:31:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers