If Democrats hate the troops as much as the NeoCons claim, why do they try so hard to bring them home alive?

Question

..if they really "party everytime a soldier dies" as one complete idiot conservative recently wrote, wouldn't they just stay out of the way and keep sending them to Iraq?
Wouldn't they allow Walter Reed to continue to deteriorate instead of holding congressional hearings?
Wouldn't they side with the Bush Administration and "strongly oppose" key military pay and benefit gains, instead of fighting to get them the raises that they deserve?
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,142117,00.html

If you were a troop, and one side wanted you to have proper medical care, more pay, and to come home as soon as possible, would you feel that they are showing you hatred?

Answer 1

Interesting logic -- you think that concern for personal safety is the only criteria by which you can judge love or hate?

What about the free republic that almost 4,000 of their brothers in arms died to create?

What about the 25,000,000 Iraqis that would be thrown into bloody chaos the moment the American troops left?

What about honor?

I want them all to come home safe and soon. But not if they have to evacuate the country via the embassy roof. Not if they have to leave millions of friendly Iraqis to be slaughtered. Not if it ends like the Democrat party ended the Vietnam war in 1975.

No personal safety is worth the disgrace of abandoning an ally in need. No personal safety is worth the disgrace of cowardice and surrender.


And spare me the crap about the Democrat party wanting to give them a better raise. When the Dems control the purse strings they are always stingy with the troops. They are only proposing more (and attaching poison pill riders) to try and make Bush look bad.

Answer 2

Lets take these questions one by one shall we,

1. Because they have already declared the war in Iraq lost and they want the troops home so they can guarantee that lose and hang it around Bush's neck so they can win in 2008

2. They will demand a surrender date, declare the surge is lost before it begins and while declaring the war lost they will still fund sending the troops. Real compassion there.

3. Holding Congressional hearings does not equal fixing the problem. Walter Reed has been in a downward spiral for years, it was heading down even when Clinton was President. What you have here is the knowledge that Walter Reed is on the BRAC list so the bean counters didn't want to spend anything on something that was going to close in a few years anyways.

4. The battle on pay raises isn't over yet. They are mostly batteling over less then a percent of a pay raise. Just because this band of Democrats "appear" to be for the military does not detract from the years before when they were squarely against the military.

5. I am a troop and because of Hlliary Care, sorry, I mean Tricare, we now have less available medical care and our retirees that were promised life time healthcare are now finding out it was a lie.

6. BONUS ANSWER! Consider this if you will. Looking at your statement about Walter Reed Hospital. Look at how poorly the Government ran that place, a place for our wounded Veterans, people that served our country. What you see at Walter Reed is an example of Government run health care, now apply that nation wide. Like what you see?

Answer 3

Your statements and those listed here supporting your statements are very obvious examples of why liberals can never be trusted with national security. You are not bad people, you just really don't understand the military and it's purpose.

Yanking the troops off of the battlefield before victory has been achieved is the absolute worst thing you could ever do to the military.

First, you destroy the esprit de corps. You will make them ashamed to be in the military instead of proud.
Second, you make them look weak to their enemies and potential enemies.
Third, you embolden the enemies of this country making peace less likely.
Fourth, you just don't understand that there are some things in life worse than death. Cowardice is one thing that is. A hero dies but once; a coward dies a thousand times.
Fifth, you will make a draft far more likely since those of real military material will not join a weak and feckless military.

.

Answer 4

what i like about the cons, was the way that they took reid's comment out of context, when what he actually said was the war is lost unless we have a new direction. i took that as criticism of bush and not the troops.

and what i like the most is the small gov't advocates denial of medical care for everyone as a social program, while giving the same thing to the iraqis. that is sad, sick and hypocritical. but that is a small government.

Answer 5

It has nothing to do with the war.

They are simply pandering to uneducated folks in an effort to gain political power. If they were truly interested in the safety of America, they would vote to escalate forces and GET THE JOB DONE. We didn't win WW2 by being politically correct, or reserve in our efforts. Remember Normandy?

A house divided will not stand, and it is this very house, at the expense of losing this war, that they despise. They are the enemy within. First socialism, then what next?

Answer 6

Inflammation seems to be the order of the day in today's politics!

Democrats do support the troops and the troops know that!!

When politicians can't argue based on f a c t they go with rhetoric!

Answer 7

I don't think you noticed that many military guys on YA don't want to leave and know they have a job to do.

Everytime a liberal wants to pull them out, the enemy keeps after the soldiers overseas (they are emboldened to continue fighting them). So you see, that puts them in harms way.

That is why Conservative call liberals "traitors". They are helping the enemy.

Hope that helps.

Answer 8

Cutting off troop funding is a good thing? And people called Zell Miller's "spitball" comment kooky.

Answer 9

because of their primitive mind function (not to mention many are rednecks), they are not able to grasp simple concepts like this.