I have read and heard time after time that Republican's treat the military better the Democrats. Honestly, in the 8 years that I have served while under President Bush, I have slapped in the face more times then I can count. I really would like to know what President Bush has done that was so great for military and its vetrans compared to previous administrations since I have never served under a Democrat.
Please state specific examples if you are able. Also dont repeat hearsay that has been repeated enough times there for it must be 'true'. Thankyou.
2007-11-08 03:47:25 · 9 answers · asked by B. Wags 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
In general, the Republicans fund the military itself, such as budget issues, but not pay raises and benifits as much. Examples... Republicans funded equipment we use today like M1A1 tanks, F15s, etc.
In general the Democrats fund the actual soldier with pay raises and veterans benifits, but cut the budget for the military itself. Example: Clinton gave one of the biggest pay raises, but at the time, we didn't have grease to train new crews in proper PMCS of armored vehicles at training centers.
So its a matter of perspective. What do you consider to be more important. Funding for operations, or benifit raises. I actually prefer it to go back and forth, that way we get both.
2007-11-08 05:16:43 · answer #1 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Neither side threats the military or the veterans better. They both treat them the same, lousy. After every war we no longer need the military, so personnel are released from their contract, promotions are harder to get, weapon systems are destroyed, no new items are bought to replace things that are too old or too technically behind. The veteran has the Veteran's Administration for help, but it has never been fully funded. Vietnam vets returned with severe depression, isolationism, night mares, insomnia, and all sorts of mental problems. It was not until 1988 that the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was recognized as a disease. The Vets had to sue in order to get treatment for Agent Orange. The Gulf war vets had to sue in order to get treatment for chemical warfare done by Saddam.
Throughout my 60 years of life, first as an Air Force dependent or Brat, then as an Air Force Officer and now finally as a 100% disabled veteran, both political parties have not cared about the soldier. All they care about is reelection and their pork barrel projects.
2007-11-08 04:38:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Republicans have historically treated the military better. In fact think of the last 8 years:
How many Republican senators have called our troops 'war criminals?'
How many Republicans have claimed that the war is 'illegal' (and implying that our soldiers are criminals for participating in it)?
How many Republicans have repeated enemy propaganda?
How many Democrat senators or representatives have shook hands with a soldier without a photographer being present?
Look at the Democrat's antics on the recent 'Walter Reed scandal' they were only interested in the problem as long as they could gain political advantage from it. When they had gotten what they wanted the forgot about it - And Did Not Allocate One Penny To Fix The Problems!
2007-11-08 07:31:52 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Being in the military myself....that is so hard to answer because each side contributes in their own way. When a republican is in office, every year we get a SLIGHT pay increase. When a democrate is in office, seems like deployments are fewer. Those are just some of the things each does for the men and women in the armed service. Truthfully, I don't think it matters who is in office for us as long as they are upstanding and treat us right like we do them. We just want better pay, better insurance, less deployments, length of deployments cut in half and better housing and entertainment on bases. Not to mention after 20 plus years of service to them, we get taken care of like we took care of them sitting in the hot sun without family on Thanksgiving.
2007-11-08 04:29:02 · answer #4 · answered by Military Mama due 03/09 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
.there is a senate Armed Forces committee who is supposed to look after the Armed Forces.
Take a look and see who is on it. Just for your information. With friends like Teddy Kennedy, the Armed forces don't need enemies.
2007-11-08 05:35:24 · answer #5 · answered by TedEx 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have been slapped in the face even though we have gotten a lot of new gear and a raise every year? You seem to be just sour.
2007-11-08 04:54:03 · answer #6 · answered by cheechalini 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Continuity. stability. i be attentive to those are extensive words and unfathomable suggestions to young ones on yahoo solutions pretending to be idealogues on their mom's emachine. yet look them up.
2016-10-01 21:41:26 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People in the military donated more money to Ron Paul than any other candidate.
In terms of party I would say the party that isn't the republicans.
They are the ones keeping the military in the middle of a civil war.
2007-11-08 03:54:01 · answer #8 · answered by Rumelian 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Seems to me that the best way to treat your military would not be to strand them in hostile territory with no real plan and leave them there to get picked off one by one for the sake of your reputation ill-conceived fantasies. But that's just me...
2007-11-08 03:57:40 · answer #9 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋