Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 105

• 0%

  bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

  This is UNCONSCIONABLE!

  Our active-duty soldiers and our veterans are being treated like SH!T by the very government that expects them to fight their wars and either die or have their lives - and their families' lives - ruined because of it.

  I am still waiting for all of the pro-war, pro-bushies to make enough NOISE in D.C. and in the media to get the disgusting treatment of our military FIXED ...

  Reply

  45 Replies

  • 0%

    bobo-in-texas8 months, 3 weeks ago

    This fits in perfectly with a recent NYT article discussed here.

    http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/01/18/...

    Reply

    41 Replies

    • 0%

      rdy2rck8 months, 3 weeks ago

      Not only that Bubba, but the quagmires are getting deeper and deeper. We got Vietnams all over the place.We're in Iraq to kiss the Saudis rears because they got scared and we want oil, but why Afghanistan. We went there to look for Bin Laden. Failed, so leave.

      Are we as stupid as the Russians? seems so

      Reply

      21 Replies

      • HomeGManComment removed: User banned.20 Replies

        • 0%

          rdy2rck8 months, 3 weeks ago

          Good point, but I meant is our gov't as stupid as the Russians gov't. This I believe as fact.

          I believe our invasion of Afghanistan was ill concieved, no thinking behind it and ignorant. If our bombs couldn't get him, why would the go'vt think troops would do to find ONE man in an impossible terrain and a place with no strategic value where tribes have been goin at it for centuries.AND WE'RE SENDING MORE TROOPS. STUPID.

          Who is our gov't as stupid as in Iraq. That's a tough one.Even if we believe the 1st Gulf war was in our "national interest, " we should have at least done the job then, rolled over them and leave.But BushII had to go back and finish.

          Let's leave and let Iraq dissolve into civl war and kill themselves. What does the Saudis have to fear from a dissolved country. Plus, let the Saudis spend their oil money to build their army and defend themselves so we don't have to do it.

          COME HOME BRAVE TROOPS WE MISS YOU.

          Reply

          19 Replies

          • 0%

            joeblowe8 months, 3 weeks ago

            I would put forth the proposition that the attack on Afghanistan WAS justified and necessary. Presuming that you accept that Afghanistan WAS where Al Quida and bin Laden were based and training terrorists. I think they actually were. The Taliban are WAY too radical to trust and needed to be removed as they were (apparently) ALLOWING the terrorist camps. Or at the very least, doing nothing to remove them.

            Reply

            15 Replies

            • 0%

              pongping8 months, 3 weeks ago

              I saw a piece (that I found through a link off of one of the articles posted here, maybe www.fff.org) the other day where the author insisted that on at least five occasions the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden. The last deal was worked out in Autumn of the year 2000. After Bush was declared the winner of the election, the Clinton team deferred to the new administration which quietly forgot.

              If these assertions are true, then we must hold two presidents and their administrations culpable.

              The author cited references, but I did not check them out, and do not know the veracity of his claims.

              Reply

              7 Replies

              • 0%

                bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

                Those 'stories' are NOT true.

                You need to read the results of the 9/11 commission report and other GOVERNMENT documents on this.

                There was never any 'offer' by ANYONE to "hand over" Bin Laden at any time.

                The Clinton administration handed over TONS of intelligence data on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to Bush and Rice. They ignored all that and did their own 'thing'. They also ignored the August 2001 PDB that was practically an open invitation for the upcoming attacks.

                Those 'stories' have been invented by those that continue to try to discredit Clinton and blame 9/11 on him.

                Reply

                6 Replies

                • 0%

                  Teech8 months, 3 weeks ago

                  ...."I am still waiting for all of the pro-war, pro-bushies to make enough NOISE in D.C. and in the media to get the disgusting treatment of our military FIXED .."

                  You're gonna wait for a long, long time. Most of the pro-war, pro-bushies, like most of those in the Bush administration, have never served in the military. That would be far below their status. The Bush family and their cronies are making too many billions of dollars to worry about the deaths or mistreatment of soldiers. ANYTHING that hints at less profit for Big Oil, Big Pharm, or Big HMO's will be vilified by the Bushies and Neocons as steps toward communism.

                  10 trillion on the national debt! Universal medical care for ALL Americans would cost less than the interest on that amount. But for Republicans, it's too expensive for us. But the war in Iraq? Oh, we can afford that just fine!

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

                  Bubba

                  "There was never any 'offer' by ANYONE to "hand over" Bin Laden at any time"

                  WRONG

                  "If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

                  Sudan Foreign Minister Taha Feb. 6, 1996

                  During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden.

                  "then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America"

                  I wonder why did the Sudanese thought we wanted him?

                  Is it normal for Governments to offer up criminals to the USA who had not committed crimes against the USA?

                  Reply

                  4 Replies

                  • 0%

                    bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

                    What EXACTLY is your "source" for this information?

                    It is not true, never was true. Unless you can provide a source that is something just a little bit more credible than Rush Limbaugh, you are just propagating lies.

                    Reply

                    3 Replies

                    • 0%

                      injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

                      "What EXACTLY is your "source" for this information?"

                      President Clinton. Audio Click here

                      There are thousands of articles on this. It is vary lame to claim he did not say this. In the 911 report he confirms this is what he said.

                      Ambassador Carney Feb.1996, was trying to get the Sudanese to expel Bin Laden and cut ties with terrorist, according to ALL reports. That is when Foreign Minister Taha said "If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," according to Ambassador Carney. None of this is in dispute.

                      This lead to Clintons tortured explanation of why he rejected the offer.

                      Reply

                      2 Replies

                      • 0%

                        injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

                        From Media Matters (not Rush Limbagh)

                        Here's what Clinton said before the Long Island Association on February 15, 2002: (tortured explanation)

                        He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

                        "I did not bring him here"

                        Clinton Feb 15 02

                        You cant make a decision to bring or not bring bin Laden to the United States unless bin Laden has been offered or you HAVE bin Laden.

                        If he was not offered there is no reason to "judge" we could not hold him here.

                        Obviously he was offered.

                        Reply

                        1 Reply

                        • 0%

                          injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

                          What would be the point of the explanation, can we hold him, try him, if he was not offered?

                          The Sudanese said they offered him. That would explain the need to brainstorm this as to weather we could hold him or not.

                          However PDD 39 makes all that mute.

                          PDD 39 June 1995 states.

                          If extradition procedures were unavailable or put aside, the United States could seek the local country's assistance in a rendition, secretly putting the fugitive in a plane back to America or some third country for trial."

                          Reply
            • 0%

              bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

              Sending our troops into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda WAS the right thing to do.

              The WRONG thing was to take most of those troops OUT of Afghanistan and send them to Iraq, when Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, had no connection to Al Qaeda, and had long since stopped producing any weapons including "WMD".

              Reply

              6 Replies

              • 0%

                rdy2rck8 months, 3 weeks ago

                My above comment may have been harsh calling going into Afghanistan "ignorant,"but I don't think the goal wasn't planned very well AND wasn't completed.Sending troops to Iraq was stupid.Plus going to Iraq proves we don't have a big enough military for two wars.

                Afghanistan-taliban was harboring terrorist yes, but so are 12 other countries at least.What did we accomplish. We chased them into our "ally" Pakistans side. Why didn't we cross over and finish the job?Pakistan has a built up military plus nukes and we're trying to balance them off India from nuking each other.

                If we were looking for Bin Laden, why didn't we finish?And why aren't we invading all the terrorist countries for our "war on terror."

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  Jaydee408 months, 3 weeks ago

                  "If we were looking for Bin Laden, why didn't we finish?And why aren't we invading all the terrorist countries for our "war on terror.""

                  Because it's all a smoke screen is why. Nothing stand up to reason and every time you turn around this had been lost or destroyed or deemed national security. No free society should have so many secretes.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    rdy2rck8 months, 3 weeks ago

                    Exactly a comment I was looking for jaydee.It's a game. We(including the military) are the pawns.

                    But are we REALLY free. With more and more secrets the smoke screen is getting darker and darker.

                    We can't/don't even control our own border much less police the world.

                    Reply
                • 0%

                  injest8 months, 2 weeks ago

                  Rdy2rck

                  "Plus going to Iraq proves we don't have a big enough military for two wars"

                  You got that right! We have fewer Troops today than we had BEFORE WW2, in ACTUAL numbers

                  Rdy2rck, Look up Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)

                  OEF â;; A, OEF â;;P, OEF â;;HOA, OEF - TS and ask again, if you still need to.

                  "If we were looking for Bin Laden, why didn't we finish?"

                  Why do think its stopped?

                  Reply
              • 0%

                injest8 months, 2 weeks ago

                Bubba

                "The WRONG thing was to take most of those troops OUT of Afghanistan and send them to Iraq,"

                Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan (OEF-A)

                OEFA was done mainly by The Northern Alliance of Afghanistan supported by US air power and US Army Special forces TF 11, TF Bowie, and TF Dagger, 101 Airborne along with troops from Canada, Germany, Australia, UK

                The Iraq invasion was done with US Marines US Navy and US Air force.

                What troops were pulled out of Afghanistan and sent into Iraq?

                Bubba are you a "strawman"

                Reply
              • 0%

                injest8 months, 2 weeks ago

                Bubba

                "Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11"

                Who ever said it did? Show me the quote source that has Bush, Cheney or anyone else from the Admin stating Iraq was involved with 911?

                Iraq you recall is based on the Iraq Liberation act 1998. That's the one that made regime change in Iraq US policy because of Saddam's WMD's and Support of terrorist.

                Taking out Saddam was long in the works BEFORE 911 (Hint 1998 was before 2001)

                "and had long since stopped producing any weapons including "WMD"."

                Congratulations Bubba ya finally got one right!

                Yep, no WMD's or programs after 1994 (March 2 04, UN and David Kay report).

                So why were we told year after year that Saddam HAD WMD's. After all, that is a stated reason for the Iraq Liberation Act, 4 years AFTER Saddam had gotten ride of his WMD's and stopped his programs?

                Bubba, strawman?

                Reply

          • HomeGManComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

            • 0%

              rdy2rck8 months, 3 weeks ago

              Yes Home, and I greatly admire are military for standing by our BELIEFS and not just policies no matter what the party.Otherwise we'd be having military "coups."Our troops stand for our ideals, not the goofs.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                rdy2rck8 months, 2 weeks ago

                This comment is late but I gotta say it. Our Go'vt never ever learns history. Both Gulf wars were planned in the White house against military brasses ideas. Look what Hitler did when he took direct control against his Brass.His generals wanted to pull back some from Russia,reach an armistice saving millions of troops. Then they could've stomped us flat at Normandy and then turn back to Russia.

                Reply

    • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.18 Replies

      • 0%

        bobo-in-texas8 months, 3 weeks ago

        Actually it's about how the Left tries to demonize our soldiers which I have seen many examples of here on Propeller.

        Reply

        17 Replies

        • 0%

          bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

          Always 'generalizations' ... "the Left" ...

          Please don't lump me in your stereotype.

          I have been and always will be against the 'war' in Iraq - we had no justifiable reason to invade.

          Past that, I DO support the troops. I contribute regularly to the USO, Paralyzed Vets of America, Adopt-a-Platoon, Soldiers' Angels, and other such organizations.

          If anyone on Propeller has posted the most stories about the LACK of support for the troops by our OWN government, it may be me.

          Reply
        • 0%

          bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

          Thousands of veterans, from ALL wars, are homeless.

          Hundreds of thousands are waiting months and years for a response on their disability claims - when they finally get a response, they get offered 10-20% of what they SHOULD receive (benefits).

          Thousands of soldiers that have PTSD or other mental disorders as a result of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan are being discharged as having "personality disorder" so that they do NOT qualify for any veterans benefits and the government does not have to do ANYTHING to get them help and treatment.

          Thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are mis-diagnosed, for both mental and physical injuries. VA Hospitals all across the country are having problems providing decent care, partly because the government does not adequately staff those facilities and does not offer competitive salaries for medical professionals.

          Reply
        • 0%

          bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

          Thaousands of soldiers and their families have gone bankrupt because of the screw-ups by the government for treating their injuries and for getting them the disability they deserve. Many more have become divorced because of the mental, physical, and financial problems that have overwhelmed them.

          I could go on and on, but I shouldn't have to.

          It is disgusting that our soldiers are so abused and mistreated and ignored when THEY are the ones putting their lives on the line for this country and especially for the chickenhawks in the White House that have put them in those positions.

          The very government that started that little spin-phrase "support the troops" does NOT!

          Reply
        • 0%

          mesodude8 months, 3 weeks ago

          You don't believe that. You know those on the left are fighting tooth and nail to bring them home. They're fighting to increase their pay, to improve their medical care, and to make sure they don't get fired from their jobs for being out of the country too long. You do *not* believe any of what you said.

          Reply

          11 Replies

          • 0%

            bobo-in-texas8 months, 3 weeks ago

            Yeah like this aritcle

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.htm...

            Where they are made equal parts objects of pity, fear and scorn.

            Reply

            10 Replies

            • 0%

              bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

              Why do you say that this article is a "leftist" attempt to 'deomonize' our soldiers?

              I read the article and it does not have that tone AT ALL.

              I see this article as a RED FLAG to the government that THEY are at least partially to blame for these soldiers who put themselves through those horrible, traumatic, life-changing experiences only to return home and get NO HELP from the government that SENT them into that HELL.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                Ratskii8 months, 3 weeks ago

                I said the same thing to him in the post he mentioned earlier. It seems to me that he didn't read all of the article.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  IcCaRus8 months, 3 weeks ago

                  thas just BooBoo bein' BooBoo

                  Reply
            • 0%

              bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

              Did YOU read the article???

              "Clearly, committing homicide is an extreme manifestation of dysfunction for returning veterans, many of whom struggle in quieter ways, with crumbling marriages, mounting debt, deepening alcohol dependence or more-minor tangles with the law."

              "Few of these 121 war veterans received more than a cursory mental health screening at the end of their deployments, according to interviews with the veterans, lawyers, relatives and prosecutors. Many displayed symptoms of combat trauma after their return, those interviews show, but they were not evaluated for or received a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder until after they were arrested for homicides."

              Reply
            • 0%

              bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

              Do you GET it?

              These veterans are not being portrayed as "objects of pity, fear, and scorn"!!

              They are VICTIMS of their OWN government, used up in an unjustified war (if in Iraq) and then spit back out onto the streets of their hometowns without ANY amount of DECENT care or help.

              "To truly support our troops, we need to apply our lessons from history and newfound knowledge about PTSD to help the most troubled of our returning veterans," Mr. Hunter said. "To deny the frequent connection between combat trauma and subsequent criminal behavior is to deny one of the direct societal costs of war and to discard another generation of troubled heroes."

              Reply
            • 0%

              bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

              You want to AVOID the truth.

              The truth is that the government treats the people that fight their wars for them like expendable commodities that can be tossed aside when they are no longer of any use to their 'agenda'.

              THAT is what your posted NYT article is about.

              For you to try to twist that to be an 'attack' of our troops by the left is not just disingenuous, it is warped.

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                Teech8 months, 3 weeks ago

                Excellently expressed, bubba. But you are trying to reason with people who probably are unable, if not unwilling, to read and understand simple, honest facts. That's why we have the Republican Neocon News Outlet also known as FOX news. Don't read, just tune in for the latest propaganda and falsehoods.

                I have, and will continue to exercise my first amendment rights by excoriating the Bush administration at every opportunity.

                As a veteran I have never, and will never, belittle or criticize or demean our troops. And I have not personally seen it done here on Propeller. The actions of the Bush/Cheney regime achieve that and they don't seem to need help with it.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  rdy2rck8 months, 3 weeks ago

                  And guess what direction the NYT leans. They're so far out in left field and DON'T try to hide it.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

                • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

        • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
        • 0%

          Beau78908 months, 3 weeks ago

          BoBo:

          Your Post link is a complete LIE. Here's the link to the original New York Times article it criticizes--YOU posted it yourself in a comment on the Post smear your link points to.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.htm...

          The Times article is 9 pages long. Either you didn't read it, you didn't understand it, or you're just as dishonest as the Post writer, knowing few will read the whole Times article to discover the Post is mischaracterizing it.

          If you read the Times article, you'll see it's about how vets are returning with PTSD that our government ignores. NOWHERE does it mention that they're bad, unless you lack so much compassion as to think that portraying those vets as powerless victims of our government somehow "demonizes" the vets.

          Reply
  • 0%

    injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

    This article is a crock.

    "Fort Carson sent soldiers who were not medically fit to war zones"

    Kuwait is not a war zone.

    "despite doctors' orders that he not run, jump or carry more than 20 pounds for three months because of a severe foot injury"

    He's on light duty. Light duty would not stop someone from being sent to a desk job in a NON WAR ZONE.

    No different than if he were sent to a desk job at Fort Knox.

    "Nelson was to serve as a liaison officer and assist soldiers in transitioning from Kuwait to Iraq"

    Nelson was to serve as a liaison officer in Kuwait (a NON war zone), a desk job. As in light duty, as in no running, jumping or lifting.

    No one is being sent to a war zone "Severely injured"

    Reply
  • 0%

    boom4998 months, 3 weeks ago

    Call me crazy or biased ( i am former Air Force) but I think the US military should be some of the highest paid people in the United States. They are putting their lives on the line to protect the free world and their basic salary less than minimum wage, go figure. Pay approprietly for what they do and I am willing to bet you will have no problem keeping troops up to full strength!

    Reply
  • 0%

    cushi8 months, 3 weeks ago

    Bubba, I just read the article and came in to comment, and the very first word I planned to use is the same as yours, UNCONSCIONABLE!! I am literally sick to my stomach after reading the article. Disgusted doesn't even come close to describing what I'm feeling. How I hate that war and the criminal acts that embroiled us in it.

    Reply
• 0%

  TechnologyExpert8 months, 3 weeks ago

  It's all about "goals" and "benchmarks" right? It's ridiculous, though.

  They send "Master Sgt. Denny Nelson, a 19-year Army veteran, who was sent overseas last month despite doctors' orders that he not run, jump or carry more than 20 pounds for three months because of a severe foot injury" over there? How's he supposed to carry his equipment?

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
  • 0%

    rdy2rck8 months, 3 weeks ago

    TECH-i agree but it's also about numbers. Non military boobs set the plan, the top brass in the military fills the number because we don't have enough troops to be there. So they're treeting our brave troops as sheep.So I guess they figure Nelson as sheep and needs no equipment.

    AND THIS IS COMING FROM A CONSERVATIVE.

    Reply
  • 0%

    injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

    Techno

    "They send "Master Sgt. Denny Nelson, a 19-year Army veteran, who was sent overseas last month despite doctors' orders that he not run, jump or carry more than 20 pounds for three months because of a severe foot injury" over there? How's he supposed to carry his equipment?"

    Techno, Read the article, he is being sent to a desk job in a non combat zone. He will have no equipment to carry.

    Reply
• 0%

  PsychoHosebeast8 months, 3 weeks ago

  Typical military BS.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    jaern8 months, 3 weeks ago

    Yep coming straight from the Commander in Chief!

    Reply

• JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.9 Replies

  • 0%

    ciera-marie8 months, 3 weeks ago

    JohnQPublic:

    I agree instead of sending them to "hell" send them to the hell those wounded service men and women are going back to.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      jaern8 months, 3 weeks ago

      I hear Iraq is Hell-why not send them to Hell?

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        rdy2rck8 months, 3 weeks ago

        I really do believe GOD will decide where they're going.

        Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude8 months, 3 weeks ago

    KO is freakin' awesome. I loved his comment.

    Reply
  • 0%

    pongping8 months, 3 weeks ago

    I've never watched Keith Olberman. What I do know is that a lot of guys have been sent who are mentally unstable. They are on second, third, and fourth deployments to combat zones. A guy who works with them said more than a few of them are not only PO'd about this, but also about the fact that the guys ordering them to go will never see one minute in those zones. But they do their duty. God bless 'em!

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

      pongping

      "They are on second, third, and fourth deployments to combat zones. A guy who works with them said more than a few of them are not only PO'd about this, but also about the fact that the guys ordering them to go will never see one minute in those zones.

      Pong, if someone is on their 2nd tour in Iraq /Afghanistan odds are they re enlisted knowing full well they would be going back to the war.

      If someone is on their 3rd, 4th tour in Iraq /Afghanistan they HAD to reenlist knowing full well they would be going back to the war.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        pongping8 months, 3 weeks ago

        Hey, you're right about that and I was told that most of these guys consider themselves careerists. But that is also a great part of the problem, they are not fit for duty and get the order and go - fit for duty or not. I thought our military is supposed to be a modern organization. Allowing men incapable of performing their full duty to be sent to a combat zone is shirking your duty as a higher up regardless of the pressure from the brass and Commander in Chief. Are we becoming the Red Army of WWII?

        Anecdotal story - one soldier he was treating who was ordered back was taking his wife all over creation in his final month trying to do all of these special things you can do around these parts. Men in his unit were concerned as was the wife. They don't want somebody going along who has a death wish. But he's ordered and he's going, though he doesn't check out pychologically.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          injest8 months, 2 weeks ago

          "they are not fit for duty and get the order and go - fit for duty or not. Allowing men incapable of performing their full duty to be sent to a combat zone"

          Can you give an example of someone who is not fit for duty or in this case on light duty being sent to a COMBAT ZONE?

          From the article.

          "a reference to Master Sgt. Denny Nelson, a 19-year Army veteran, who was sent overseas last month despite doctors' orders that he not run, jump or carry more than 20 pounds for three months because of a severe foot injury."

          Note: overseas, not combat zone or war zone.

          "sent to Kuwait on Dec. 29."

          Note: No war in Kuwait

          "Nelson was to serve as a liaison officer and assist soldiers in transitioning from Kuwait to Iraq".

          Note: No war in Kuwait

          "A job in Kuwait, for instance, would not require a soldier to wear Kevlar, and a job as a liaison officer would not require running or walking."

          AKA, a desk job in a non-war/combat zone.

          Reply
• 0%

  rightfromwrong8 months, 3 weeks ago

  Pathetic...one would think that with the over 120 bases worldwide which they have that they could shift them around.

  Why not take some from Saudi Arabia, I mean they have like 40,000 still there doing what? Protecting oil installations!!!!!

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    injest8 months, 3 weeks ago

    rightfromwrong

    Pathetic...one would think that with the over 120 bases worldwide which they have that they could shift them around.

    Why not take some from Saudi Arabia, I mean they have like 40,000 still there doing what? Protecting oil installations!!!!!

    Rightfromwrong, I seriously doubt we have 40K troops in Saudi, however your point that we should use the 120 bases worldwide, most not in a war zone/combat zone is a good one, I agree.

    So what's the problem with sending this guy to one of the 120 bases worldwide, not in a war zone/combat zone?

    You do know that Kuwait is not a war zone. No combat in Kuwait for 17 years.

    Reply
• 0%

  unome28 months, 3 weeks ago

  Why would anyone think that the war profiteering neocons or the Oil Magnates who run this occupation care about the health or well being of our troops.

  Reply
• 0%

  Spadecaller8 months, 3 weeks ago

  Sending off "no-go's" is reprehensible. This kind of conduct shows the moral depravity of those running our government.

  Reply

• palamaComment removed: User banned.15 Replies

  • 0%

    mesodude8 months, 3 weeks ago

    I wouldn't put it past this administration to redeploy homeless Vietnam vets...

    Reply

    14 Replies

    • HomeGManComment removed: User banned.5 Replies

      • 0%

        mesodude8 months, 3 weeks ago

        Well, they're lettin' guys enlist who've reached the age where many men need to take viagra AND heart medication, aren't they? ;-p

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          GWHayduke8 months, 3 weeks ago

          Liberals! Sheesh.

          You fight with the military you have, not the one you wish you had.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            IanFraigun8 months, 3 weeks ago

            WRONG - ABSOLUTELY WRONG

            You spend the money to properly equip the military you have and when they come home injured you take care of them and don't sent them back until and unless they are fully healed so they can do the job properly.

            There is nothing wrong with our military, at least at the start of this conflict. The problems came because the administration would not spend the money needed to take care the these brave men and women properly when they needed that care.

            Reply
          • 0%

            GWHayduke8 months, 3 weeks ago

            Hey now, I got TWO yellow "Support the Troops" ribbons on my Hummer!

            Surely that proves how much I love my country!

            Reply

          • HomeGManComment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      saintetienne8 months, 3 weeks ago

      "I wouldn't put it past this administration to redeploy homeless Vietnam vets..."

      Not a bad idea. At least it would give them food, shelter and something to do besides panhandle, whine and attempt to play off our guilt.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        RussianThreats8 months, 3 weeks ago

        Seriously, etienne you can't really mean that. Even for you that's an outright deplorable sentiment.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
      • 0%

        mesodude8 months, 3 weeks ago

        "Not a bad idea. At least it would give them food, shelter and something to do besides panhandle, whine and attempt to play off our guilt."

        --I know, right? I mean, it's not like any of these parasites have ever put their lives on the line for their country or anything... By the way, do you work with the swift boaters who torpedoed John Kerry's campaignt or are you on the payroll for the group that's claiming that John McCain didn't really serve his country or both? Just curious...

        Reply
      • 0%

        Teech8 months, 3 weeks ago

        "Not a bad idea. At least it would give them food, shelter and something to do besides panhandle, whine and attempt to play off our guilt."

        Ah, yes. Spoken like a true Neocon patriot.

        Reply
      • 0%

        wtagg8 months, 3 weeks ago

        I can't wait for you to express your support for our troops when they come back, if ever.

        (crickets)

        Reply
      • 0%

        KMFDM8 months, 3 weeks ago

        and the award for the most asinine thoughtless comment of made by a member that would be wise to never show up on "Are you smarter than a third grader" because the humilation alone would give cause to bump up his antidepresant medication...we all know him. his gift to humanity is to rhyme your screename with something that only sounds funny to him....straight out of his mommy's basement..I give to you the one and the only...

        ah..blow it out your ear Taint.

        Reply
    • 0%

      xlegultx8 months, 3 weeks ago

      Actually, if redeploying homeless Vietnam vets could be a good idea. Could give them an opportunity at life again, its no secret that business owners will turn them down the moment they try to get a job.

      Reply
• 0%

  texangelwings8 months, 3 weeks ago

  Geeze, a New Low!

  Reply
• 0%

  KMFDM8 months, 3 weeks ago

  ever heard of cannon folder

  Reply
• 0%

  mesodude8 months, 3 weeks ago

  OFTLOG, people...Wingnuts are so desperate that they've finally decided to give black crack dealers the same sentences they give white coke dealers (I know, and you thought Republicans didn't like black people, right?) to replenish our troop supply. We've sunken so low that we're now begging convicted felons in order to meet our recruitment goals. What would you expect from these subhuman warmongers? Anything to keep Chimpstock going until January '09...

  Reply
• 0%

  walden38 months, 3 weeks ago

  I'm torn. While it's obviously bad to send someone back to a battle zone that's not up to par, isn't the real issue that we're sending anyone at all over there?

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    cushi8 months, 3 weeks ago

    They're both issues and rightly so!

    Reply
• 0%

  joeblowe8 months, 3 weeks ago

  Are these few cases anomalies present because of ONE bad commander, or is this endemic to our entire armed forces? There is always the risk of harm from incompetent or foolish "leaders." The thing is - when they are uncovered, like in this instance, they need to be replaced. Immediately.

  Reply
• 0%

  joey-evans8 months, 3 weeks ago

  What's the grumbling all about? Besides, they volunteered for duty didn't they? (Sarcasm off)

  This is unfreakin' believeable!! When will this madness end?

  Is this how we are to support our troops? Enough is enough.

  Have you neocon b astards no shame?

  JOEY EVANS

  Reply
• 0%

  nikkibabe8 months, 3 weeks ago

  You sound like a country of chickens and pigs. It does not matter if a military guy is sick, disabled or his family is in his bad shape.

  Nothing comes before defending your country on the streets of Baghdad.

  Grow up.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    IcCaRus8 months, 3 weeks ago

    .

    Reply
• 0%

  nikkibabe8 months, 3 weeks ago

  You sound like a country of chickens and pigs. It does not matter if a military guy is sick, disabled or his family is in his shape.

  Nothing comes before defending your country on the streets of Baghdad.

  Grow up.

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    walden38 months, 3 weeks ago

    What's the zip code in Baghdad so I can send you some handy wipes, beef jerky and magazines?

    Reply
  • 0%

    bubba28 months, 3 weeks ago

    Since you are so gung ho for our troops to "defend us" on the streets of Baghdad, when will YOU be signing up and going over there to join them in the fight that you so enthusiastically support?

    Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude8 months, 3 weeks ago

    I hope that was sarcasm...

    Reply
  • 0%

    cushi8 months, 3 weeks ago

    Nikkibabe's being sarcastic.

    Reply
• 0%

  nikkibabe8 months, 3 weeks ago

  You sound like a country of chickens and pigs. It does not matter if a military guy is sick, disabled or his family is in bad shape and miserable.

  Nothing comes before defending your country on the streets of Baghdad.

  Grow up.

  Reply