John Kerry loves the military.....

[outofstep]

lighten up.

Here's a better idea, you spineless coward; If you've got something you want to say about the US Military or it's service members say it out in the open. Don't be the typical socialist caitiff, taking potshots when you think no one is looking. You think that if you badmouth my service, I'm not going to bring it up? Especially in a thread talking about the cowards that sit behind the lines and try to talk bad on service members. Wake up.

 

[Ma70.Ent]

Here's a better idea, you spineless coward; If you've got something you want to say about the US Military or it's service members say it out in the open. Don't be the typical socialist caitiff, taking potshots when you think no one is looking. You think that if you badmouth my service, I'm not going to bring it up? Especially in a thread talking about the cowards that sit behind the lines and try to talk bad on service members. Wake up.

Good post.

 

[Nick M]

lighten up.



you should instead assume that i mean more than one person.

person plural = people. forget about it though, i don't want to teach english right now.

-1....congratulations, you have consitently have some of the worst posts in O.T.

 

[Greg55_99]

Well now... since you've decided to "rip me a new one", please allow me to respond with the new one you've ripped me.

You have zero clue about the military do you? Let me break down your nonsense point by point. Unlike you, I served. Unlike you, I was over there.

Guess what? I did 23 years in the Air Force. Guess what? I was over there too!

The guard and reserve, the troops that were under funded for awhile, have always been under funded. That’s not news. What was really news, was the democrats in congress that voted against military funding to get them the equipment they needed. Kerry voted against funding, fyi. What was news, were the dems grandstanding and delaying the money the troops needed.

EVERYBODY is CURRENTLY underfunded. WHY?

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, had pressed for $138 billion for 2008. He has told administration officials and Congress the Army needs the money to replace and repair equipment used in Iraq and to pay for other costs of the war, while still covering the day-to-day expenses to run the Army.

He said in July it will cost the Army up to $13 billion per year over the course of the war and several years beyond to repair or replace worn equipment, and that the Army is using up equipment at four times the rate for which it was designed.

The budget outlined in England's memo suggests the Army will have to settle for billions of dollars less than what Schoomaker spelled out. It was unclear how the Army would make up for the shortfall.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ARMY_BUDGET?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...-BUDGET.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-C2-NextArticle-1

News flash. Year rotations were in effect even before 9/11. Nothing new. We were doing this before the war.

We weren't doing THIS before the war:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=39374&archive=true

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2325946.php

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/iraq/main2104338.shtml

Money issue, already covered.

Well lets cover the body armor issue some more.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=40010&archive=true

Letter to the Editor Stars & Stripes, 2 Nov 06

Inferior body armor for Army
After reading “Marines in Iraq to get new armor by December 2007” (article, Oct. 25), about the Marines getting new armor but the Army having to wait years for the same stuff, I was compelled to write.

I simply do not understand the Army’s (and military’s) giving fat government body armor contracts to provide me and my soldiers with inferior body armor.

What I am talking about is stubbornness on either the military’s or politicians’ part to provide soldiers with the best body armor available. Specifically, I am talking about Pinnacle Armor’s Dragon Skin body armor. Although this armor is far more expensive than the currently issued body armor, the multiple-hit ability and overall protective abilities of this armor make the “interceptor” body armor look like flattened soda cans by comparison. A full vest of the Dragon Skin armor was priced by me before coming to Iraq at $4,200. However, the government would actually save money using this armor because fewer soldiers would get killed.

It is the responsibility of your publication to tell the real story: Why are troops being issued inferior body armor and then being placed in harm’s way with it when superior body armor has existed for years?

All U.S. soldiers deserve the best, and what we are being issued is a far cry from what they deserve. Soldiers need to stop being scared or threatened at mobilization stations if they purchase their own armor; after all, it’s their butt on the line!

If the government wants to send us in harm’s way, that’s what the military is for (among many other reasons), but the government owes its soldiers the best protection available, not the cheapest.

Staff Sgt. David Anderson
Al Asad Air Base, Iraq


http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=41239

Absolute total horseshit. All medical except cosmetic (no free boob jobs), is absolutely 100% free.

That is correct. The information I posted was not correct. It should say "The White House has NOT cut costs of drugs supplied to the Dept of Defense because of Lobby Groups". As a result, DOD will be paying MORE money for medications dispensed to military members and their families. That means LESS money elsewhere.

Actualy, that was Clinton. He made sure that military pay stayed behind inflation for a decade. Because of him, when I first joined the military, I qualified for foodstamps.

Letter to the Editor. Stars & Stripes 21 Oct 06

After reading “GOP takes care of military” (letter, Oct. 17), I had to respond to what I see as disinformation regarding the Republican Party’s relationship with the military.

Pay raises during the Clinton administration were 2.2 percent in fiscal 1994, 2.6 percent in ’95, 2.4 percent in ’96, 3 percent in ’97, 2.8 percent in ’98, 3.6 percent in ’99, 4.8 percent and targeted raises in 2000, and 3.7 percent and targeted raises in ’01. With the fiscal ’07 raise of 2.2 percent and targeted raises (and the 3.1 percent raise of ’06), it’s obvious that “our lowest pay raise since [George W.] Bush has been president” is not higher than “our highest was under President Clinton.” If the letter writer had said that President Bush’s fiscal ’02 raise of between 5 percent and 10 percent was the largest since 1981, that would have been correct.

What the writer fails to mention is that we got an 11.7 percent raise during the last year of the Carter administration. It appears that the need for pay reform for the military was a bipartisan issue in the late 1970s and early ’80s.

There are a lot of conservatives in uniform. However, as the number of veterans running as Democrats this year has proven, there are a lot of Democrats in uniform, too. It strikes me that our pay raises are more affected by the forces of supply and demand rather than the “patriotism/support the military” attitudes of either party. Voting based on who can give the biggest pay raise contradicts our mentality of “service before self.”

I love pay raises. But using raises to determine who I’ll vote for? Get real.

Air Force Capt. Philip D. Poyner
Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.


Letter to the Editor, Stars & Stripes, 1 Nov 06

The author of “Pay raises and presidents” (letter, Oct. 25) fails to take inflation into account when attempting to prove his thesis that “Democratic (sic) presidents have a higher rate of military pay raises than Republican presidents, with Carter having the highest overall average.” This statement misleads the reader into concluding that Democratic presidents increased servicemember pay (buying power) in absolute terms. This is not the case.

When military pay raises over the last 30 years are factored for inflation, the following is apparent:

President Carter presided over the lowest average pay raises in a four-year presidential term. The budgets he signed into law (budget years 1978-81) contained raises that consistently lagged behind inflation (-2.9 percent, on average).

Both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush approved the highest average pay raises in their first terms (+2.3 percent).

Reagan’s second term was less impressive (-0.6 percent).

President George H.W. Bush’s average during his single term was a wash (0.0 percent).

President Clinton’s first term lagged inflation (-0.1 percent), but improved with his second term (+1.7 percent).

George W. Bush’s second term is yet to be completed. However, the trend for the first two years of his budgets is trending negative (-1.2 percent).

The author’s statement about Republican average pay raises (+4.3 percent) versus Democratic average raises (+4.9 percent) doesn’t tell the whole story. By considering the effects of inflation, the complete data set shows the opposite. Since 1978 Republican administrations have increased military pay in absolute terms by +0.8 percent while Democratic administrations have tended to decrease military pay by -0.4 percent.

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Kenneth C. Jensen
Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan

One of the first things bush did when he became president was give the military the largest payraise in almost two decades. Then every year since then he has given us out of cycle pay raises (which you were trying to say accounted for our total raises) that we NEVER got from clinton. The out of cycles were to fix Clinton spitting in our face, and to get us back above inflation. Bush has been awesome for military pay.

I think your memory is not what it once was:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960924/09240291.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_199911/ai_n8861661

Again, BS. G and R now have all the benefits of AD.

Uh... no. That's ONLY while they are activated.

Where are you getting this horseshit? I am a disabled (VA 20%) GWII veteran. Our benefits are the highest they have ever been in the history of the US military.

I'm getting this "horseshit" from the Dept of Veterans Affairs.

NOTE: Effective January 17, 2003, VA suspended NEW enrollment of veterans assigned to Priority Group 8 (VA's lowest priority group consisting of higher income veterans). If you are a veteran enrolling for the first time on or after January 17, 2003, and your income exceeds the current year income threshold, you are not eligible for enrollment at this time. Veterans enrolled in Priority Group 8 on or before January 16, 2003, will remain enrolled and continue to be eligible for the full-range of VA health care benefits.


http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/eligibility/DetermineEligibility.asp

Also:

Who's eligible
Veterans, including activated Reservists and National Guard members, are eligible if they served on active duty in a theater of combat operations during a period of war after the Gulf War or in combat against a hostile force during a period of "hostilities" after November 11, 1998 and have been discharged under other than dishonorable conditions.

What are combat veteran's eligble for
Public Law 105-368 [Title 38 USC 1710(d)(D)] authorizes VA to provide combat veterans cost-free care for conditions potentially related to their combat service for up to two years following their discharge or release from active duty. These veterans will be enrolled into Enrollment Priority Group 6 if not otherwise qualified for a higher enrollment priority group assignment. VA provides full access to the Medical Benefits Package by virtue of this enrollment status.



http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/CombatVet/

So, all of this talk about John Kerry insulting the troops is baloney. It seems I'm accused of "deflecting" the issue by speaking about the issues with the Bush Administration and our troops. It is my view that this ENTIRE issue with Kerry is a DEFLECTION. It's to deflect you from thinking about what a clusterf*ck the War in Iraq has turned out to be. It's to deflect you from seeing how sleazy and corrupt the Republican leadership has turned out to be. It's to deflect you from seeing how the publics money has been WASTED since Bush took office. So... save your outrage with John Kerry and direct it towards those that have put our nation in the situation we're in today.... and it AIN'T John Kerry. The net effect on the troops from what John Kerry said is ZERO. What's the net effect of what the Bush Administration has done? You tell me.

That's my view

Greg

 

[PROJECT N00b]

heres my input before/or just in case this thread gets locked.



BYAAAH.

 

[91T breezen']

heres my input before/or just in case this thread gets locked.



BYAAAH.

Great!:icon_conf Thank you for your inciteful post!:sleep: :weak: :biglaugh:

 

[91T breezen']

Greg55;

The bottom line is, John Kerry has about as much business being a US Senator, as Kim IL Jung the leader of the nation of DROK! He has never, and currently does not like the military! His service in Vietnam, was for political purposes only! (all 4 months of it) He lied about what happened when he returned (Senate panel) and gave the enemy the necessary propaganda to continue there maltreatment of our servicemen that were still POW's. He once again gave aid and comfort to the enemy, when he went on record,(last year) saying that our troops in Iraq, were "terrorizing" Iraqi citizens in their homes. These are not "made up" statements, but words right out of the mouth, of the JACKASS!!! that tried, and failed (Thank God!!!) to become our president. How do you think most of the troops currently stationed in Iraq, and Afghanistan feel about him???????
Thank you...
Your service to our country is appreciated, but I will never understand how you could harbor the animosity you have for the current administration and the policies of "taking the fight to the enemy", so they can't bring it here to our shores. It is working, there are just some people whom want to see us fail. I am not saying you are one of them, but it sure sounds like it sometimes.

 

[Supracentral]

This thread teeters on the brink of lockage.

By all means, continue to debate, argue and disagree, but please tone down the personal attacks a notch.

 

[Supra Blues]

Greg55;

The bottom line is, John Kerry has about as much business being a US Senator, as Kim IL Jung the leader of the nation of DROK! He has never, and currently does not like the military! His service in Vietnam, was for political purposes only! (all 4 months of it) He lied about what happened when he returned (Senate panel) and gave the enemy the necessary propaganda to continue there maltreatment of our servicemen that were still POW's. He once again gave aid and comfort to the enemy, when he went on record,(last year) saying that our troops in Iraq, were "terrorizing" Iraqi citizens in their homes. These are not "made up" statements, but words right out of the mouth, of the JACKASS!!! that tried, and failed (Thank God!!!) to become our president. How do you think most of the troops currently stationed in Iraq, and Afghanistan feel about him???????
Thank you...
Your service to our country is appreciated, but I will never understand how you could harbor the animosity you have for the current administration and the policies of "taking the fight to the enemy", so they can't bring it here to our shores. It is working, there are just some people whom want to see us fail. I am not saying you are one of them, but it sure sounds like it sometimes.

Very good post.

John Kerry has done nothing but put down the military and therefore, put down the brave men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afganistan, etc, and therefore protecting us at home.

Notice we have not been hit with a terrorist attack since 9/11????? Maybe this whole war is working, whether the lefties like to believe it or not, it appears to be and if we don't "stay the course" terrorists will come back to haunt us on our homeland.

 

[tte]

Greg55;

The bottom line is, John Kerry has about as much business being a US Senator, as Kim IL Jung the leader of the nation of DROK! He has never, and currently does not like the military! His service in Vietnam, was for political purposes only! (all 4 months of it) He lied about what happened when he returned (Senate panel) and gave the enemy the necessary propaganda to continue there maltreatment of our servicemen that were still POW's. He once again gave aid and comfort to the enemy, when he went on record,(last year) saying that our troops in Iraq, were "terrorizing" Iraqi citizens in their homes. These are not "made up" statements, but words right out of the mouth, of the JACKASS!!! that tried, and failed (Thank God!!!) to become our president. How do you think most of the troops currently stationed in Iraq, and Afghanistan feel about him???????
Thank you...
Your service to our country is appreciated, but I will never understand how you could harbor the animosity you have for the current administration and the policies of "taking the fight to the enemy", so they can't bring it here to our shores. It is working, there are just some people whom want to see us fail. I am not saying you are one of them, but it sure sounds like it sometimes.

Thanks right.....My employer was saying the same thing 2 days ago about John Kerry. He wanted those Purple Heart medals for political reasons only.
He used to bug the military for more medals and they would reject him. Obviously he got upset over it.

Basically what he said is that dumb people go to the military.
What a loser. I get really mad when people like him put down the military
and those soldiers put their lives on the line to defend this country.

Cheers,
Roy

 

[Greg55_99]

Thanks right.....My employer was saying the same thing 2 days ago about John Kerry. He wanted those Purple Heart medals for political reasons only.
He used to bug the military for more medals and they would reject him. Obviously he got upset over it.

Basically what he said is that dumb people go to the military.
What a loser. I get really mad when people like him put down the military
and those soldiers put their lives on the line to defend this country.

Cheers,
Roy

Blogger Tadpole has some words you may like to hear:

The Kerry Flipside..

11/02/06 09:38:51 am Log Entries

I should clarify the point I intended to make with my last message. I am no more or less a fan of John Kerry than I am of any other politician. The way I see it they are all professional liars. Why do you think so many of them are lawyers? What I do have a problem with is any war-hawk type person who is willing to wage war as long as they don't have to do it themselves. I am really sick of big talking Republican whackos and anyone who is willing to sacrifice civil liberty in trade for the illusion of security. I am particularly sick of those who are so eager to send in forces when they never served themselves, or when they ditched their obligation. You don't see too many politicians sons over here...

The fact is that John Kerry's original statement was incredibly stupid, simply because he made a statement that could be mis construed, regardless of it's actual intention (only Senator Kerry knows his intentions for certain). Any politician worth his salt should have learned how to avoid such statements. However, I do agree with the content of his response which I posted in my last post. I challenge all those who are so fucking eager to wage war to come on over here and join me and my friends. Many hands make short work, right?

The problem to me is that those hawks won't come to fight. They will continue to send those few of us who are actually brave enough to serve the greater good to go make whatever sacrifice may be called upon us to make... And so long as high-speed internet and cable T.V. is not interrupted no one will care...

I suppose my question would be this... While we are over here fighting for the security of the U.S., who is fighting for our security at home? Who is ensuring returning vets are getting the best care they can? And more importantly who is ensuring that the U.S. Military, a tool made available to the U.S. Government for use by, and in the defense of the people, is not being mis-used?




http://www.tadpolenet.com/warblogs/index.php?title=the_kerry_flipside&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1


Greg

 

[kwnate]

 

[Greg55_99]