Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

The true enemy of our troops are people like you. sm

Posted By: sm on 2005-09-25
In Reply to: Okay, get a grip on your emotions.... - Observer

The troops and their families are speaking about people like you right now on CSPAN.  But, of course, you would not be able to handle what they are saying.  Because they are speaking the truth. 


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

the enemy of my enemy is my friend
We are all in the same hurricaine, who cares who shows up with the boat?
No, that is not true. I don't believe only lazy people ask for help (sm)
and I am not a republican. I always vote for whichever candidate I agree with the most. To be honest, this year I am not happy with either choice. I will just decide who is going to be the least destructive and vote for him. The reason I said that is that you said you care about his Harvard degree, but you don't even know what he studied. So how can you speak so boldly? At least I am on here asking questions, of which you have answered none, even though you certainly have a nice vocabulary.
So true. I think some of these people have been shackled
Time to go outside and get a breath of fresh air.
So true. I think some of these people have been shackled
Time to go outside and get a breath of fresh air.
Not if it's true (for some people), and I'm beginning to believe it is. nm
nm
you are the enemy
What a wacko statement.  The true enemy of our troops are people like you who want them to stay in a dangerous situation for no reason whatsoever.  To keep them in harms way when the truth is out there now that this war was based on Bush's lies and manipulation to get control of Iraq for oil and location.  You are the enemy of the troops.  Sure, go ahead troops, stay there and die and kill..But for what they ask..Oh..mmmmm..for....nothing..WMD?  No..Iraq/9-11 connection?  No.  You are the enemy of the troops and actually the American people for not standing up and shouting to end this war.
So true - also, are these the same people who brought us the last 8 years?
and they want another free pass? I suspect the people supporting McCain were also all diehard Bush supporters. It would be interesting to see how they defend both who as per some are supposed to be on opposite sides now. how does that work now...

as far as democrats being represented, in all honesty I think they just probably move on because there is no debate, but trust me they are out there. it just gets tiresome being called names and being brow-beaten...

whenever I speak up (I am an independent) I usually get the attacks on myself personally, you know, I am naive, or like those people who think they are being so coy but are actually calling you stupid, or worse.

pretty soon we will have to change USA to DSA, the divided states of america.

not a tolerance from the right and too much separatism...

in my opinion
It is true for some people, but I don't think it is the majority anymore (sm)
I am white and have many friends who are different races and most of the white people I know, who do not know my other friends necessarily, are not racist. I know many white people who are voting for Obama. I also have a lot of black friends who tell me that a lot of their relatives, mostly older, are very prejudiced against white people. When will people realize that they should look at the person for who they are, not the color of their skin? But truly, I do not think it is any longer the majority who is racist. I think it is mostly older people who have the prejudices and that most people 40s and under are no longer racist, and those who are are generally very unintelligent people. By the way, I am from the deep south.
I do want people to be inspired and hopeful if it is true...sm
just don't want everyone to feel let down later.
You talk about them like they are the enemy.
Tsk tsk tsk.
And never ever forget that it emboldens the enemy.
So the very soldiers these people reportedly care so much about are being put in danger.  I don't see the reasoning in that either.
And for good reason......... enemy amongst us
:(
I figure I have been on the Public Enemy List...
 for years. I started becoming very involved during the Viet Nam War, the civil rights movement, the ERA, all those things of the 70s. I have been arrested 3 times (and proud of it) for unlawful assembly, marching without a parade permit (someone was really fine combing there),  and sitting in at a government building. These were all en masse arrests but I am sure I have an FBI file. I also was active in AIM back in the day, American Indian Movement and now am involved with Free Leonard Peltier, so I know I am wired, tapped, followed, whatever it is they do to dissidents like me. I also was at a Friends Community House meeting here in Florida where protestors of the present debacle gather. One of these meetings was tapped; made national news.  I will go to Harry's site and sign anything they ask me to. I sign petitions all the time from MoveOn, Not In Our Name, Women in Black, Amnesty International...so I really don't care about that part. I used to think I would just wait until it is finally over, the Bush administration that is, but now I am beginning to think this world may not make it until November 2008.  A melt-down is coming, take your pick, global warming or nuclear warfare,  I tend to think the nuclear will be first. If we nuke Iran, the rest of all hell will break loose and America wil be responsible for too numerous to count deaths worldwide. If anyone thinks that guy in Iran and his compatriots will take that sitting down, they are as dumb as dirt.  We knew from the beginning that Iraq would turn out just exactly as it has, and Iran will do the same, only bigger and badder.  The times, they are a-changin'.
Obama's Friend - America's Enemy
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDI4YzUyYmI1ZjA1OWUzMDA5ZDIzNTI4NTk5ZmYwYWY=&w=MA
Not tolerant of people who mislead and slander, invent fiction and then say it's true.

If they hadn't lied - we wouldn't be in this war with a faceless enemy....nm
x
Thank God our troops

Okay...so you are okay with troops in ...
Afghanistan...just not in Iraq...?
Yes, has nothing to do with the troops.
And no, it does not make her a resident expert. Explain the differences of opinions amongst our own troops. Not all of them believe what they are doing is justified. Not every mother believes it either. It has nothing at all to do with being prideful of our sons and daughters. My point being is that their job is done. My brother is a gunny and is doing his job, but he no longer feels justified in doing it, and he is not alone. And I believe HIM. If the other poster is a resident expert because her son is in Iraq, then I guess that makes me a resident expert as well, no?

Yes, Liberal Thinker, and proud of it. I have not abandoned compassion. My agenda is to stop this needless war. My compassion is expanded to all not just a few. It started in my brain, and I am letting it spill out my mouth.

Yes. I criticize that with which I do not believe. That is our right is it not?

And last time I looked, this is a political forum, and a liberal forum at that.
It has nothing to do with our troops.
Why are you taken it so personally? You must realize that for every picture of sunshine your son sends you there is one that depicts suffering and starvation and death. I have family fighting it Iraq. It's doesn't change my stance that I feel that they are there unjustly. That's the real deal. Not quite sure how having family there makes you the resident expert. The point to my post was that we shouldn't be there anymore. Our troops have done what the Bush administration wanted done on the initial invasion. Now we are there fighting for an ideal that doesn't exist. So, in that perhaps you don't have a clue. If you son dies at the hands of an insurgent, those same insurgents who benefit from keeping unrest in the country and keeping it destabilized, a situation that our government and you refuse to recognize or better yet do anything about, I wonder if you will feel the same? Would his death be justified then? We are not fighting terrorists anymore in Iraq. They've moved on to other countries. What happens if there is another strike? Our troops are too thin and they are tired. Draft? Getting on your patriotic horse isn't help us end this war any sooner. There is no pride in this war anymore, if there ever was.

We have been paying Pakistan since 2001 to help fight terrorism. They haven't done much with our 10 billion dollars have they? If Al- Qaeda is to blame for Bhutto's death, then Pakistan should deal with it, and I don't believe we should be sending them anymore money. We shouldn't have been sending them money to begin with.

This is a widespread virus of Islamic extremism that we have concentrated mostly in Iraq while Al-Qaeda has gained strength in other countries while our military is being depleted. It is to their benefit this war continues because it destabilizes OUR country. Unless we have a full coalition from other countries to help fight this war, it cannot be won and we are wasting our time and our money on a pipe dream.

We do not have infinite resources to fight a civil unrest that will probably never be rectified. This war was handled poorly from the beginning and it is getting worse by the day.

I don't think YOU are paying attention to what is really go on in Iraq. Do you want your son there indefinitely? How about your son's son? This is a religious war for them, it will never end unless we end it.

That's what the troops are supposed to be doing
The key word is *securing.*  It's an extreme exaggeration to say that the U.S. was supporting Hezbollah by making sure a Suni and Shiite combined rally did not get out of hand, but it's par for the course of for the dramaticists known as the mainstream media.  Poor and misleading reporting is what they specialize in.
Say thanks to the troops...(see link)...sm
nm
Oh, so that is your message to our troops...
Go to work and do your job. Just live with the protesting and ignore it?
Somehow, I don't think our troops see things that way. sm
I don't think that is a good analogy. 
The troops speak

Replying to a post below, I thought this would be a good link in a separate message in case people skip over it below.


The US Military troops speak and here is what they say - 68% for McCain, 23% Obama.  Here is the link below.


http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/


So if you take that, plus Obama has a 5 point lead over McCain in today's polls, plus the 11% who are not decided it is a very close call.  November 4th is going to be an excited day for sure.


Yes, hurrah for the troops.....sm
I saw this the other day, and while I do not hold much stock in the mainstream polls that poll the dems 3 or 4:1, I was very heartened to see this story. Of course, I could only find it on Fox, and another military website.

Seems the mainstream media didn't want the rest of the American public to know about it, which is hardly surprising.


At any rate, since I believe the majority of those polled for this study are older military, who most likely are Republican, of course they support John McCain. They know that he is the most able leader for our country in times like these.


I'd also like to post this video again. Dear Mr. Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
I agree with you about the troops.
I also believe that the REAL disgrace was for them to be sent into a war based on lies and the blind ambitions of the imperial wizard and his henchmen. I also do not believe that a policy based on "saving face" is worth sharing one more drop of blood over...on either side.
That's true - and Barack Obama is a true Patriot too.
Again we can agree to disagree. How John McCain has voted goes against everything I want as a President, but there are an equal number of people to me who feel opposite. That's the way it goes.

Your last comment brought to mind how true that is. Being a true patriot is not harmful in a candidate. John McCain is a patriot. So is Barack Obama.
You just blew your pro troops facade. sm
but you are pretty easy to read. It isn't about the war or Cindy Sheehan or the price of gasoline.  It's about your virulent and soul destroying damnable hatred for George W. Bush that even goes so far as to extend to his family.  You, and those like you, put this country and our troops at risk every single day.  Why not do the right thing since you hate this war so very much.  BE A HUMAN SHIELD.  As if.
So much for caring about the troops. You are a joke. nm

I think you would be very surprised at how the troops see you, Lilly.

I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I never said I didn't support the troops!
You took what I said way out of context. I support the troops, I just want to know when it will be over. I want to know when our government will start to pay attention to OUR country instead of going around trying to fix everyone ELSE'S problems. I have a brother in the military...in Iraq. I never said I didn't support them. Unfortunately for them, they don't have a say in what they are having to do.
Implanted Chips in Our Troops? sm
Implanted Chips in Our Troops?

A Florida company wants to get under the skin of 1.4 million U.S. servicemen and women. VeriChip Corp, based in Delray Beach, Fla., and described by the D.C. Examiner as one of the most aggressive marketers of radio frequency identification chips, is hoping to convince the Pentagon to allow them to insert the chips, known as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips under the skin of the right arms of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen to enable them to scan an arm and obtain that person’s identity and medical history. The chips would replace the legendary metal dog tags that have been worn by U.S. military personnel since 1906.

The device is usually implanted above the triceps area of an individual’s right arm, but can also by implanted in the hand if scanned at the proper frequency. The VeriChip responds with a unique 16-digit number, which can correlate the user to information stored on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure is performed under local anesthetic, and once inserted it is invisible to the naked eye.

The company, which the Examiner notes has powerful political connections, is in discussions” with the Pentagon, VeriChip spokeswoman Nicole Philbin told the Examiner. The potential for this technology doesn’t just stop at the civilian level,” Philbin said. Company officials have touted the chips as versatile, able to be used in a variety of situations such as helping track illegal immigrants or giving doctors immediate access to patient’s medical records.

On Monday the Department of State started to issue electronic passports (e-passports) equipped with RFID chips. According to reports the U.S. government has placed an order with a California company, Infineon Technologies North America, for smart chip-embedded passports.

The Associated Press said the new U.S. passports include an electronic chip that contains all the data contained in the paper version name, birth date, gender, for example and can be read by digital scanners at equipped airports. They cost 14 percent more than their predecessors but the State Department said they will speed up going through Customs and help enhance border security.

The company's hefty political clout is typified by having former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, on its board of directors.

Thompson assured the Examiner that the chip is safe and that no one — not even military personnel, who are required by law to follow orders — will be forced to accept an implant against his or her will. He has also promised to have a chip implanted in himself but could not tell the Examiner when.

I’m extremely busy and I’m waiting until my hospitals and doctors are able to run some screens, he told the newspaper.

Not everybody agrees with Thompson, the Examiner reported, noting that the idea of implanting the chips in live bodies has some veterans’ groups and privacy advocates worried.

It needs further study,” Joe Davis, a retired Air Force major and a spokesman for the D.C. office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, told the Examiner.

And Liz McIntyre, co-author with Katherine Albrecht of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID, said that VeriChip is a huge threat” to public privacy.

They’re circling like vultures for any opportunity to get into our flesh,” McIntyre told the Examiner. They’ll start with people who can’t say no, like the elderly, sex offenders, immigrants and the military. Then they’ll come knocking on our doors.”

In an e-mail to the Examiner, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote: If that is what the Defense Department has in mind for our troops in Iraq, there are many questions that need answers. What checks and balances, safeguards and congressional oversight would there be?” Leahy asked. What less-invasive alternatives are there? What information would be entered on the chips, and could it endanger our soldiers or be intercepted by the enemy?”

The company, the Examiner wrote, is also unsure about the technology. According to company documents, radio frequencies in ambulances and helicopters could disrupt the chips’ transmissions. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, VeriChip also said it was unsure whether the chip would dislodge and move through a person’s body. It could also cause infections and adverse tissue reactions,” the SEC filing states.

But Philbin downplayed the danger of the chips.

It’s the size of a grain of rice,” she said. It’s like getting a shot of penicillin.”

Newsmax.com


The difference between civilians vs troops...sm
I hear what you're saying and took some time to think on it. If I stood behind my CEO and felt that he had the best interest of the employees and patients (in my case) at heart then I would continue to do my job and even challenge the opposition. If I felt my CEO was slighting the hospital, I would leave. Troops don't have that option until their time is up.

And some troops who otherwise would have stayed enlisted have left because of the war. I know a few personally.
Add a support the troops magnet
to your car and you have my vote! Oops, aren't they made in China?
McCain does not support our troops

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).


But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops.  And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.


This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments.  I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military.  Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double Talk Express".  But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.


In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq.  However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor.  I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.


September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.  At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.


July 2007:  McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq.  At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.


March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year.  Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible.  This number has not moved significantly since then.


February 2007:  For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it.  However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn.  This number has since gone up to around 70%.


June 2006:  McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.


May 2006:  McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.


April 2006:  McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.


March 2006:  McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.


March 2004:  McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.  Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.


October 2003:  McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.


April 2003:  McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.


August 2001:  McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.  To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.


So there it is.  John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military.  Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military.  If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?


McCain does not support our troops

by Phillip Butler, PhD



People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.



John’s treatment as a POW:



1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A dam good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.



2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.



3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.



4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.



John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.



I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.



Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.



I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.



It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.



I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.



philip_about.jpgSenator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.



by Phillip Butler, PhD



Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.


http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/25/why-i-won%e2%80%99t-vote-for-john-mccain/


IED threat was known before war but troops not protected

I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this.  Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.







Report: IED threat known before war


By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON —— Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.


The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) …… and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.


The report is to be made public today.


Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.


Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.


The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.


When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.


The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.


Two U.S. senators —— Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri —— demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.


"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."


USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.


Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.


The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.


MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm


I never said I was speaking on behalf of the troops
What I said was "I, as many others, do believe our troops will not be safe under an Obama regime. Just look at his voting record and how he says he will handle the war. He voted "NO" on ensuring that our troops serving in harms way remain Americas top budget priority by ensuring full funding. That means he voted no on the funding to ensure our troops would remain safe. I would say Gov. Palin has it correct. You cannot ignore the facts".

That is an opinion of mine and many others. No where does that statement say "on behalf of the troops". However, I have listened to what the troops say (and I am former military myself). So I don't speak for them, they speak for themselves and here is what they say (link provided below).

68% are for McCain, 23% are for Obama. Here is the link...

http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/

First KBR gives our troops contaminated water and now...

we discover that KBR (a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton) knowingly exposed United States soldiers to toxic materials in Iraq. 


Please watch this video.  It's only three minutes long, and it's heartbreaking.  Don't our troops deserve better from a commander-in-chief that claims to care about them?



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CBS_KBR_knew_dangers_of_toxic_1223.html


You expected him to withdraw all troops on Day 1 ? nm
bn
Bringing our troops home would also.....
save our country a sh&tload of money.....
So now it is Cindy, not Bush who put the troops in danger.
Not the terrorist, it's Cindy. I get it now, thanks for sharing that with us.

If you don't think our troops deserve BODY ARMOR

provided by the President who is all too eager to see them die but never had the guts to put is own life on the line for his country, then YOU are the one who doesn't care about our troops.


If I'm a joke, you're a disgrace and a fraud.


Troops die without body armor. Why the delay?





For Lack of Body Armor, Troops Die. Why the Delay?





Paul Rieckhoff on body armor in USA Today: Rieckhoff and other veterans are calling for a congressional investigation. That's justified. Tracking their complaints could save lives in future wars — not to mention this one.

 From USA Today

After Army and Marine Corps generals were summoned Wednesday to a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, the brass emerged with vows to improve body armor for all U.S. troops in Iraq.


 That's good to hear, but shouldn't it have happened sooner?


 Members of Congress were reacting to a newly reported analysis by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, which concluded that 80% of the fatal injuries to Marines in the study might have been prevented by additional armor coverage. Side armor, a special concern, is just beginning to arrive in Iraq.


 The armor situation fits a deadly pattern of blunders by the war's architects. The quick invasion of Iraq happened as planned, but — as former Iraq civilian administrator Paul Bremer acknowledges in his new book — the Bush administration didn't anticipate the widespread and lethal insurgency that followed.


 The occupying U.S. troops soon found themselves facing deadly new tactics with inadequate armor on both their vehicles and themselves. This tragic miscalculation has had tragic consequences.


 To date, 1,510 soldiers and 633 Marines have died in Iraq, many of them killed by rifle shots or explosions in which better armor could have made a difference.


 Army generals say the body armor used by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan has already been improved seven times. All soldiers there have bullet-proof body vests called Interceptors, which have front-and-back ceramic plates. Side panels, which are added to the Interceptors to provide more coverage, are just now being distributed to Marines.


 Defending their body-armor decisions, Army spokesmen conjure up images of medieval combatants whose ever-heavier personal armor brought their horses to their knees. A soldier wrapped in armor can't fight in the heat of Iraq, they say.


 Maybe not, but the Pentagon owes further explanations to military families and to Congress, which since 2001 has appropriated $302 billion to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the questions that need answering include:


 • Was there proper planning? Thousands of troops arrived in Iraq with old-style flak jackets. Not until January 2004 did all troops have the new Interceptor vests, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year.


 •Was the armor upgraded fast enough? The Marine Corps says it moved quickly to add side armor upon learning the news from the examiner's report. But the Army has yet to supply its soldiers with side protection.


 • Do the services have adequate supply systems? Those systems appear hobbled by slow turnarounds and poor reliability. In November, more than 18,000 vests were recalled for failing to meet ballistics tests.


 Army and Marine commanders know that no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy. The question is how quickly the services adapt. The answer in Iraq is tooslowly, says Paul Rieckhoff, who led an Army platoon there protected only by the flak jackets, which can't stop an AK-47 round.


 The body armor delays mirror problems with the Humvee. Not until last July did the Army finally replace its soft-skinned Humvees, proven tragically vulnerable to roadside bombs, with a fully armored version.


 Rieckhoff and other veterans are calling for a congressional investigation. That's justified. Tracking their complaints could save lives in future wars — not to mention this one.



I would wager a guess that the troops overseas...sm
have much more pressing matters to attend to, than sending campaign contributions to the various candidates.

The proof will be in the election results, as to who they actually vote for.

The majority of our military would cringe at the thought of a commander in chief who regards them with disrespect (I hear it from my military relatives)

They'll vote for McCain, all the way.
Well...first he said he was bringing the troops home immediately...
if he was elected. Now he is talking about a "phased" withdrawal. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? He said: "I never heard that kind of sermon." Then he said: "Yes, I did hear some of that." That is on tape on You Tube. Which place was he lying? He said he barely knew William Ayers. We know now that is a lie. There are several more.
The key word about the troops is he will START bringing....sm
then home and I believe he will START in 60-90 days after he is sworn in. As for all the other promises you say he has already broken, he is not even president yet and I am very encouraged by plans being set forth to deal with the most pressing problems we all face. Get over it. Your guy didn't win. Give our guy a chance.
Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia
Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

You can support the troops but not the president. --Rep Tom Delay
(R-TX)

Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're
going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years. --Joe Scarborough
(R-FL)

Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their
life? --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might
on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit
strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will
cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long
they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound
foreign policy. --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the
administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign
policy. --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they
have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy. --Karen
Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush (words are really too big
to have been spoken by GWB)

I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning ... I
didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area. --Senator
Trent Lott (R-MS)

I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it
is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just
learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with
very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later,
these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of
victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no
clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended
military. There is no explanation defining what vital national
interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the
President started this thing, and there still is no plan today --Rep
Tom Delay (R-TX)

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is . --Governor George W. Bush
(R-TX)

Funny thing is, we won that war without a single AMERICAN killed in
action.  Bush can't make that claim now!  And where is HIS exit
strategy?


U.S. military violated own rules on mentally ill troops...sm

Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.


The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.


In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.