• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Veterans and Military personnel only.[W:651]

For Veterans and Military personnel only.


  • Total voters
    51
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

who is attacking the position? I am attacking the hypocrisy of those who praise the position now and attacked it when Bush was POTUS. I said nothing about the validity of the position itself

You don't even realize how hypocritical it is to chastise others war stance as being too hawkish, that is less hawkish than your own stance, do you?


actually, I am against reducing military spending and sometimes "optional" wars are not really "optional"

Of course, that's what makes your attack on Obama (who has proposed cutting military spending and optional wars) so hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

You don't even realize how hypocritical it is to chastise others war stance as being too hawkish, that is less hawkish than your own stance, do you?

you don't realize, despite me telling you, that I am not chastising the stance itself. the stance hasn't changed, only you and your's opinion of the stance. it was bad when it was bush and now it is good when it is obama.




Of course, that's what makes your attack on Obama (who has proposed cutting military spending and optional wars) so hypocritical.

of course, that's what makes your reply so idiotic. you don't realize I am not attacking Obama. I am attacking your hypocrisy over your praising obama for doing the same thing you bashed bush over
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

you don't realize, despite me telling you, that I am not chastising the stance itself. the stance hasn't changed, only you and your's opinion of the stance. it was bad when it was bush and now it is good when it is obama.

No its bad when either side start optional wars and spend excessively on the military. That's why I'm voting for the person that proposed spending cuts on the military and withdrew our troops from Iraq, rather than the person that promises to spend even more on the military and said we should have left our troops in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

I just love to see liberals defending Obama for doing the same things they bashed Bush over. quite refreshing

As someone not 100% happy with Obama, there are some difference. He's not arguing torture is OK. He did focus on Afghanistan (which is where many of us thought the focus should have stayed). He did try to close GITMO (failing is different than deciding to continue). He didn't invade Libya without the UN, occupy, and impose ourselves there (though I did not support what he did do). I'm just saying differences matter. You rarely get the same response from something that is different.
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

As someone not 100% happy with Obama, there are some difference. He's not arguing torture is OK. He did focus on Afghanistan (which is where many of us thought the focus should have stayed). He did try to close GITMO (failing is different than deciding to continue). He did invade Libya wihout the UN, occupy, and impose ourselves there (though I did not support what he did do). I'm just saying differences matter. You rarely get the same response from something that is different.

I'm sorry, but to the best of my knowledge, the bolded portion is incorrect. First off, it's not an occupation, we provided close air support for the insurgency. There are actually no "boots on the ground", so to speak. Unless something has changed that I'm unaware of, we have not occupied Libya, and have no plans to do so. Second, this was a joint NATO operation, we aren't even playing a top dog role in this endeavor, which is a good thing.

I'm not an Obama guy at all, but I have to say, I think he handled the Libya situation pretty well.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

I'm sorry, but to the best of my knowledge, the bolded portion is incorrect. First off, it's not an occupation, we provided close air support for the insurgency. There are actually no "boots on the ground", so to speak. Unless something has changed that I'm unaware of, we have not occupied Libya, and have no plans to do so. Second, this was a joint NATO operation, we aren't even playing a top dog role in this endeavor, which is a good thing.

I'm not an Obama guy at all, but I have to say, I think he handled the Libya situation pretty well.

Typo I fixed. Look again.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

I'm sorry, but to the best of my knowledge, the bolded portion is incorrect. First off, it's not an occupation, we provided close air support for the insurgency. There are actually no "boots on the ground", so to speak. Unless something has changed that I'm unaware of, we have not occupied Libya, and have no plans to do so. Second, this was a joint NATO operation, we aren't even playing a top dog role in this endeavor, which is a good thing.

I'm not an Obama guy at all, but I have to say, I think he handled the Libya situation pretty well.

Its a typo, Boo obviously meant to say didn't, instead of did.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

I understand and support your sentiments MT, but what war has Obama started that you have served in? Actually, he ended one of the wars started by the last administration and has laid out a plan to end the remaining war.

Your partisanship knows no bounds does it? Iraq was already over when he was sworn in. President Bush ended it. President Obama should have ended Afghanistan a looooooong time ago. 2014? He's doing the same thing with Afghanistan as he is the debt. Pushing it off on the next generation. If he is not reelected, do you really believe Romney will honor that? I don't. I think he'll extend it indefinitely. President Obama should have done the right thing and pulled us out of ALL of these places and back home. Instead, he's made it "his war" as he likes to say and we're still there. As a matter of fact, I just had one of two Marines that have been mentors to me in my career step on an IED today. He may not live through it and will almost definitely lose both legs. Dude has a wife and two kids under 7. For what? So President Obama can save some political and worldwide face by making it look like we're putting an honest effort into winning over there. What we're really doing is guarding an entire country so he can have secure airfields to launch UAV's from. When he lowered his right hand after his oath, it became his responsibility. We're still there. I blame him.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Your partisanship knows no bounds does it? Iraq was already over when he was sworn in. President Bush ended it.

Romney said it was too soon. He is in fact the only other viable choice. I choose the guy that ended it rather than the guy who says it was too soon to end it.

President Obama should have ended Afghanistan a looooooong time ago. 2014?

I agree, I think he should have ended it sooner, unfortunately the only viable alternative to the hawkish Obama was even more hawkish.


He's doing the same thing with Afghanistan as he is the debt. Pushing it off on the next generation. If he is not reelected, do you really believe Romney will honor that? I don't. I think he'll extend it indefinitely.

Exactly why I am voting for Obama and not Romney.

President Obama should have done the right thing and pulled us out of ALL of these places and back home. Instead, he's made it "his war" as he likes to say and we're still there. As a matter of fact, I just had one of two Marines that have been mentors to me in my career step on an IED today. He may not live through it and will almost definitely lose both legs. Dude has a wife and two kids under 7. For what? So President Obama can save some political and worldwide face by making it look like we're putting an honest effort into winning over there.

As opposed to the GOP putting and honest effort to make it look like we could ever win over there???

Who is the viable candidate proposing a quicker drawdown of troops than the president?

What we're really doing is guarding an entire country so he can have secure airfields to launch UAV's from. When he lowered his right hand after his oath, it became his responsibility. We're still there. I blame him.

Beats a hundred years which his opponent was fine with.
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

If every American who supports the United State's ever increasing military involvement in foreign wars was required to serve and go to war, we'd have a hell of lot less involvement in international military engagements. Regretfully the vast majority of Americans have no idea what they are really asking of the small percentage of American men and women in uniform. For those who serve the sacrifice is immense.

Romney nor Obama are not going to stop any war as long as the military-industrial complex shouts louder than the American public.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

If every American who supports the United State's ever increasing military involvement in foreign wars was required to serve and go to war, we'd have a hell of lot less involvement in international military engagements. Regretfully the vast majority of Americans have no idea what they are really asking of the small percentage of American men and women in uniform. For those who serve the sacrifice is immense.

Romney nor Obama are not going to stop any war as long as the military-industrial complex shouts louder than the American public.

And we have fallen down in our job of shouting against it. I think bringing back the draft would be beneficial to our country and the rest of the world in the long run.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

And we have fallen down in our job of shouting against it. I think bringing back the draft would be beneficial to our country and the rest of the world in the long run.

Indeed, my friend. I do agree. I almost said that in my post. If they make me King of America tomorrow - and right now that isn't looking too good - I would do two things:

Thing One: Reinstitute the draft.

Thing Two: Repeal the War Powers Act.

I'd do both in a heartbeat.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Romney said it was too soon. He is in fact the only other viable choice. I choose the guy that ended it rather than the guy who says it was too soon to end it.
So you're a lesser of two evils guy. Got it.
I agree, I think he should have ended it sooner, unfortunately the only viable alternative to the hawkish Obama was even more hawkish.
So don't vote for either.
As opposed to the GOP putting and honest effort to make it look like we could ever win over there???
When did I defend the GOP? I'm not partisan like you man. Don't try to frame me into your tunnel vision.
Also, we could win over there. I don't agree that we are there. But, we could win over there. Very easily actually.
Who is the viable candidate proposing a quicker drawdown of troops than the president?
Define viable. If by viable you mean the candidate funded by one of the two reigning powerhouse parties that dominate our politics because mindless drones continue to vote for the hand puppets they place in front of them then I guess you're voting for the right guy.
However, if by viable you mean the candidate the best represents what I believe in and leaves me feeling as though I honored my personal values and not like I need to take a shower when I get home then Ron Paul is who I'll vote for.
Beats a hundred years which his opponent was fine with.
Easy to say when you never go.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

And we have fallen down in our job of shouting against it. I think bringing back the draft would be beneficial to our country and the rest of the world in the long run.

There are some problems with the draft. While an equal number of males and females would now be subject to it, that is neither what the military requires, nor what society would readily accept, making the draft unlikely to help the military or the politicians that would approve it. The training costs involved vs. the time actually served after training is not nearly as good for draftees as for volunteers.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

So you're a lesser of two evils guy. Got it.

I am a realist who doesn't believe it is possible to have a representative voted into office that is more extreme than the group of people that are voting him or her into office.

So don't vote for either.

My feeling is if I am not voting for the best of the viable candidates, I am in effect voting for the worst of the viable candidates. Why would I wish to help the worst candidate get elected???

When did I defend the GOP? I'm not partisan like you man. Don't try to frame me into your tunnel vision.
Also, we could win over there. I don't agree that we are there. But, we could win over there. Very easily actually.

Win what???

Define viable. If by viable you mean the candidate funded by one of the two reigning powerhouse parties that dominate our politics because mindless drones continue to vote for the hand puppets they place in front of them then I guess you're voting for the right guy.
However, if by viable you mean the candidate the best represents what I believe in and leaves me feeling as though I honored my personal values and not like I need to take a shower when I get home then Ron Paul is who I'll vote for.

By viable, I mean has a realistic chance of winning a majority vote.

Easy to say when you never go.

You said in effect the same thing I did earlier.
 
Last edited:
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

There are some problems with the draft. While an equal number of males and females would now be subject to it, that is neither what the military requires, nor what society would readily accept, making the draft unlikely to help the military or the politicians that would approve it. The training costs involved vs. the time actually served after training is not nearly as good for draftees as for volunteers.

The public accepted it before, and the way I look at the training costs would more than offset by the savings through entering into less optional conflicts, and with shorter durations.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

There are some problems with the draft. While an equal number of males and females would now be subject to it, that is neither what the military requires, nor what society would readily accept, making the draft unlikely to help the military or the politicians that would approve it. The training costs involved vs. the time actually served after training is not nearly as good for draftees as for volunteers.

I really don't want a return to the draft, but I do want everyone connected to the wars we fight. It's too easy to support something you send others to do. We should all share the burden, and the responsibility making sure this is a war we need to fight.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

I have a completely different view on this. Very few people I have known have really had the issues you have, at least not more than they show up in other programs. Do you really think you would have any less problems with civilian insurance plans?

Both my sons were born in civilian hospitals. Comparing our stories with the ones of women who have delivered at the military hospital here (Okinawa) is like night and day. I think you are the first person I have run across that has had good words to say about TRICARE provision for dependents.

They are all about making money.

Yeah. And in order to do that, they need you not to sue the bejeezus out of them. Government medicine wants to get promoted and get off early, and in order to do that they need to shuffle you out the door and then manage to not actually blatantly kill too many people.

There are health insurance plans out there that require a mother to inform them immediately when she goes into labor/the hospital or she gets financially penalized. Some plans have an annual limit on how much medical costs they will pay for.

Probably true.

Now, Marines do have issues with their docs sometimes, but I'm pretty sure it generally has more to do with horrible policies that are trying to prevent losing people to medical reasons instead of a bad overall system. Some of the policies are wrong. That doesn't make the whole program bad. It works for the majority of people.

Our "docs" as in our Corpsmen are mostly awesome. I've had docs I'd trust to pull me out and put me back together with no problem, and I've seen docs save lives. It's the medical system that suffers from all the usual quality and service problems associated with government provision of goods. And saying "it works for the majority of people"... defining 'work' how? Most of them don't die of some horrid disease on an annual basis? :p Like I said, I think you're the first I've heard talking about how good it was for dependents.

Plus, how would you change the program that would work for the military and be similar to a civilian run program? Do you have any suggestions or just complaints?

I live much better housing than the equivalent government housing for a member of my rank. The reason I do is because the military gives me BAH to go find a better option on my own, and the private market is better than the government at providing higher quality goods at a lower cost. We should adopt a similar reform to Indiana's, and offer our military an HSA option, so they can get an insurance program that best suits and responds to them.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Veteran care varies state to state facility to facility. Florida is probably the veteran capitol of the USA and they come from all over the country.
Ive heard horror stories about vet care in some states Va hosps and ive heard more about EXCELLENT care stories.
Each VA hospital and each va clinic its true are under same rules universally...but each individual outlet has its own administration.
Having said all that...for veterans who have no other health insurance its a life saver and absolutely necessary for America to provide for those that gave some.
We all have to keep in mind that vet care has a bureacracy and with any bureacracy comes a degree of bullchit.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

There are some problems with the draft. While an equal number of males and females would now be subject to it, that is neither what the military requires, nor what society would readily accept, making the draft unlikely to help the military or the politicians that would approve it. The training costs involved vs. the time actually served after training is not nearly as good for draftees as for volunteers.

There's only really one reason to oppose the draft: Volunteers who want to serve are far more likely to comply, and excel than people who are forced to be there, and simply don't want to be in uniform.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Both my sons were born in civilian hospitals. Comparing our stories with the ones of women who have delivered at the military hospital here (Okinawa) is like night and day. I think you are the first person I have run across that has had good words to say about TRICARE provision for dependents.

My first son was born in Tripler, in Oahu. Some refer to the place as "Crippler". I had zero problems and got a lot of care. In fact, when it looked like there was a problem, there were 4 doctors and a couple of nurses in there trying to make sure it was taken care of right. The room I was put in was awesome, even a place for my husband to stay with me and our son. So much help. My second son was born in a civilian hospital. The room was huge but it was unnecessarily so. They didn't let fathers actually stay with the mothers after the baby was born. And they had no idea about their patients. They gave out bags for going home to help new moms, mine was in Spanish. I'm about as white as a person can get.

Yeah. And in order to do that, they need you not to sue the bejeezus out of them. Government medicine wants to get promoted and get off early, and in order to do that they need to shuffle you out the door and then manage to not actually blatantly kill too many people.

I've experienced both, and it not that different. In fact, I stayed a couple days longer in Tripler than I did the civilian hospital after the birth, eventhough it was just for observation because of my blood condition.

Our "docs" as in our Corpsmen are mostly awesome. I've had docs I'd trust to pull me out and put me back together with no problem, and I've seen docs save lives. It's the medical system that suffers from all the usual quality and service problems associated with government provision of goods. And saying "it works for the majority of people"... defining 'work' how? Most of them don't die of some horrid disease on an annual basis? :p Like I said, I think you're the first I've heard talking about how good it was for dependents.

And I'm telling you I don't see it, at least not more than what I have seen in a civilian hospital/clinic. I have had physical therapy given to me for a foot problem by the Navy. Yet one of my sisters was told by a doctor at a civilian hospital that they couldn't do jack for her sprained/fractured ankle, not even to wrap it up.

From everything I have experienced and heard, the military medical works just as well as civilian medical, particularly when we are talking stateside medical.

I live much better housing than the equivalent government housing for a member of my rank. The reason I do is because the military gives me BAH to go find a better option on my own, and the private market is better than the government at providing higher quality goods at a lower cost. We should adopt a similar reform to Indiana's, and offer our military an HSA option, so they can get an insurance program that best suits and responds to them.

And see, I've never had a better place to live in in my life compared to the military housing I live in now. It is great. Completely worth it. And I have lived in places on my own BAH.

Oh, and military housing is run by civilians, not military. The civilians have to follow certain rules, but they are certainly not skimpimg, at least not in San Diego, on the housing.

TRICARE is an insurance option, particularly for dependents. You can choose civilian doctors. They just have to accept TRICARE. Of course, it may cost a little more. For military, it just isn't practical since we have more rules due to our health being a high consideration for the military. (And I know technically I fall under the civilian coverage, I still have to inform my reserve chain of command of any health problems and they have to get their information on it to determine if I am medically ready.)
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

I am a realist who doesn't believe it is possible to have a representative voted into office that is more extreme than the group of people that are voting him or her into office.
Whatever that's supposed to mean........Anyway, you can call it realist, whatever you want. You act as though you are so antiwar on this website when the man you are supporting has delved us deeper into war and kills people with impunity almost everyday from the comfort of the White House. So don't act as though you have some sort of moral high ground to retreat to. I would submit that your vote for President Obama is just as lethal as my pulling the trigger.
My feeling is if I am not voting for the best of the viable candidates, I am in effect voting for the worst of the viable candidates. Why would I wish to help the worst candidate get elected???
Whatever floats your boat man. I don't think you have any right to criticize anything Bush did or anything we do in foreign policy once you cast that vote. I can see how President Obama might have hoodwinked you the first time. He did it to everyone. Now you know what he's all about. To vote for him again makes all of your anti-war rhetoric hypocritical and a moot point IMO.
Win what???
If the gloves were taken off, as they were in the beginning in Afghanistan, we could have that population supporting us and the Taliban/Al Qaeda totally out of that country. We did it in Iraq and the gloves were only half off. Like I said, I don't agree that we are still there. However, if we're going to be kept there at least allow us to fight unfettered. I can't go into the exact things I am speaking of as far as restrictions over there buy let's just say this. A police officer in the US could probably justify firing his weapon faster than a servicemember in Afghanistan. That's wrong.
By viable, I mean has a realistic chance of winning a majority vote.
Like I said, whoever has the hand of one of the big parties up their butt.
You said in effect the same thing I did earlier.
Explain
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

Whatever that's supposed to mean........Anyway, you can call it realist, whatever you want. You act as though you are so antiwar on this website when the man you are supporting has delved us deeper into war and kills people with impunity almost everyday from the comfort of the White House. So don't act as though you have some sort of moral high ground to retreat to. I would submit that your vote for President Obama is just as lethal as my pulling the trigger.

Whatever floats your boat man. I don't think you have any right to criticize anything Bush did or anything we do in foreign policy once you cast that vote. I can see how President Obama might have hoodwinked you the first time. He did it to everyone. Now you know what he's all about. To vote for him again makes all of your anti-war rhetoric hypocritical and a moot point IMO.


So you are able to just ignore that the only viable alternative is worse? Sorry, I don't have that ability.



If the gloves were taken off, as they were in the beginning in Afghanistan, we could have that population supporting us and the Taliban/Al Qaeda totally out of that country. We did it in Iraq and the gloves were only half off. Like I said, I don't agree that we are still there. However, if we're going to be kept there at least allow us to fight unfettered. I can't go into the exact things I am speaking of as far as restrictions over there buy let's just say this. A police officer in the US could probably justify firing his weapon faster than a servicemember in Afghanistan. That's wrong.

Like I said, whoever has the hand of one of the big parties up their butt.

Explain

You sound exactly like those that deluded themselves into thinking that if we had just been more brutal allowed to kill more than the million we killed in Vietnam we could have won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese seemingly completely oblivious to the very reason we failed in Vietnam is because we were so brutal. This is what you consider handling with kid gloves:

720608-Napalm_girl_photo-AP7206081767_620x350.jpg



All we we did in Iraq was remove one corrupt government that kicked Big oil our their country 35 years ago and replace it with a corrupt government that let big oil back in. That's great for big oil but doesn't mean **** to me.

And we are no closer to winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans than we were a decade ago as far as I can tell. The corrupt government we enabled in Afghanistan (the ones we plan to turn over control to) said recently they would side with Pakistan in a conflict with the US.

Mission Accomplished???

If you wish to cast your vote for the worst of the candidates that is your prerogative. I will stick with voting for the better of the candidates.
 
Re: For Veterans and Military personnel only.

We killed a lot of people in VN. And as we really had no valid reason for being there, killing more even if it meant "winning" (whatever that is) would not have made our being their right.
 
Back
Top Bottom