"A second invasion of Iraq for one man . . ." 1. The author is anonymous, the fact of which gives him zero credibility for journalistic integrity; 2. I'm sure there is an overbearing rebuttal to this "news" article or similar items would have appeared in legitimate news sources; 3. It's not for "one man."
You can't be now questioning cutting funding for the military. Not with the last nine years of shrinking military budgets. I can think of several senators standing up and whining about the large military budgets and the need to trim even more funds than were trimmed. Be upset about the millions of dollars that have been taken away over the term, not the moment. I hate to see the Gulf Vets and the troubles. I have a relative who falls in that number. But there are many Vietnam vets who are rightfully complaining also. Don't use the hospital/medical argument here. That shortage of funding seems to be the norm here and not the oddity. Sadly!
....I hate to see the Gulf Vets and the troubles. I have a relative who falls in that number. But there are many Vietnam vets who are rightfully complaining also. Don't use the hospital/medical argument here. That shortage of funding seems to be the norm here and not the oddity. Sadly!... Yes very true. But it would strike as somewhat ironic that while we are talking war we cut funding. And it was cut before too, the argument there was we were going through peaceful times. But that could be another argument for another thread Either way you are not alone, a close relative of mine falls in there too. War is ugly. Thanks Josh
max401 It seems alot of that info on that article was gathered from many sites including: American Gulf War Veterans Association Joyce Riley vonKleist, RN, BSN spokesperson P.O.Box 85, Versailles, Missouri 65084 (573) 378-6049 voice, (573) 378-5998 fax http://www.gulfwarvets.com gulfwar@dam.net ...Riley, a former Captain in the United States Air Force Reserve and Flight Nurse states: âIf it wasnât bad enough to watch our troops become ill from our own weapons⦠the Department of Defense labeled our sick men and women as âmental cases.â These proud men and women have been abandoned, are now sick and must fight the battle alone. These needless illnesses and deaths now lie at the feet of the Pentagon and Veteransâ Administration Hospitals.â ... http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm There is also a wealth of documentation at: http://www.gulfwarvets.com/shame.htm on vaccinations FDA violations, and fight for usage and non usage http://www.gulfwarvets.com/anthrax.htm http://www.gulfwarvets.com/document.htm on depleted uranium: http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm Lots of reading but also provides for some interesting perspectives, on what is happening and the vast majority of it is not hitting the main news. Too much info, and the decisions of what to cover does not always serves the public interest. Good luck Josh
it is sad that not enough is done for combat veterans, but all wars have wounded veterans and people also get killed. Nobody is arguing about that here. What matters is whether the war is good for our country or bad for our country. Every piece of anti-war rhetoric is a rehash of the same old thing. All of it is designed to tug at the emotions and ignore logic. If I ask somebody whether an attack on iraq is just or not and they say "thousands of body bags will come home" or "Osama wants you to attack" they have not answered the question. The reason is that they know the answer is yes, and they don't want to admit it. As for the logical reasons in favor of an attack, there are many. The liberal partisan's choose to ignore what they don't want to hear. Some people would rather drown themselves with liberal editorial pages and cartoons than look at the truth. That is sad for them, but the average person has more common sense than the extreme left.
Just because we were at a so-called peace did not mean that we should have stopped replenishing what was used, and developing the next level of technology and tools in that arena. Somehow the politicians didn't see the need to do much in either area. And now when we need to use our capacity, many are saying it has to be measured because of allocations and budgets. It's so funny to hear them all wondering where the funds to pay for all this is to come from, yet when an earthquake happens on the other side of the world we are ready to pump a few billion in to help out. Then when some country says we can't repay your loans, do we foreclose? No we either pump more money down the dark hole and/or rewrite the loan. Yet I never hear them (the politicians) say, "The American people want to know when, where, and how they'll be repaid and what if you default?" So quick they are to send American money to TRY to buy friendship and support. When will they learn that that ain't the way to grow respect, honor and friendship?
jumping in bed with monsters, playing their games, supplying them with biological weapons and calmly watching them be deployed, and then having the hypocrisy, after they've fallen out of favour, to claim that they all of a sudden need to be destroyed has got to be one of the most audacious instances of double standards the us has ever had the recklessness to try and sell to it's citizens and the world, and also one of the main causes for the us having the problems it has. the us is internationally isolated on this position, many senior us diplomats beg to differ with george W, as do many military staff. the economy is in a shambles, very many us citizens don't even have health or pension insurance, and while no reason for this war has been forthcoming that would alleviate our international isolation, we are proposing a war that would cost us up to 9 bil. usd per month of engagement. who is brent scowcroft? former national security adviser to george the senior, and still a close associate of W's father. what does he have to say? Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. read all he wrote himself on the subject here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
The important quote from Scowcroft: "If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11, that could make him a key counterterrorist target, rather than a competing priority, and significantly shift world opinion toward support for regime change. In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq--any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect."
obviously he had to say that, and indeed, if that were the case, he'd be right. but nobody in their right mind sees that anywhere, apart from george W. like brent scocroft also said: But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.
So you claim: "but nobody in their right mind sees that anywhere," for the following even though Scowcroft wrote it and it's right there in print: "In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq--any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.""