Benefits in Walter Reed Issue...

[IntheNet]

If we can look at the Walter Reed issue as an optimist, one's first glance is to hope that the Vets will be better treated and that proper sunshine illuminates how wounded Veterans are handled and processed from this point forward. However, one's second glance should surely be on the issue as illustrative of why the government should not be in the health care business; simply because they are not very good at it... Clinton, Obama, and all the Democrats pandering to their base about the government getting into the health care business better look long and hard at Walter Reed to see why health care should remain a private enterprise...

[CKFresh]

If we can look at the Walter Reed issue as an optimist, one's first glance is to hope that the Vets will be better treated and that proper sunshine illuminates how wounded Veterans are handled and processed from this point forward. However, one's second glance should surely be on the issue as illustrative of why the government should not be in the health care business; simply because they are not very good at it... Clinton, Obama, and all the Democrats pandering to their base about the government getting into the health care business better look long and hard at Walter Reed to see why health care should remain a private enterprise...

Or maybe it simply suggests that we spend more money on those who fight for this nation, and be more careful as to which wars we fight. Instead of using the troops as political ammunition, let's start looking at them as people. It is sickening how often conservatives use the troops for political gain.

[IntheNet]

It is sickening how often conservatives use the troops for political gain.

Surprised to hear you say this Fresh... I assume you are sending nasty letters to Murtha and Pelosi castigating them for using the troops for political gain! Not only are the Democrats abusing the troops, they are right now considering cutting their funding during wartime! You must be outraged!

The issue remains as illustrative of why the government should not be in the Health Care business; Walter Reed and similar health facilities should contract out their medical needs.

[CKFresh]

Surprised to hear you say this Fresh... I assume you are sending nasty letters to Murtha and Pelosi castigating them for using the troops for political gain! Not only are the Democrats abusing the troops, they are right now considering cutting their funding during wartime! You must be outraged!

No because they are doing this in an effort to end the war and save lives, something you know nothing about.

The issue remains as illustrative of why the government should not be in the Health Care business; Walter Reed and similar health facilities should contract out their medical needs.

No, all this illustrates is that we don't treat our veterans very well, nothing more.

[IntheNet]

No because they are doing this in an effort to end the war and save lives...

Horsehockey! All the Dems voted in during the last election used the troops in their campaign ads... every one! You're being a hypocrite to ignore this!

[CKFresh]

Horsehockey! All the Dems voted in during the last election used the troops in their campaign ads... every one! You're being a hypocrite to ignore this!

There is a difference. For the democrats to gain politically the troops would come home OUT OF HARMS WAY. When the republicans use the troops for political gain, they put them IN HARMS WAY for a bogus war, that was a lie to begin with. Democrats - save troops. Republicans - 3,000+ and counting dead soldiers, all so Georgie could get reelected. You should be proud to be a republican :thumbdown:

[IntheNet]

For the democrats to gain politically the troops would come home OUT OF HARMS WAY...

You seem to forget the reason they were deployed: terrorism... Bringing the troops home before victory puts civilians IN HARM'S WAY. Obama et al. love to sing and pontificate about how soon we must surrender but before Democrats put more civilians IN HARM'S WAY we better be sure we are not inviting terrorists to follow the troops home...

[CKFresh]

You seem to forget the reason they were deployed: terrorism. Bringing the troops home before victory puts civilians IN HARM'S WAY

That's your opinion. Most experts (including the majority generals) think that we are not helping the fight against terror in Iraq. Many would argue we are LESS safe because of the war in Iraq.

we better be sure we are not inviting terrorists to follow the troops home...

We better be sure we secure OUR country before Iraq. Iraq was not nearly as dangerous before as it is now. What has the war in Iraq accomplished? It has created one more extremely dangerous fundamentalist state, along with Iran. Before, Iraq was under control, they had many problems, but we were successfully containing a rogue nation, now, it is a rogue nation out of control and terribly dangerous.

Bring the troops home is not surrendering, it is sensible.

That is what THE MAJORITY of the country, THE MAJORITY of the generals, THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, the MAJORITY of congress, and the MAJORITY of the WORLD have realized. You are just a little late in realizing that. Not surprising, you are a bit slow...

[IntheNet]

Most experts (including the majority generals)...

Please explain which experts?

Please explain what "majority generals" means?

Did these same nimrods advise retreat in Vietnam too?

[CKFresh]

Please explain which experts?

War historians, Experts on middle eastern culture, the CIA, and former generals.

Please explain what "majority generals" means?

Majority means, more than 50%, you should know that.

Did these same nimrods advise retreat in Vietnam too?

Yeah, thank God, otherwise more people would have died in that senseless war. You still think Vietnam was a good idea>?

[IntheNet]

War historians, Experts on middle eastern culture, the CIA, and former generals...

So please explain why Gen. Petreaus was just overwhelming nominated (without a dissenting vote) by the Democrats and Republicans to head up Iraq Operations when he holds views directly opposed these "experts" you cite?

[CKFresh]

So please explain why Gen. Petreaus was just overwhelming nominated (without a dissenting vote) by the Democrats and Republicans to head up Iraq Operations when he holds views directly opposed these "experts" you cite?

I didn't say there were no generals who agree with the war, I said the majority don't. Your point is irrelevant. Of course the Bush Admin. has picked someone who agrees with them, they fire everyone who dissents, or they "retire" like Colin Powell (who was aginst this war).

[Montrovant]

To get back to the point of this, I think you are drawing too much out of this IntheNet. I would start by looking into how well our veterans are treated, before deciding problems at Walter Reed mean the government always fails at any kind of healthcare.
And you are right, hopefully our veterans will end up receiving better care as a result of this coming to light.

[IntheNet]

To get back to the point of this, I think you are drawing too much out of this IntheNet. I would start by looking into how well our veterans are treated, before deciding problems at Walter Reed mean the government always fails at any kind of healthcare.
And you are right, hopefully our veterans will end up receiving better care as a result of this coming to light.

Okay fair enough...

Whether you believe me or not, this administration does in fact care about Veterans... it would do you well to see the Vets with Bush or Cheney and see how much mutual respect exists... whether in Iraq or at a funeral with the parents of survivors, this Administration has gone out of its way to do right with the Armed Forces and Vets. I truly believe the Walter Reed issue an oversight which didn't rise high enough to be corrected before this.

[CKFresh]

it would do you well to see the Vets with Bush or Cheney and see how much mutual respect exists.

Really? Vets like John Kerry who was detstroyed and had his service made fun of by this administration? Or how about John McCain in the republican primary? George Bush and company really showed respect for the vets then didn't he?

I see, George Bush is respectful of the vets when it is politically expedient, but will piss on them as soon as they question his views.

[IntheNet]

Really? Vets like John Kerry who was detstroyed and had his service made fun of by this administration?

John "Swiftboat" Kerry destroyed his own service record when HE threw his medals away. HE emphasized this destruction when he joined anti-war groups that called Vietnam soldiers "butchers" and "rapists". HE added insult to injury when he appeared with Jane Fonda to condemn the United States. So, Kerry himself DESTROYED his own service and MADE FUN of his own service.

Or how about John McCain in the republican primary? George Bush and company really showed respect for the vets then didn't he?

I am very familiar with Bush's record in regard to comments about John McCain; I can't think of a single instance of Bush being at all disrespectful about McCain or his brilliant Navy career.

[CKFresh]

John "Swiftboat" Kerry destroyed his own service record when HE threw his medals away. HE emphasized this destruction when he joined anti-war groups that called Vietnam soldiers "butchers" and "rapists". HE added insult to injury when he appeared with Jane Fonda to condemn the United States. So, Kerry himself DESTROYED his own service and MADE FUN of his own service.

Yeah, I guess it's wrong to serve your country in war, then come home, and protest the war because of it's failed policy in order to save lives and prevent an internationally chaotic world. There is nothing more patriotic than serving for your country, and working to improve policy. He, along with most people, recognized the mistake that was the War in Vietnam. He had the foresight to do everything he could to end a corrupt and unwinnable war.

I am very familiar with Bush's record in regard to comments about John McCain; I can't think of a single instance of Bush being at all disrespectful about McCain or his brilliant Navy career.

Well, let me educated you...

In the 2000 republican primary, John McCain and George W. were the front runners. In the South Carolina primary, one of the candidate's campaigns placed "anonymous" calls to registered republicans that claimed John McCain's adopted daughter was actually his illegitimate black child. Even at the time, everyone knew where the smear campaign came from. Knowing what we know now about the Bush campaign strategy over the years, it makes even more sense now.

It's sad that the idea of McCain having a black daughter actually lost him some votes. That says a lot about the party...

[IntheNet]

He, along with most people, recognized the mistake that was the War in Vietnam.

Fine. You wish to protest war. Fine. Throw away your medals. Fine. Criticize other troops by calling 'em "butchers" and "rapists" like "Ghengis Khan..." No. Way overboard...

You do realize all the South Vietnamese people that were slaughtered when the United States left? Was it a mistake trying to help South Vietnam or do you care?

[CKFresh]

You do realize all the South Vietnamese people that were slaughtered when the United States left? Was it a mistake trying to help South Vietnam or do you care?

I love this argument. The same one is used in Iraq. It's about "freeing" the Iraqis. It's all humanitarian. We didn't go to Vietnam to help the South Vietnamese and we didn't go to Iraq to save the people. Don't make this something it is not. Of course I care, everyone does, but there is a larger picture here.

By the way, what did George Bush do to help the South Vietnamese? I know John Kerry went there and fought side by side with them. I wonder what Georgie was doing in the late 60s early 70s....

Keep using your talking points and continue to make George Bush a "war hero" and John Kerry a coward. Facts roll off you like water.

[IntheNet]

We didn't go to Vietnam to help the South Vietnamese...

Yes we did.

...and we didn't go to Iraq to save the people.

Yes we did. That was part of the mission.

Don't make this something it is not.

I ain't buying your propaganda; that's for sure! You're a liberal leftist spounting the same anti-American lines as Fonda.

[CKFresh]

Yes we did.

No, we went to Vietnam to "prevent the spread of Communism."


Yes we did. That was part of the mission.

Why aren't we in Darfur? Why aren't we in Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we in Syria?

There are plenty of places that have terrible autrocities every day, we do nothing.

I ain't buying your propaganda; that's for sure! You're a liberal leftist spounting the same anti-American lines as Fonda.

I am not anti-American. I am pro-human, no matter what your nationality is. A value the human race and the progress of the world over the progress of a few rich white men in America.

[DETMURDS]

As far as the Walter Reed Medical Center goes,...the failure came when it's budget was lowered,...by today's democratic senate!

As for Vietnam,...again, the Dems stopped that war,...how nice that turned out as well! Simply foolish!

[CKFresh]

As for Vietnam,...again, the Dems stopped that war,...how nice that turned out as well! Simply foolish!

There are tow people in this world that still think Vietnam was a winnable war? Someone burn all the history books and forget the lessons of the past.

Seriuosly, I had no idea that there were people who think the Vietnam war was a good idea.

I am amazed by the lack of attention to facts.

[DETMURDS]

There are tow people in this world that still think Vietnam was a winnable war? Someone burn all the history books and forget the lessons of the past.

Seriuosly, I had no idea that there were people who think the Vietnam war was a good idea.

I am amazed by the lack of attention to facts.

So, you are happy with losing? Is that really what you mean?:thumbdown:

[IntheNet]

Seriuosly, I had no idea that there were people who think the Vietnam war was a good idea...

Do you ever engage your brain? Really?

We entered Vietnam to help... go and check... The French entered the war for the same reason; to help.

I know Democrats are the most selfish pieces of garbage the world has ever known but it would help if you could overcome that, make a leap of independance (YOU CAn DO IT) and think for a moment beyond the propaganda they tell you to say...

We are also helping Iraqis... I know that's a tough concept to grab... you have to get your nose out of KOS but we have faith...

Is helping a foreign nation beyond your selfish comprehension to imagine?

[CKFresh]

So, you are happy with losing? Is that really what you mean?

We shouldn't have been there to begin with... Pulling out of that war was not losing. Losing would be to stay and lose more life. I am not happy with losing, I would prefer to fight only the wars we have to, not the wars that are used for political gain and talking points.

We entered Vietnam to help

No, we entered Vietnam to stop the spread of communism. Why did we side with the South and not the North?

Read some history...

[IntheNet]

Why did we side with the South and not the North?


Incursion of North Vietnamese, urged by their fanatical leader, Ho Chi Minh, into South Vietnam and numerous instances of North Vietnamese troops killing South Vietnamese civilians... South Vietnam, being Capitalist under Ngo Dinh Diem, was being persecuted.

Later, when Democrats sensed their inner selfisness and cut funding for the war, the fall of Saigon happened fairly rapidly, in 1975. All the deaths of civilians in South Vietnam, by the NVA, are at the hands of democrats; a responsibility they are held liable for today.

[CKFresh]

a responsibility they are held liable for today.

By who????