He must really, really dislike veterans. No mention of them in any of the presidential debates (aside from his post-debate comment calling veterans "not important". His history and future plans tell us why the military today is overwhelmingly supporting Obama. As a veteran, I'm particulary concerned about his intent to turn the best health care system out there, the VA system, into another voucher system.
Well his goal is to do what's best for the most in the nation he can. He isn't there to ensure one group such as veterans receive preferential treatment. He balanced the budget in Massachussets and I'm sure he can do it nationwide but many people are going to face cuts. This is the mess that Obama is leaving him with.
Didn't Romney try to "slam" Obama for filing a lawsuit to allow all Ohioans access to early voting as opposed to getting rid of early voting for everyone except veterans? :/
The plutocratic elites that employ people like him, they hate the veterans. Why? Because they know the most, and speak against these wars of aggression the most. Nor do the likes of Obama or Romeny, or any of them, give a crap how many are used, for the wars for rich men. That is why they even dump their body parts in land fills. And that is why they don't tell the families, until a whistleblower brought it out.
We, as a nation, made certain guarantees too our veterans in exchange for serving our country in times of war. It is the president's duty to honor that agreement.
There was waste in many areas, and as I recall Romney was doing what he needed to do to balance the budget. He did not single out Veterans, nor was he disdainful. Veterans across the country overall prefer Romney over Obama, and that speaks well for him.
No veteran in their right mind would agree with slashing the VA budget or privatizing VA health care. It is, as I said, the best healthcare out there. How many times did he mention veterans during the presidential debates? NONE. Read this: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/1...-swing-state-vote-against-romney-the-neocons/
They hate your veterans. That is why they do not care that more soldiers die at their own hand, than by the hand of 'enemies'. That is why Romeny would walk right past a homeless person, think 'bum', when about 25% of homeless are veterans.
Did we make a Constitutional Amendment to that effect so that the government is bound to it? As far as I know, there are no guarantees. If we have an agreement then it should be honored but i'm assuming that all we have are laws which are subject to Congressional oversight and therefore subject to change depending on the needs of the Nation as a whole.
And when the troops die, the Gov chuck their body parts into land fill sites, and do not tell the families or even the site owner.
Considering we've lost just a bit over 1.2 million people in war that is quite a few families left wondering what happened to their sons and daughters. You'd think someone would have mentioned something by now. Don't ya think?
If soldiers who died in war were simply thrown in a ditch and never sent home I think families might start getting curious as to where their children are. I assume somebody would have made an official inquiry.
You doubt me? Number of dead U.S. soldiers' remains dumped in landfill sites is revealed by Army... and it's much higher than expected The number of dead U.S. soldiers whose remains were dumped in landfill has been revealed and it is much higher than the military originally admitted. The Army had initially said it was unable to tell how many of the soldiers' bodies, repatriated from Iraq and Afghanistan, had been part of the process that has been a national scandal for America. But it has now been revealed that the remains of at least 274 troops - comprising 976 body fragments - that could not be identified or were later recovered from the battlefield were incinerated and sent to a landfill site in Virginia, operated by Waste Management Inc. The families of the dead had authorized the military to dispose of the remains respectfully and with dignity. However, the relatives were completely unaware that the remains were being dumped in landfill while the landfill site was not informed what was being thrown away. The Dover mortuary changed its policy to burying the parts at sea in June 2008. The figures come from a report based on information from a database at the mortuary, where the remains of most war dead return. According to The Washington Post, Air Force officials claim they don't know when the practice began but that its first record of such a procedure was on February 23, 2004. The secretive practice which ran for five years, between 2003 and 2008, when the remains of some 6,300 dead soldiers passed through Dover Air Base mortuary. The scandal is the latest to hit the military base which receives all America's war dead and prepares them for burial. More http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-dumped-landfill-sites-revealed-Army-274.html
Well they were unidentifiable body parts and mangled remains of soldiers that needed to be disposed of. You can argue that since the families GAVE PERMISSION for the military to dispose of them that it was not done with proper respect but I'd hardly attribute it to the scandal you are trying to. Nothing illegal was done here.
FFS, ever heard of a decent and respectful burial? Ever heard of consulting the families, would you like that? Ever heard of actually squaring it with the site owner?
There may be no guarantees. In fact, about ten years ago a bill to guarantee continued medical care for our veterans was killed by Bush. However, barring the return of the draft, what do you expect? Shall we do away with all benefits for veterans as you propose? Think of this: "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation." - George Washington
Of course not. I am one of the biggest advocates of Veterans benefits and have the utmost respect for them but I also have respect for the Nation and what is in the best interests of that also. I do not necessarily believe you have to give up one to achieve the other however and this is a fault I find with Romney. That being said, should the group of veterans be treated differently than other groups. Of course putting your life on the line is the biggest sacrifice one can make but police and firefighters do this daily for a lot longer in their careers usually. Another fact to consider is that many in the military do not face direct combat situations so should we distinguish between those two groups? If you apply the same standards to those in the military that are in support roles then wouldn't it be logical to give civilians who support our combat troops equal access to preferential benefits? Do you see how quickly this can become convoluted.
You're beginning to sound like lil Mike, and that's not a compliment. Everyone in the military faces danger. There's no differentiation between a front line soldier and a cook in the mess hall. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9013247...ica/t/details-mosul-mess-hall-bombing-emerge/ The simple fact is if Romney succeeds in raping our veterans of their benefits, we will no longer have a military. As soon as enlistments and commissions are finished, the soldiers will get out.
The most 'honourable' thing that they could do for the troops, is to cease sending them into dishounarable and rich men's wars.
Describing it as "slashing" is inaccurate, and some privatization is presently used, more could improve care and make getting the care more convenient for the Veteran. I have used VA care for 12 years, and it's mostly great. There are some situations where I use private care, so what? I am very much in my right mind by the way. Yours is quite questionable though.
