Support and Opposition to Troops.

[garlic_b]

So, I'm confused.

Democrats: Want to end wars and bring troops home, and increase funding for VA and increased pay.

Republicans: want to decrease funding for VA, are against pay increases to soldiers and up-armoring vehicles, and send them off to fight wars.

Dems are labeled as anti-troops, but Reps are considered to be on the side of troops.

Please explain. Yes a bit troll-y, but I'm still curious.

 

[ghostinthewood]

Because Murka and democracy! If there weren't wars they wouldnt have jobs. Without jobs, you don't support them obviously.

Only imagine that with more caps lock.

 

[gunowner930]

So, I'm confused.

Democrats: Want to end wars and bring troops home, and increase funding for VA and increased pay.

We're still in Afghanistan, and not out of Iraq yet with a Dem President, House and Senate for 2 years.

John Murtha said the Marines in Haditha were cold-blooded killers before having the facts.

John Kerry told a group of Ivy League trust fund babies that if they didn't study hard they'd end up in Iraq

Harry Reid said the war is lost in 2006 before the turnaround.

Leftist groups called our troops war criminals during their war protests

Republicans: want to decrease funding for VA, are against pay increases to soldiers and up-armoring vehicles, and send them off to fight wars.

We got pay increases yearly when I was in (2004-2009). The post 9/11 GI Bill also passed under Bush. The logistics vehicles in Iraq weren't armored because we weren't prepared for an insurgency and IEDs. During my first deployment in 2006 every military vehicle that left the wire was armored, this occured under Bush of course.

Dems are labeled as anti-troops, but Reps are considered to be on the side of troops.

Please explain. Yes a bit troll-y, but I'm still curious.

responses in red.

You could probably find Republicans that have made nasty remarks about the troops too, but I don't see your argument that Dems are better for the troops holding up. For the record I think both sides are pro-military WHEN it's convenient.

 

[garlic_b]

...For the record I think both sides are pro-military WHEN it's convenient.

Yup. This part... And conversely, anti-military when they can get away with it...

I just hate the name calling and the complete lack of ability to look out for us the people and our soldiers. It's just that I hate how everything just feels like it is being used as props in political theater.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Democrats (as a party) are for holding power for Democrats - and most if not all of their supporters want the funding for the military to shrink. One notable exception to this: If the military will expand THEIR power, then they are all for it.



Republicans (as a party) are for holding power for Republicans - and most of their supporters are ok with spending more money on the military. And if it happens to expand their power, then cool...

There are patriots on both sides (and neither side) that are for rational thought and debate - but neither seem to hold any sway right now.

Garlic - ask the troops which way they vote.... that might give you a clue as to who THEY think is better for them.

 

[ghostinthewood]

Garlic - ask the troops which way they vote.... that might give you a clue as to who THEY think is better for them.

See I've had the opportunity to talk to a lot of military folks and they seem to vote like everyone else. A little here, a little there. There are some ignorant people, probably mostly from one branch, but in general I think military people are more middle of the road, and informed, than most people. At least, thats been my experience in general.

 

[mrjarrell]

Democrats (as a party) are for holding power for Democrats - and most if not all of their supporters want the funding for the military to shrink. One notable exception to this: If the military will expand THEIR power, then they are all for it.



Republicans (as a party) are for holding power for Republicans - and most of their supporters are ok with spending more money on the military. And if it happens to expand their power, then cool...

There are patriots on both sides (and neither side) that are for rational thought and debate - but neither seem to hold any sway right now.

Garlic - ask the troops which way they vote.... that might give you a clue as to who THEY think is better for them.

Can't find a lot to disagree with there. As for the troops voting....I've known many (retired and active) who voted democrat, each and every time. I've known some who voted republican, each and every time. Shoot, I even know some who are hard core libertarian voters. Like ghost said, they're all over the map, you can't pigeon hole them.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

For the record, I wasn't suggesting that people pigeon hole them. Just instead of us armchair QB'ing what's best for them - ask them.

On a re-read of the OP - I would submit that Garlic isn't truly submitting a fair characterization of the Republican position on VA hospitals, etc. I think if you asked just about ANYONE - do we fund a VA hospital or pay out more welfare? Republicans would overwhelmingly support the VA hospital. No question. Democrats would lean towards more of both. Or at least you'd hear screaming if you tried to cut either one. You'll find out where people really stand when you decrease the overall budget and force people to set priorities. Under those circumstances what would Dems choose? And what would Reps choose?

Also - I would submit that Democrats and Republicans alike have gotten us into conflicts. And recently... And for all of Obama's talk - he hasn't done squat about getting us out of a conflict. He is as clueless as Jimmy Carter in that regard. While we are mentioning Iraq and Afghanistan, we also have to mention Kosovo etc. If we're going to blame administrations for being too adventurous in foreign affairs, then we have to have the intellectual honesty to be even handed about it.

Jarrell - where does libertarian anarchist crowd fall on the issues described in the op?

 

[hornadylnl]

No demographic as large as the military is going to vote lockstep in one direction. I'd say on the whole though, the military leans more conservative percentage wise than the nation as a whole. You can figure that out by which side wants to suppress absentee military votes.

 

[mrjarrell]

Jarrell - where does libertarian anarchist crowd fall on the issues described in the op?

Well, the libertarian (of most types) position falls into the "bring them home" category. Right now. None of their lives are worth losing to these conflicts and occupations. The Iraqi's will either get their collective crap together or they won't. It's none of our business anyway. In Afghanistan our troops are fighting to help a corrupt, thieving government stay in power. One that also supports Sharia law. Freedom and democracy in the 'Stan? Not going to happen anytime soon. We don't need to be there for the next 20 years propping up a failing proposition and being slowly bled to death in lives and treasure.

 

[JDonhardt]

Well, the libertarian (of most types) position falls into the "bring them home" category. Right now. None of their lives are worth losing to these conflicts and occupations. The Iraqi's will either get their collective crap together or they won't. It's none of our business anyway. In Afghanistan our troops are fighting to help a corrupt, thieving government stay in power. One that also supports Sharia law. Freedom and democracy in the 'Stan? Not going to happen anytime soon. We don't need to be there for the next 20 years propping up a failing proposition and being slowly bled to death in lives and treasure.

A lot of those soldiers WANT to be over there. Let 'em go to war if they want to go to war. Let 'em come home if they want to come home. That sounds libertarian to me.

Anyone who wants to go to Afghanistan and kill people can go and do just that. Anyone who doesnt want to doesnt have to. Anyone who wants to make choices for other people can...well nevermind.

 

[rich8483]

A lot of those soldiers WANT to be over there. Let 'em go to war if they want to go to war. Let 'em come home if they want to come home. That sounds libertarian to me.

Anyone who wants to go to Afghanistan and kill people can go and do just that. Anyone who doesnt want to doesnt have to. Anyone who wants to make choices for other people can...well nevermind.

well, seeing as this is a volunteer army, and i know several of those that volunteered, i agree with that part.

the trick is being able to come home when you decide youve had enough.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Yup. This part... And conversely, anti-military when they can get away with it...

I just hate the name calling and the complete lack of ability to look out for us the people and our soldiers. It's just that I hate how everything just feels like it is being used as props in political theater.

It feels like it because it is. This isn't government by the people, for the people. It's government by the government, for the government. Regardless of what anyone will tell you all sides are that way.

 

[garlic_b]

I want to thank everybody for their insightful and productive comments. I'm happy it didn't end up a flame war in here.

I only know to soldiers. One old guy. (center, a bit right maybe) And a Woman (center, left) The woman and all her brothers are in the Army and have all done at least one year each, in 'Stan or Iraq. I'll definitely ask them....

Thanks again. I was just in a crabby mood after reading an article about Bachman.

 

[Compatriot G]

I'm not going to address the politics of this situation. However, I'm going to address the situation about the up-armored HUMVEEs. The Hummers were designed as a replacement for the Jeep. They were not designed as an armored car. Think of the Hummers as an improved Jeep. That is all it was designed to be. Unfortunately, that meant armor wasn't a priority in the original design. When I was in the Marine Corps, we started phasing out our Jeeps in 1986. We all knew the Hummer wasn't an armored car. We had no illusions that it would provide us much protection in the event it came under fire or was hit by artillery or ran over a mine.

From my understanding, all of the extra armor on the Hummers has made them slower than was originally designed. It has also caused them to handle much worse than what they were originally designed. Fortunately, the military and the politicians realized that up-armoring Hummers was only a stop-gap measure. They started designing purpose-built vehicles shortly after we had problems with them in Iraq. I have seen some of the new vehicles on the History Channel and the Military Channel. These are designed to be armored cars. It appears these will work much better than the armored Hummers. Keep in mind, no military vehicle is 100% safe when hit by enough explosives. Three 155mm shells wired together will do a number on just about any vehicle, including an M1 Abrams tank.

 

[R_abbi_T]

No demographic as large as the military is going to vote lockstep in one direction. I'd say on the whole though, the military leans more conservative percentage wise than the nation as a whole. You can figure that out by which side wants to suppress absentee military votes.

interesting you brought this point up, in 2007-2008 we had the highest number of troops in Iraq throughout the whole war and due to a "glitch" in the digital absentee voteing system they supplied for us none of our votes counted toward the electing.

And since no one made any effort to correct the system it was really hard to keep my military bearing and reassure my soldiers that there vote counts.

 

[R_abbi_T]

I'm not going to address the politics of this situation. However, I'm going to address the situation about the up-armored HUMVEEs. The Hummers were designed as a replacement for the Jeep. They were not designed as an armored car. Think of the Hummers as an improved Jeep. That is all it was designed to be. Unfortunately, that meant armor wasn't a priority in the original design. When I was in the Marine Corps, we started phasing out our Jeeps in 1986. We all knew the Hummer wasn't an armored car. We had no illusions that it would provide us much protection in the event it came under fire or was hit by artillery or ran over a mine.

From my understanding, all of the extra armor on the Hummers has made them slower than was originally designed. It has also caused them to handle much worse than what they were originally designed. Fortunately, the military and the politicians realized that up-armoring Hummers was only a stop-gap measure. They started designing purpose-built vehicles shortly after we had problems with them in Iraq. I have seen some of the new vehicles on the History Channel and the Military Channel. These are designed to be armored cars. It appears these will work much better than the armored Hummers. Keep in mind, no military vehicle is 100% safe when hit by enough explosives. Three 155mm shells wired together will do a number on just about any vehicle, including an M1 Abrams tank.

A frag 5 up armored humvee is still capable of doing between 55-65 depending on terrain, the engines were upgraded to turbo diessels to handle the extra weight as far as handleing goes mine drove through some terrain I couldn't have gotten my 88 wrangler through.

The MRAP (Mine resistant ambush protected) Is one of the primary vehicles used in Iraq today. We have Frag 7 reactive armor on them now and they can get up to about 55 but are imposible to keep under control at that speed unless you are on REALLY nice roads.

They stop almost everything on the outside. minor damge to the outside IE broken antennas and flat tires is always better then wounded soldiers. but nothing we have come up with yet can stop an efp except a vigilant gunner who sees it in time to stop the truck.

Not sure how many soldiers are in these forums that are currently deployed or have been recently but there are alot of guys with Ranger pics and military type names so if you wanna ask the troops just ask them. they are in here. And if you really can't find them ask me and i'll go outside my chu and grab a couple. Times running out though... almost time for me to come home.

 

[ihateiraq]

i dont really feel like anyone(including military brass) in dc is really on my side, as a soldier or as a citizen.

 

[hornadylnl]

I put many thousands of miles in armored hummers in Bosnia. We had standard hummers that had been converted to armored hummers. A standard hummer weighs about 5000#. The converted ones weighed close to 10,000#. These had standard 6.2 diesels and we lost considerable power with the converted ones. We also had a few that were built armored that had 6.5 turbos in them. I believe those were close to 12,000# but still had more power than the 6.2's.

The converted hummers got unbelievably hot because the windows slid back about 3". With 90 degree temps and engine heat pouring into the cab, it was really hot in them. I couldn't imagine how hot they'd be in the middle of the desert. The built armored hummer windows went up and down. They also had AC but it rarely worked.

 

[rambone]

A lot of those soldiers WANT to be over there. Let 'em go to war if they want to go to war. Let 'em come home if they want to come home. That sounds libertarian to me.

Anyone who wants to go to Afghanistan and kill people can go and do just that. Anyone who doesnt want to doesnt have to. Anyone who wants to make choices for other people can...well nevermind.

That doesn't sound even remotely libertarian.