Haven't they earned the right to decide for themselves when is long enough?

I'm looking at the issue from both sides.

I'm pointing out: there's only one side that can say they support the troops.

The other side can say they support perpetual pointless war.

As a former "troop", I think that is your opinion and doesn't represent the majority of those who have and/or are participating in the war in Iraq.

Look, there are two opposing sides to this bill; those for the bill think that troops deserve additional benefits.

The other side is more concerned about the troops opting out even if they're needed.

Right?


My thought is: if we were fighting a war with clear, obtainable, objectives, it would be over long before 3 years.

Moreover, they can be stop lossed.

The bottom line is: there's no reason not to give troops more benefits.

As a former "troop," I'm sure you would agree that most people don't sign up for the benefits.

I haven't read the bill.

Benefits are an important incentive, but they are certainly not "the" incentive. Ideally anyway.

Enlistment bonuses now, can be up to $40,000.00 for a 4+ year enlistment....
and student loan payoff ($65,000.00)

The Services just want a return on these investments...as I've said before.
That's not chump change.

That argument would hold water if The Services weren't wasting hundreds of billions on private contractors.

One would think, if there's an area of appropriation that should be given the benefit of the doubt, it's the appropriation for the men and women who are The Services.

I'm not going to turn this into a political debate. I gave you one side of an argument.

Mullen to Troops: Stay Out of Politics
May 27, 2008
International Herald Tribune

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the country approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

"The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway."

Mullen's essay appears in the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal that is distributed widely among the officer corps.

The statement to the armed forces is the first essay for the journal Mullen has written as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and veteran officers said they could not remember when a similar "all- hands" letter had been issued to remind military personnel to remain outside, if not above, contentious political debate.

The essay can be seen as a reflection of the deep concern among senior officers that the U.S. military, which is paying the highest price in carrying out national security policy, may be drawn into politicking this year.

The war in Iraq already has exceeded the length of World War II and is the longest conflict the United States has fought with an all- volunteer military since the Revolutionary War.

In particular, members of the Joint Chiefs have expressed worries this election year about the influence of retired officers who advise political campaigns, some of whom have publicly called for a change in policy or others who serve as television commentators.

Evidently it's over your head.

Stevens and Republicans are backing a GI Bill that is transferable, and that is superior to the one the Dems are trying to ram through. Republicans are standing up for the military on Memorial Day, and the left is lying about what is happening, as usual.

Too bad you fell for it.

Hi.

This is politicalforum.com