So now it comes down to McCain, Obama & Paul. . .

[ZomBrady]

If VA is the only basis you're going off of....well, ok....

Clinton cut the defense budget more than any president in US history. He also utilized more troops for more military operations than any president. Spread us very thin. I'd say launching 100 cruise missiles into Afghanistan @ $1 millon each, to take eyes off of the Lewinski scandal shows misuse of the military....dont forget the epic failure that was Somalia...

I know, I was in the Marines at the same time frame you're talking about. I got less respect for him than you can shake a stick at.

 

[JNickel101]

atriot:

 

[buschwhaked]

Also, I know my education benefits have gone UP since Bush took office. The military used to only pay 75% tuition assistance for active duty (under Clinton), now its 100%. They also have expanded the amount you can use per year, and the amount in my GI Bill has increased without me spending an extra cent. The AF now has expanded its efforts to educate the enlisted corps even more - you cant get promoted past E-7 anymore without at LEAST an Associates Degree, and its getting close to where they will require a Bachelors Degree.

You'd be surprised at the number of educational programs out there now for military members....

If Bush supposedly cut our education benefits, I sure havent seen it....its only gotten better since he took office, MUCH better than it ever was under Clinton.

The key here is "while you are in the service they cover it 100%." Now, things in the AF are different than the Army because, well frankly, you guys are spoiled. I can tell you personally it's extremely difficult to go to college if you are in a combat unit in the Army. You spend 2/3rds of your time in Iraq, and the rest in the field or scraping for family time (if you have one, I'm not talking about parents). In the Army they have recently CUT the amount of college needed to get promoted. Whereas if you had a bachelors degree you were a shoe in for promotion, now you and the guy with only 50 hours are on the same boat. I thought about trying it while we were deployed, but the day I was going to sign up for classes we went into blackout (all outside communications shut down, usually lasting 24-56 hours), were back up for a day, and then back down again. It was like that the entire deployment.

Now, if I were only gone 6 months at a time and didn't live on a spec of sand for a base in the middle of Baghdad, sure, it wouldn't be a problem.

This new GI bill is a really exciting oppurtunity for me, if it passes. I'm leaving the military in 6 months and in looking at the current GI bill it will not cover my education. But in the end, I'm not totally dependant on it to get my education and I want it badly enough, I'll figure something.

McCain is not getting my vote for this reason and a myriad of other things. He may work great for the Air Force, but his future policies and Bush's current policies are brutalizing the Army.

 

[TRNDRVR]

no one would be BETTER for the troops than McCain

 

[JNickel101]

Please wise one, tell me who would be better....Osama? Billary? PAUL???

Go back to your train and popcorn.

 

[JNickel101]

The key here is "while you are in the service they cover it 100%." Now, things in the AF are different than the Army because, well frankly, you guys are spoiled. I can tell you personally it's extremely difficult to go to college if you are in a combat unit in the Army. You spend 2/3rds of your time in Iraq, and the rest in the field or scraping for family time (if you have one, I'm not talking about parents). In the Army they have recently CUT the amount of college needed to get promoted. Whereas if you had a bachelors degree you were a shoe in for promotion, now you and the guy with only 50 hours are on the same boat. I thought about trying it while we were deployed, but the day I was going to sign up for classes we went into blackout (all outside communications shut down, usually lasting 24-56 hours), were back up for a day, and then back down again. It was like that the entire deployment.

Now, if I were only gone 6 months at a time and didn't live on a spec of sand for a base in the middle of Baghdad, sure, it wouldn't be a problem.

This new GI bill is a really exciting oppurtunity for me, if it passes. I'm leaving the military in 6 months and in looking at the current GI bill it will not cover my education. But in the end, I'm not totally dependant on it to get my education and I want it badly enough, I'll figure something.

McCain is not getting my vote for this reason and a myriad of other things. He may work great for the Air Force, but his future policies and Bush's current policies are brutalizing the Army.

I wouldnt blame the Commander in Chief for how deployments in the Army are run....

The Army's own leadership (CSM, CoS, SecArmy) are to blame for that. If it was the CiC's decision, we'd all be on 12-15 month deployments.

As of now, only a few of us in the AF are over here on 1 year deployments

 

[buschwhaked]

Yeah, my point wasn't that I have a problem with deployments. 15 months is a little long but a year only gives you about 8 hard months of combat because you spend the first 2 unpacking and getting your bearings and the last two are spent packing and training the FNG's. My point was, even at year long deployements, real college is difficult to impossible.

And I blame the CiC for starting the war in the first place, but thats already in a different thread.

Oh, BTW, I about flipped when I was over there reading the Star's and Stripes. They had an article about Airmen who were upset about lawncare maintanence being cut back and fresh towels not available in the gym's on air bases because of budget cuts as a result of the war in Iraq. Pansies...

 

[JNickel101]

I'm reading Dr. Paul the gynecologist's website now...wow....

Talk about a misleading, lie filled site....

I'm glad I informed myself even more. I really dont like him now!

 

[JNickel101]

Had Clinton had a few more years, we still would have been in Iraq...he was the one who called for regime change (and was doing it long before he said this):

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3236&R=13ADBA4AC

 

[TRNDRVR]

Please wise one, tell me who would be better....Osama? Billary? PAUL???

F*cking anybody NOT in the republican party. Remember, it was the republicans who put the military in harms way in the first place. Or did you forget?

Go back to your train and popcorn.

Are you sure? My 6 figure a year income comes off the backs of taxpayers like you. :wave:

Thanks!

 

[ZomBrady]

I'm reading Dr. Paul the gynecologist's website now...wow....

Talk about a misleading, lie filled site....

I'm glad I informed myself even more. I really dont like him now!

So what is it that you find to be untruthful?

 

[JNickel101]

Well, right on his intro page:

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

They dont have to. They get it automatically - they have to vote AGAINST it in order to not get the pay raise. Misleading #1

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy

this whole page is crap.

I guess I should have said his website is misleading and full of garbage. I agree with him on a few common sense things, but for the most part, he just sounds looney.

 

[JNickel101]

F*cking anybody NOT in the republican party. Remember, it was the republicans who put the military in harms way in the first place. Or did you forget?


Are you sure? My 6 figure a year income comes off the backs of taxpayers like you. :wave:

Thanks!

Not by me! I havent paid taxes for a few years now - part of that whole "while you're deployed, your income is tax free" deal that I get
:roflmao:
but your taxes pay my salary!

Now go up there and read my post w/ linky about Mr Clinton...who is NOT a Republican.

I didnt forget, I'm just not misinformed!!!

 

[TRNDRVR]

Not by me! I havent paid taxes for a few years now - part of that whole "while you're deployed, your income is tax free" deal that I get
:roflmao:
but your taxes pay my salary!

Now go up there and read my post w/ linky about Mr Clinton...who is NOT a Republican.

I didnt forget, I'm just not misinformed!!!

Clinton hasn't been in office for the last 8 years. Quit blaming him for shit that YOUR shithead president is responsible for.

 

[JNickel101]

Wow...zinger of a comeback there. You really should read more. My boss had to do things because his predecessor didnt get the job done. He was too busy screwing around with interns and getting drunk.

 

[buschwhaked]

You're just jealous, Monica is bangin'! :lickout:

 

[JNickel101]

I just thew up in my mouth a little....uke:

 

[ehall]

Clinton would have done more if he thought it was politically feasible.

From the collective memory hole... http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

U.S. policy on Iraq draws fire in Ohio
February 18, 1998
Web posted at: 9:01 p.m. EST (0201 GMT)

COLUMBUS, Ohio (CNN) -- The Clinton administration's plan to launch a military strike on Iraq ran into plenty of flak in the American heartland Wednesday.

At a town meeting held in St. John Arena at Ohio State University and aired exclusively on CNN, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger encountered a noisy, opinionated crowd and considerable opposition to another war with Iraq.

Albright was drowned out at one point by a group chanting, "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war," as she tried to explain U.S. policy to the audience of 6,000.

The heckling became so intense at one point that Albright interrupted CNN's Judy Woodruff and said, "Could you tell those people I'll be happy to talk to them when this is over. I'd like to make my point."

Similar outbursts greeted Cohen and Berger as they laid out again a U.S. position that is familiar to those who have followed the building crisis in the media.

They said the United States would prefer to see a peaceful resolution and hopes that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan will make significant progress when he visits with Iraqi officials this weekend.

But if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein doesn't allow U.N. arms inspectors to have unrestricted access to all weapons sites in Iraq, they reaffirmed that a U.S.-led coalition will respond with military force.

'How many times....?'

While those opposing a "racist war" were a tiny, if vocal, minority, there were many others in the audience who agreed with a veteran who asked if "we're going to do it half-assed the way we did before?"

A caller from Oklahoma echoed that sentiment, asking, "How many times are we going to send our children and our children's children to fight Saddam Hussein?"

"We've spent seven years containing him at no loss to U.S. lives," Cohen said, adding that an attack would reduce the threat of "chemical and biological weapons that will pose a threat to your children and grandchildren for the future."

Another caller noted that the U.S. encouraged an uprising in southern Iraq but did not help those who responded, and that they were subsequently "slaughtered" by Iraqi troops.

"Our policy has been to support opposition groups, and it continues to be our policy," Cohen began, but he was drowned out by chants of "Bull----! Bull----!"

Another member of the audience screamed at the chanters, "Shut up!"

One young man asked Albright why the United States is willing to attack Iraq while ignoring actions by other countries.

Albright responded, "No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Albright scolds questioner

As shouts erupted from the audience, she added, "I'm really surprised that people feel they need to defend the rights of Saddam Hussein."

"You're not answering my question, Madame Albright," the questioner said.

"As a former university professor," Albright said, "I suggest, sir, that you study carefully what American foreign policy is. Every one of the violations has been pointed out on what is not right, and I would be happy to spend 50 minutes with you after the forum to explain it."

Berger told the audience that should military action be necessary, "the cardinal principle of the planning of this operation has been to seek to minimize civilian casualties.

"Obviously, that's not possible (to eliminate them altogether), especially when you're dealing with someone who uses people as human shields. But we have no intention of trying to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people."

One heckler who made his way to a microphone asked how Albright, Cohen and Berger could sleep at night, knowing that innocent Iraqis would be killed and injured by any military strike.

"We will not send messages to Saddam Hussein with the blood of the Iraqi people," he said. "If you want to deal with Saddam, deal with Saddam, not the Iraqi people."

'What democracy is all about'

"What we are doing," replied Albright, "is so that you all can sleep at night. I am very proud of what we are doing. We are the greatest nation in the world ..."

She stopped as the audience rose and applauded.

"... and what we are doing," she resumed, "is being the indispensable nation, willing to make the world safe for our children and grandchildren, and for nations who follow the rules."

A caller from Germany who identified himself as a member of the U.S. armed forces, told the panel that he agreed with what they were trying to do. "And if lives need to be lost," he said, "let it start with mine."

Although surprised by the opposition they encountered, the officials adjusted to the noise level and the probing questions.

"This is a tremendous example of what democracy is all about," Cohen said. "People expressing opposition ... would not be allowed to do this in a number of countries, including Iraq."

State Department spokesman James Rubin played down the tone of the meeting, and said Albright, Berger and Cohen "enjoyed it. They came away feeling that the overwhelming majority of the audience was very supportive of the goals of the administration."

Plain truth--Bush did what Clinton wanted to do but couldn't. But as we now know thanks to the voices of superior reason among us *cough* this was all BUSH LIES!!11one ... damn that Karl Rove and his time machine

 

[ZomBrady]

Well, right on his intro page:

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

They dont have to. They get it automatically - they have to vote AGAINST it in order to not get the pay raise. Misleading #1

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy

this whole page is crap.

I guess I should have said his website is misleading and full of garbage. I agree with him on a few common sense things, but for the most part, he just sounds looney.

You do realize that Congress has passed billed with huge pay increases attached to them.

What about his foreign policy stand? You think we should be the world's self appointed police force while our children aren't getting the education they need, and our jobs are being shipped overseas?

 

[ehall]

Education is a state issue not a federal one, all the fed can do is provide funding which they have increased dramatically. Are you proposing the federal govt should seize that issue despite the constitutional limits imposed on it by we the people?

As for jobs shipped overseas, more people in the US are working than ever before.