Do we sacrifice enough for our troops? - interesting article

jcc64 wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070326/ts_cs...PaF0Guyud5g.3QA

Wondering what you all think about this article? In particular, would you support Joe Lieberman's legislation mentioned in the piece?

mom2my2cuties replied: I would support this action whole heartedly. I know our troops aren't over there with adequate armor, equipment etc. I also believe that troop morale has a strong link to support from home, and honestly, I don't think our troops will win this war without more support from home. And I'm not just talking about sticking a yellow ribbon on your car, refrigerator, but true support like they had in previous wars.

jcc64 replied: Right with you, Tish. And this is coming from someone who has always been against the war, from day 1.

gabriella replied: Phew, there's a relief Tish responded first I'm such a coward, and wanted to hear what others had to say first. Not, that I'd be swayed from my gut feelings, but seeing that I'm not American, my opinion could be be viewed as, easy for me to say, and seeing as I don't live in the US. I would agree with the taxes and this is also coming from someone who has been against the war, from day 1.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: I think ya'll know my stance on this war crap by now.... but I do think that the troops could stand to be better equipped, better fed, better cared for, etc etc...

If I could choose to go to a place and pay money to put towards a new uniform, a new set of armor, new barracks overseas or whatever etc, as opposed to have money taken off my paycheck which will likely go 98% towards Bush and his idiocies and only 2% on the actual field where it's needed, I would do that. But to take MY money and put it towards the war would be atrocious, I would not like that one bit. As mean as this sounds, I have better things to spend my hard earned money than paying for the increase in salary of the paper pushers that hemm and haww over whether they should pull the troops out now, or wait until they hit the 4000 dead mark. If I could be absolutely sure that every penny coming off my check would be spent on the troops, that would be slightly better.

C&K*s Mommie replied: Only a paragraph and two sentences were dedicated to the idea of having this tax. My question is... adding this tax to what and where?
The article did not answer that for me.

Kentuckychick replied: This is coming from an individual who has very close family members over there fighting, so please hear me out before anyone takes this the wrong way.

This war is completely different. For one, those soldiers over there, as much as I love, respect and admire them for what they do... I don't feel sorry for the vast majority of them because they chose to go over there. They weren't drafted or forced. Because of this, many families who would have been affected in the past, aren't affected today. We see on the news that a soldier died, or something horrible occured and it's distant for us. Sad and horrible, but not directly related. In the past EVERYONE knew someone in the war and the war affected the lives of every person... today it's not the case.

I agree there are many things we could do for our troops, not the least of which would be to get them the heck out of this 5 year debacle that's on the fast train to nowhere. But I'm not going to stop living my life, going to the mall, having fun, etc... because someone chose to go into the military and now has hard feelings against me. If you'd ask my friend... who's been over there 3 times now... he'd laugh at this article, I know he would. He's seen these kind of things before and his response is always along the lines of "well apparently your lives are supposed to stop right along with ours... that's not what we're over there for!"

So sure, I think they need to be better taken care of (perhaps they could spare a little from that trillion dollar war they've got going on!)... but no, I'm not going to stop living my life, I certainly will NOT enlist (I like how they slip that one in there... that's like saying "the troops lives suck why don't you join!" and I will find other things to give my money to. They've spent enough of my money on this war already. I would prefer to send my money to starving children then soldiers who are at least getting a hot meal many nights and a bed to sleep in. (correction, sometimes just a sleeping bag or blanket to cover up with, but still better than nothing)

amynicole21 replied: I think if more people actually felt their lives impacted by the war, their feelings about the war would change. Taxing Americans is a great way to strengthen the anti-war movement. Wonder if that's what Lieberman is aiming for?

MommyToAshley replied:
That was my first thought as well Amy.

You know, this article really hits home though. I almost feel guilty that we are not impacted more by the war. I go to the mall, take Ashley to the park to play and ride her bicycle outside and go on with every day life. If I didn't listen to the news, it wouldn't seem like there was a war going on. However, I am sure that is not the case for the Moms, Dads, wives, brothers and sisters that have a loved one in Iraq. I would love to support the men and women in the military, but I am afraid that the tax would have the opposite affect, and as Amy said, bring more attention to the anti-war sentiments.

Kentuckychick replied:
Please don't get me wrong from my earlier posting (I know no one was responding to me, but just wanted to make sure you all knew!) I do at times feel guilty and sad that my friends and family members are over there. I hurt for those families who have lost loved ones and I cry for the children everytime a child loses a parent. I do have a heart in that I truly admire what they're doing and feel for their families (especially since it does hit close to home for me). None of us should have to feel guilty that we aren't impacted by the war anymore than we should have to feel guilty that we have enough food and water to eat and others are starving... but it's human nature. We don't starve ourselves because others can't eat and we can't live in misery because over there a war is going on. Especially when there's a good chance that one day that war might be on our own soil.

In my honest opinion, if you want to have any more anti-war sentiments or to create an even bigger uproar among those of us against this war then just as you said, having a tax would be the way to do it. The sad thing is, we never know exactly what our money is going to and I for one do not believe that it would go to the troops.

Simply put, I think America has spent enough on this war and the best we can give our troops is to bring them home. We support them by sending care packages and cards and letters, but I can not and will not give money when I can't be sure I know it's getting to where it's supposed to go. I don't think it would do any good at all.

MommyToAshley replied:
I didn't think your post sounded like you didn't care and I hope you don't think I implied that in my post.

mom2my2cuties replied: Well I don't think Lieberman is trying to push any anti-war movements. Don't forget he is the one that the democratic party sort of annexed because of his pro war stance. I believe this comes from a standpoint of someone who truly thinks our troops need beter care, protections etc.

luvmykids replied: I don't have much to add, just that I don't think we can ever support our troops enough regardless of the war or the reasons behind it, in this case or any other. Many of our troops there enlisted after we'd begun but a great many are simply doing their duty regardless of their personal opinions and I have to respect, admire and honor them for that alone.

I'd feel better if there were a guaranteed accounting of where the tax money went but if I knew the money was going to the troops I'd have no problem with it.

Kentuckychick replied:
No, not at all. I had just reread my post and wanted to make sure I was clear that while I don't necessarily feel bad in certain ways for many of our troops because they chose their job, it doesn't mean that I don't care about them, or respect them or wish only the best for them, because in that respect I absolutely do.

I also agree with the point that was made that of course many of our troops were already troops before the war started and of course, it's their job and duty and they don't get to choose the wars they fight regardless of their beliefs. That's an excellent point. I've heard of several soldiers coming back with completely different viewpoints than they left with, and of course others will never be the same...

And as for Lieberman... I definitely think his heart's in the right place. I don't think he would intentionally try to start any trouble, but I do believe it would. It's already a nation divided against the war, I can't imagine the government actually trying to tax the American people for it... even if it were for the troops.

I'd prefer to just keep sending our letters and care packages made up by the little kids... I think it probably means more to the soldiers anyway.

jcc64 replied: Great comments, guys. I pretty much feel the way Dee Dee does. I too feel very very guilty that I have not sacrificed much of anything for our troops. A couple of thoughts I wanted to add-
I highly doubt that Joe Lieberman is trying to covertly bolster the anti war effort. From the beginning, he has been a BIG supporter of going to war over there, still is- which cost him the Democratic nomination when he ran for re-election to his senate seat. (He ran as an independent and won anyway. ) I think his proposed legislation is an earnest attempt to redress the mess with veterans' medical treatment and compensation that was recently in the news. I for one, think that if we ask these people to go over there, to leave their kids, wives, husbands, parents, etc, and live their lives in harms' way in service to our country, then the least we can do is make good on our promise to take care of them when they return. Apparently, veterans (though many are most likely from the Vietnam era), comprise a very significant proportion of our homeless population. That is just completely unacceptable, imo.
Of course the problem with another tax is that it will somehow be misappropriated and not go directly to troop benefits but instead be used to make more weapons of death. I don't know how the proposed tax would be structured, but I would support it for no other reason than to show the troops in a meaningful way that we really do care about them.

mom2my2cuties replied: Jeanne - This is kind of creepy that we are on the same side of this issue

MommyToAshley replied:
I suppose I didn't phrase my response correctly. I don't think this is Lieberman's intent, but I am afraid (and almost certain) that the imposed tax would definitely rally the anti-war movement... unfortunately. I would gladly support the troops whether it be donating time or money.

kimberley replied:
i would support the tax for these reasons also. but you are probably right in assuming the $$ won't go directly to them.

for the comment about people enlisting being a choice and their problem... i find that a little harsh and inaccurate. a lot of young people enlist to beat poverty or abuse. to some, it is the only way out of the hopelessness their lives are. i think they are due a little more compassion than that. jmo.

jcc64 replied: Ita, Kimberly.

Kentuckychick replied:
I agree, that's why I explained myself in a later post. I do have a lot of compassion for them and I understand that many individuals either already were in the military or joined because they felt they had no other choice. But make no mistake that there are plenty of individuals out there who only enlisted because they were gungho to go kick some Iraqi butt after 9/11. I know more than a few... surprisingly mostly middle aged men with children. (those that I know at least)

It's not that I don't care about them, pray for them, or hope that they all return home safe and sound. It's not that I don't want them to complain about their jobs, by all means, complain away. It's just that I don't appreciate hearing any soldier criticize us for living our lives when I'm doing my best to support them.

Especially when it's the government they should be blaming. Considering the funding and how much this war has cost there's no reason at all our soldiers shouldn't be recieving the best of the best.

redchief replied: I was alive for much of the Vietnam conflict. I am at the end of the baby boomer cycle. Therefore I feel I can speak to one point made in that article that I found to be inaccurate at best, and perhaps even purposely misleading. When I was a young boy, I went shopping with mom and dad and we bought things we needed to live. We also bought some things that would have been considered luxurious at the time. In other words, we lived our lives as we needed to despite the fact we were at war. Now I can't personally speak for the sacrifices made during the world wars or Korea, but I know that Vietnam was, much as Iraq and Afghanistan are today, mentioned during morning prayer at school (Catholic school) and in the news. I learned to write, multiply and divide, read, look at the stars and played ball. I lived my life mostly without the burden of constant thought of "that war over there." The big difference was that there was a draft in force then, and it wasn't only from the lowest on the economic ladder that the troops came. But I also know that if you were a politically connected family, whether or not you went there during your service was controllable. Let us not forget, also, that those who went to college got vouchers out of the draft. From there you could also be fairly certain that you could dodge the draft by enlisting in the reserves while still in college. So the article is inaccurate in describing the overall commitment of society in Vietnam. Perhaps this article was written with just a touch of a lifetime of self-reflective guilt.

That being said, my libertarian thought process tells me that an additional tax earmarked for the troops would be wasted in much the same way my already hard earned taxes are wasted. So no, I couldn't support an additional tax that our friendly and all-knowing government would promise to use wisely. They don't know how to use money wisely. Each congressional representative annually spends hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax money in the pursuit of millions more for pet projects to buy votes for the next election. I see a stop in that, and maybe, MAYBE, I could support such a tax.

There is plenty of money in the defense coffers to protect the troops. It's just so poorly spent that too little of it actually does good. More money would only be spent just as poorly.

Now to the question of whether we are connected enough to the war. It's true, we're not, and I agree that part of that disconnect is a reason for the war's unpopularity. The Bush administration failed miserably in rallying the country to the cause. The result is that the country has lost it's desire to be there. The Bush administration also poorly predicted the extent of the problems that a power vacuum would cause in the Middle East. Sectarian violence is a direct result of such a power vacuum. Simply put, when no particular group is solidly in power, opposing groups will try to attain and solidify said power until their cause has become more than obviously lost. This is historical fact, played over and over again throughout human history. It could have and should have been predicted, and better planned for. Would better planning have prevented civil war in Iraq? I don't know. Iraq hasn't been at true peace within itself for centuries. The Hussein government had one positive effect. Opposition was so terrified of them that their resistance was sparse. So, the question is, should we have left the evil despot in power to prevent what's happening today? Would doing that have only delayed the inevitable? Would Iran and Iraq have gone to war with each other and solved both problems for us?