Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Tractor Talk Discussion Forum

OT, Supporting our troops

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Argh!

08-01-2005 19:19:15




Report to Moderator

This administration has consitantly opposed every item in the budget that benefits our soldiers and veterans.

1. They opposed the recent pay raises given to our troops by Congress and then bragged(lied) about how they got it for them.

2. They opposed money for the G.I Bill which gives our soldiers an education and helps them with housing after doing thier duty.

3. They opposed money for Veterans hospitals even as they are increasingly needed by Greatest Generation veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam and veterans maimed by the current quagmire.

4. Almost every official to a man in this administration avoided active duty in Vietnam one way or another.

How exactly has this administration supported our troops?

My sister is over there for this crap and I've had it up to here with chicken hawks telling me that I don't support our troops if I don't support this corrupt administration.

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
dr.sportster

08-02-2005 12:48:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Argh!, 08-01-2005 19:19:15  
They have never served in the military themselves.They are rich people who look out for the rich.Hey no politics what am I saying.Draft Barbara and Jenna then watch veterans bennies go up.Remember the bonus march.Oops more poloitcs.Sorry.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bill Id

08-02-2005 08:25:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Argh!, 08-01-2005 19:19:15  
Kind of nice to know the previous administration was so supporting of all the attacks on our embassies, troop housing, and was so legal in all of their activities. Not to mention all of the truths to a court when under oath. LOL



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
tlak

08-02-2005 10:37:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Redmud, 08-02-2005 05:57:38  
Was there suppose to be something good about John Bolton?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
dr.sportster

08-02-2005 12:50:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to tlak, 08-02-2005 10:37:50  
"hes a kiss up,kick down kind of guy"



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ludwig

08-02-2005 10:59:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to tlak, 08-02-2005 10:37:50  
I've sure never seen it. Now sneaking him in during a recess, thats class.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
John S-B

08-01-2005 21:26:43




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Argh!, 08-01-2005 19:19:15  
It's funny that as much as I see people b!(+h about this government, I don't see a lot of people going somewhere else. All of us that signed up did it willingly, We Volunteered!
As for soldiers getting killed and injured, there are way more murders here at home than Iraq and Afganistan. If you want to support the troops quit complaining, we're tired of it. We're big boys and girls and we can take care of ourselves. And by the way, the last administration was more corrupt than this. If you do complain again at least have the guts to sign your name to it.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
John S-B

08-02-2005 21:22:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Christos, 08-01-2005 22:24:38  
Christos got a couple things stuck in my craw I gotta get out. When I talked about being big boys and girls I was referring to being able to do the job we are trained for. If that means we have to adapt our equipment and tactics, well that's just good ole USA know how. The military's been good at overcoming material and manpower shortages for awhile now ie; Valley Forge,Battle of the Bulge. You're young so you're used to phones everywhere. It was'nt so long ago that we used to write letters on paper and mail them then wait days or weeks for a reply. Yes phones are great and those who are away from their loved ones appreciate them greatly, but they are not a prerequisite to do the job. We also have family support groups that are initiated by local military units in conjunction with spouses and family so we are'nt out in the cold when we go. My unit will probably go somewhere at the end of '06, (the 2nd or 3rd time for some guys) and if I go financially I will make a killing(no pun intended) But then I'm not doing it for the money.
War will never be safe cozy or convienient for those who have to do the fighting and dying. If you watch the national news you'll notice almost every single soldier,sailor,marine or airman that dies gets some publicity. With previous wars the KIA rate was too high to give that much attention to individuals. That should show that while loss of life is tragic, we have done much to keep our people safe as we can. It's just time to finish our job and do it right. Over and Out.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Christos

08-03-2005 07:17:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to John S-B, 08-02-2005 21:22:50  
John - I know this may stun you, but I still use Snail Mail especially when I have to send out payments on e-bay or an important document and for everyday correspondance too. Last year when some of my good friends were at Field Training at Lackland and Ellsworth AFBs that was the only method of communication with them. I cited AAFES's phone card program because it is our most popular and well know both in civilian and military circles. In so far as death, I understand it is a part of life. Like I said, when I go in, I accept wholeheartedly that I might die. It is a risk I am willing to take to further our civil liberties as a nation. I cited the example of the Marine Cpl and Army PFC because most people of my generation don't get sacrifice or budgeting and how much it hit home for me because they were my age and I really didn't know them from adam. This Iraq/Afganistan Conflict is my generation's war. I'm not asking to be brought over there in a C-21 nor am I asking for a Sealy posturpedics bed to sleep on, I just want those who are watching out for me to have the best our government can logically provide. I can't remember all of SAC Commander In Chief Gen. Curtis LeMay's Famous quote, "Peace may be our Profession", war is ultimately inevitable.

And lastly, the one thing that irritated me over all about what I am responding to, because I am 21, I am unable to come up with concrete opinions of what is and should be going on over there. I've based my opinions from primary sources, the airmen that have been over there. Sure its not the army, and marines, but its better than nothing.

Christos

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ludwig

08-02-2005 10:58:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Christos, 08-01-2005 22:24:38  
Heres to you Christos that was well met.

I don't like our current administration all that much, nor was I all that enamored of the last one. I get steamed at those who claim my saying George Bush is an idiot is in some way not supporting our troops. So I thought awhile and wrote to a friend who's son is serving in Iraq. He hooked me up with a program to buy those calling cards and body armor for the folks over there and I made a donation. I'll keep on donating once a quarter as long as this stupid conflict goes on. I'll also keep speaking my mind about our dumb as a post hillscroggin president.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RAS

08-02-2005 10:43:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Christos, 08-01-2005 22:24:38  
we spend billions on an airplane that is practically useless, the F/A-22.?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Christos

08-02-2005 18:21:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to RAS, 08-02-2005 10:43:22  
Yes it useless - actually, to be more correct it is functionally obsolete. That plane was designed for a cold war and as such its capablities are built for it. Though, it has been retrofitted to fight for the 21st Century.

Let me ask you this, as a taxpayer, which would you rather have: The F/A-22 which is stealthy, and is allegedly scheduled to replace the F/A-15E and costs $250,000,000.00 to build ONE OR The F/A-35 A-B-C aka the Joint Strike Fighter which the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the UK are supposed to have and operational starting in 2011. This plane is designed to be common to all three services yet, retain enough flexiblity to replace the following aircraft: Air Force: A-10 Warthog F-16 Falcon
Navy: F/A-18
Marines: Harrier

Yet this plane (in the Air Force Version) will have some of the same avionics and stealth systems as the F/A-22. Plus, this plane costs about $50,000,000.00 to make.

So, that means the following - For the Price of ONE Functionally Obsolete F/A-22 you get FIVE JSFs. Tell me that there is not something wrong there, for 1/5 the price you get an airplane that is going to be this versatile and the other plane the '22 only replaces one.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
CLW

08-02-2005 21:53:11




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Christos, 08-02-2005 18:21:31  
Christos, you write a pretty mean letter. However as an ex Air Force Vietnam aircrew member I must say you are all wet when it comes to the F-22. The F-15 has a record of 104 wins and 0 losses with all countries combined who use it in combat. The F-15 is tested almost daily against the F-22. In some of these test 12 of the F-15 will go against 2 F-22s, or 8 F-15s against 1 F-22. The F-22 has yet to lose a fight in these test. The F-15 is my favorate aircraft but it is no match for something it can't see, can't out run, can't out turn and has to keep an eye out for a tanker if burners are used. F-22s are expensive but if you can't beat it you don't need many. Please explain "Functionally Obsolete", becouse I don't get it. As far as the F-35, time will tell. They have yet to build an aircraft, except the F-4, which had it's faults, but that worked for all services. I don't see the F-35 winning against the SU-37, but maybe we will never have to find out.
CLW

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RAS

08-03-2005 10:51:14




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to CLW, 08-02-2005 21:53:11  
Thank You CWL. Christos I have no problem with my tax money going to the F/A 22 or any other product that helps defend the USA.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Christos

08-03-2005 07:27:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to CLW, 08-02-2005 21:53:11  
CLW - Neither plane has actually seen combat. The '22 hasn't become fully operational yet. Here in OH Area B is still working on the quirks.

As for the functionally obsolete comment - I justified that statement in the first line of the response you replied to - please note i am not trying to be an A-hole but if you read the first two sentences I know its in there.

As to being all wet - I don't doutbt it - I just used whatever knowledge I have based on what I have read and watched on newspapers, journals, so I am green weeenie on this subject. I personally want to fly the JSF. Again this is just my humble opinon and two cents.

Christos

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
CLW

08-03-2005 08:43:13




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Christos, 08-03-2005 07:27:02  
I never took you for an A-hole. When I said "you write a mean letter" that means "Good and informed". "All wet only ment I disagreed" I should have just said "I disagree". You make some good points and one of the few I disagree with was the F-22. The JSF will be a good aircraft. The only problem is when you build the same plane for everyone, noone gets the best plane. Kind of like trying to build a car to drag race, run at Indy, and go on vacation in. May get one that works, but not the best one for each job. But the idea is to save money and it will help do that. Nothing will replace the A-10. Slow is good also. By the way, when you get out of college and want to fly, go in the AF. But then the Navy has better food so it is a toss-up I guess. Good luck in whatever you do.
CLW

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Christos

08-03-2005 09:05:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to CLW, 08-03-2005 08:43:13  
Don't worry your wording - I wasn't offended. I apologize if I came across as harsh I wasn't trying to be. It would have made more sense had we been in person (one more thing you gotta love about technology ;) ). I watched the PBS/Nova Special back in 2003 when I was a freshman in College and I was hooked on that plane from then on. Thats also how I know what it is "'supposed to" replace. I guess "'supposed to" is the operative words however that plane turns out who knows.

I've been leaning towards the Air Force but lately I have been seriously considering the Navy or the Marine Corps, more so because of how the like to keep tradition not scrap the ones they have in the past (eg BDU patches, Dress Uniform, Nose Art, etc) - On a side note I used to be in Air Force ROTC but I couldn't drop weight fast enough for them and when I had lost almost enough weight, they wouldn't weight me in so that kinda screwed things up for me also being a non-technical major jacked me up also (Poly-Sci/History - just what you all needed another political wanna-be ;)).

Christos

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
tlak

08-02-2005 04:34:37




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Christos, 08-01-2005 22:24:38  
Well said Christos.
John S-B, I guess you and Rumsfeld think the same. You go to war with the Army you have. I guess if the choice of vehicles and equipment wasn"t made on how much you pay off someone or lie about test results, there would be a better Army. Congress uses the military budget as it"s own piggy bank.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
John S-B

08-02-2005 06:40:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to tlak, 08-02-2005 04:34:37  
Yes that's right, you go to war with what you have. We did'nt have most of the equipment at the beginning of WWII and Vietmam that we had at the end. We learned as we went and drove on. Remember the sherman tank? Underarmoured and under gunned. History channel had a show about them in Military blunders. Yet they still helped us win the war. Same with Hummers. It was a replacement for the M151 series JEEP! Never intended to be an armoured vehicle. And yes civilians do raise monies for comfort items like phone cards, and that is greatly appreciated. But like I said, we all volunteered for service knowing that it was'nt the boy scouts.(probably safer in the military after the week they had). When things change you adapt and overcome which is what was done. Just remember, you can't clear a building inside a hummer, someone has to get out and get hands on.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Paul in Mich

08-03-2005 07:07:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to John S-B, 08-02-2005 06:40:08  
Whenever I hear someone (Sect. Rumsfield) state that we go to war with the army we have rather than the one we wish we had, I am reminded of Gen. Geo. McClellan, the civil war general (Union Army) who never had the army he wish he had even though he had the best army of his day. This caused him to be indecisive, and ultimately caused the deaths of many more soldiers than he would have had he simply fought the battle with the army he had. Antietam is a sad legacy to that indecisiveness, as he had forced Lee"s badly battered army back to Virginia but didnt pursue and thus allowed Lee to regroup. That alone allowed the war to rage on for nearly 2 1/2 more years. There is no perfect war with a perfect battle plan with perfect equipment. Today"s army may not have everything perfectly in place, but while not every soldier has the latest and greatest in body armor or up armored vehicles, the soldiers of the U.S. military are provided with far more than their ancestors, and the reduction in casualties bear it out. Those who would wait until they had the army they wish they had most certainly would be smitten with the same fate as Gen. McClellan, just another sad chapter in American Military history. John, your point is well taken, and the anynomous person who initiated this thread simply echos the talking points of the propaganda bandied about by the leftist anti war activists who claim to be against war, but in all reality fight wars they know they can win such as the 1956 invasion of Hungary or the 1968 crushing of the Czech rebelion.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
tlak

08-02-2005 08:10:23




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to John S-B, 08-02-2005 06:40:08  
The Red Coats marched up right in to the enemy wearing their red coats. The idea is to not do the same stupid things. Actually the hummer has an armoured vehicle version used by the MP's. So why only them, to save money.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Jay (ND)

08-01-2005 20:40:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Argh!, 08-01-2005 19:19:15  
I had 4 different replies typed. Before I hit "Submit Follow Up", I remembered Allan's wise words "Jay, go to bed, you're drunk".

Too bad you didn't have an advisor.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
old

08-01-2005 20:14:11




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Argh!, 08-01-2005 19:19:15  
Just face it almost any body in a gov office is a crook from the cop on up. That how it is when you pay them big bucks to do a job they only look out for Number 1



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Illinois Boy

08-02-2005 07:22:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to old, 08-01-2005 20:14:11  
I agree with Mr. old,
Greed is not limited to political party, nor is accountability...
To many in Government (local, state and federal)have squandered this country"s resources and traditional values to make a buck.
Political "careers" have emerged as the "norm" and the founders never intended that to be the case...
Still - it"s the best country on this side of Heaven to live in.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
zzzzman

08-02-2005 10:36:23




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Jerry Cent. Mi., 08-02-2005 05:01:53  
You"re damn right. It"s comforting to know

others feel the same way.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Harley

08-02-2005 09:36:43




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Jerry Cent. Mi., 08-02-2005 05:01:53  
Not even going to get in on this, cause ain't none of us got the time, but yep, with all that sand, a big mushroom would have made a great glass parking lot wouldn't it? Harley



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Jay (ND)

08-02-2005 09:44:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: OT, Supporting our troops in reply to Harley, 08-02-2005 09:36:43  
Cheers!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy