Friday February 17, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Obama pledges to honor 'sacred trust' with country's veterans

World Nov. 12, 2008 - 05:14AM JST ( 17 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

17 Comments

0

adaydreamNov. 12, 2008 - 07:32AM JST

I trust Barack Obama.

Then there were republican posters out here the other day that equated military service to social welfare. < :-)
0

USAFdudeNov. 12, 2008 - 07:47AM JST

Hear, hear, adaydream. Count on America's support, President Obama.
0

skipthesongNov. 12, 2008 - 10:47AM JST

that equated military service to social welfare" No, what I said was that I don't think its fair that they keep getting money for each and every kid and all the things those kids have on base... while others in equally if not more dangerous jobs don't.

On the flip side, I think Obama knows very well how many in the military are going to view him and I think he has prepared himself for that and any negativity towards him not being in the military can be sucked him like a man.

Besides, have we had any president that was was real soldier and not of the officer elite? That has always bothered me.
0

WolfpackNov. 12, 2008 - 11:04AM JST

I remember Obama's sacred trust in our military - the one about saying they lost the war in Iraq. I am one person who has worn the uniform who does not buy his words. These are 'just words, just speeches', that are meant to fool veterans to think that he actually gives a damn about them.
0

timorborderNov. 12, 2008 - 11:12AM JST

Keep an open mind about this at the moment. Let's face it, he cannot have worse military credentials than Curious George, chickenhawk leader of the free world and sometimes member of the Air National Guard, on whose watch scandals such as the Walter Reed debacle and underarmored Humvees occured.
0

powderfingerNov. 12, 2008 - 11:24AM JST

"Let's face it, he cannot have worse military credentials than Curious George, chickenhawk leader of the free world and sometimes member of the Air National Guard, on whose watch scandals such as the Walter Reed debacle and underarmored Humvees occured."

But if America is still in Iraq or Afghanistan at the end of next January it seems to me it is Obama who will be called "chickenhawk".

The title 'Leader of the free world' might be another matter, however. I don't think his base among so-called liberals and the majority of Democrats is comfortable with the idea of America being first or best at anything which demonstrates the superiority of "the West", which most of them secretly loathe.

I do believe Walter Reed is supervised by the DoD. The president has nothing to do with individual hospitals, or Humvees for that matter.
0

adaydreamNov. 12, 2008 - 11:56AM JST

The U. S. Military is under the command of the President. And the Military trusts that the President will use his power in a responsible manner.

george bush betrayed that trust by starting the war in Iraq.

And these posters are questioning Barack Obama's sacred trust for thre military. Bunch of damn hypocrits, these republicans. < :-)
0

goodDonkeyNov. 12, 2008 - 02:44PM JST

I wore the uniform and Bush has given the vets dirty hospitals and reduced services. McCain said he would not vote for the new veteran's benefits for better college and vocational financial support.

powderfinger

I do believe Walter Reed is supervised by the DoD. The president has nothing to do with individual hospitals, or Humvees for that matter.

The president is in charge of the Department of Defense; that would be why a Secretary of Defense is a cabinet position. I hope when they rebuild the Republican party they get some members with intelligence to carry their message. This is getting ridiculous.
0

goodDonkeyNov. 12, 2008 - 02:46PM JST

RR said:

But if America is still in Iraq or Afghanistan at the end of next January it seems to me it is Obama who will be called "chickenhawk".

Obama will be called "carrying out a mandate."
0

powderfingerNov. 12, 2008 - 05:43PM JST

Problem for Obama. I doubt that the sacred trust he invokes is a mutual one.

This poll shows majority of active members are worried about serving under Obama.

http://www.military.com/hp/poll?poll=3881
0

adaydreamNov. 12, 2008 - 10:31PM JST

http://www.military.com/hp/poll?poll=3881

When I think of President Obama as my commander-in-chief . . .

I'm filled with pride. I look forward to serving under him.
22%
I'm worried and doubt I'll re-up when my time comes.
52%
I'm ready to salute and follow his orders.
25%

This wasn't a scientific poll. It's just out there for anybody. < :-)
0

WolfpackNov. 13, 2008 - 07:32AM JST

adaydream says:

george bush betrayed that trust by starting the war in Iraq.

This slander of the President is not supported by the facts. The people that are now in the military have either enlisted or re-enlisted since the war in Iraq began. In the case of officers, any of them could have resigned their commissions. Because people are free to choose whether they want to server or not, no one in the military feels betrayed by the President - or else one would assume that they wouldn't be in the military in the first place. They joined because they support what we are doing or else why join?
0

adaydreamNov. 13, 2008 - 07:48AM JST

And you have facts to present that proves my statement as incorrect. You have facts that prove that george bush didn't lie to us? You have proof that george bush started the war based on legitimate facts?

Troops enlisting oir reenlisting doesn't prove your point at all. Proves that they wanted a job. Wanted 3 squares a day and a cot. It don't prove my statement incorrect or you correct.

I'll repeat this statement even more clear. I believe that george bush took the country to war based on outright lies and he is a traitor to the United States of America. < :-)
0

goodDonkeyNov. 13, 2008 - 08:00AM JST

Wolfpack said:

Because people are free to choose whether they want to server or not, no one in the military feels betrayed by the President - or else one would assume that they wouldn't be in the military in the first place. They joined because they support what we are doing or else why join?

For financial reasons. Any reason they choose. Who are you to dictate why they join or reenlist? I know for a fact the following is not true, "no one in the military feels betrayed by the President." If you want names then start a committee like Joe McCarthy did.
0

goodDonkeyNov. 13, 2008 - 08:19AM JST

Wolfpack said:

Because people are free to choose whether they want to server or not,

Of course that is not true. Soldiers serve their time and are forced to remain in the military.

In January 2007, Secretary Gates directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service secretaries to minimize mandatory tour extensions, known as “stop loss.” The Army’s Stop loss policy can keep a soldier in service if his or her unit deploys within 90 days of the end of the soldier’s commitment. The Army says this is necessary to maintain the integrity of units headed to war.

/

In all, 58,300 soldiers have been affected by stop loss since 2002,

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=298364

I can never understand why people post blatant falsehoods. They make blanket statements that are not even close to the truth. Do they really think that readers of those comments are not going to determine that you have lost all credibility?
0

adaydreamNov. 13, 2008 - 09:22AM JST

Interviews tonight on CBS had soldiers that wanted to get out, but because there aren't any jobs they have to reenlist. < :-)
0

unscrejectsNov. 13, 2008 - 10:01PM JST

Wolfpack: The war in Iraq was lost - regardless of how some want to tell it. And at this rate, in material and personnel cost, it makes a pyric (sp) victory look attractive. Dunkirk was a nasty defeat for the Brits but at least they can spot the one bright spot in the thrashing - their extraction of their retreating forces was feat that left even the Germans in envy. For Iraq, how does one talk of victory in a situation that should never have been? A leader that leaves his helpless troops in conflict long after the enemy can no longer be identified needs a moral rebirth.