Well I am glad you were able to calm down. As you know I am not only a veteran but also had a few interesting times in places like DaNang and other hot spots. I believe benefits should be provided only to veterans wounded in combat. I believe benefit packages are used to entice young Americans into service during times when there are not enough volunteers willing to serve. I also believe this country will never suffer from a lack of volunteers if and when the country is actually threatened or under attack. Does that position cause you any great concerns?
Vietnam was not only a screw up but it also came close to creating civil war in America because the draft was the only way Johnson could fill the services with enough troops to build up a half a million troops serving half way around the world in a 200 year old southeast asia civil war. As I was leaving service the politicians moved to much higher pay, big benefits and eliminated the draft. They openly made those moves in order to be prepared for future situations that had nothing to do with the defense of America and everything to do with imposing the will of our leadership on the rest of the world. I am now 60. I lived those times. They are not some philosophical exercise for debate between facile minds but rather experiences to me. As Mark Twain once said "when you have had hold of the tail of a bull you automatically know a few things other folks don't".
I support all efforts for fair and equitable treatment in the U.S. armed services of all races, creeds, sexual orientation, gender identification, religions and any other darn difference you want to name. At the same time I advocate just what I said which is eliminate all benefits to all service personnel except to those wounded in combat.
I hope you can understand my position without rancor even though you may hold one that is at odds with it. BTW I never supported any of the military actions of the Bush administration or Clinton or Bush 1.
Previous Topic
Index
