Affluent families:Support the troops.

[bigrun]

Sounds like a good plan...

WASHINGTON --
If you have military-age children who have not served in this decade's wars, then you owe a debt — meaning money — to those who did. That's the premise of a new fundraising effort by three wealthy American families who want to help U.S. veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Every nonmilitary family should give something, they said. The affluent should give large sums. No one should think of it as charity, but rather a moral obligation, an alternative way to serve, perhaps the price of being spared the anxiety that comes with having a loved one in a war zone.

"We have three able-bodied, wonderful, wonderful children, all of whom are devoted to doing very, very good things around social justice; and we could not be more proud of them," said Philip Green, a local businessman who devised the fundraising idea. "We're also delighted that none of them had to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"Millions of Americans and their families have sacrificed so much in the conflicts and they have such needs," Stimmel said. "By contrast, so many affluent Americans have not made a commensurate sacrifice; and they should."

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/n...ps-ar-2034862/


-------------------------------------------------

Poster comment to article by Juan Cole...unrelated to above story but a theme many agree with..

06/14/2012 at 8:01 am

If anyone believes as I do that the rock-bottom lowest a human being can sink is to support a war he or she expects anyone but themselves to fight or make sacrifices for, then the moral turpitude of Americans is clear. We crossed a moral Rubicon in early spring 2003 and we haven’t come close to recovering from it.

That said, I hope things aren’t as bad in America as you and I think they are

[Danzig]

I would prefer if the people with influence would think a lot longer and harder before committing our troops to begin with. And maybe if they served, or had someone in their family who did.....it seems those who most view war as glorious are those who have no clue about what it actually entails. It angers me to see soldiers whose lives are permanently alterd, and for what? What cause of ours was so righteous, so just?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I would prefer if the people with influence would think a lot longer and harder before committing our troops to begin with. And maybe if they served, or had someone in their family who did.....it seems those who most view war as glorious are those who have no clue about what it actually entails. It angers me to see soldiers whose lives are permanently alterd, and for what? What cause of ours was so righteous, so just?

you are talking to the saved here...You ever see Fahrenheit 9/11 where Moore (bad guy i know) was outside Congress trying to nail a member and ask them if they had anyone serving in the military...didn't get a response from anyone...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

you are talking to the saved here...You ever see Fahrenheit 9/11 where Moore (bad guy i know) was outside Congress trying to nail a member and ask them if they had anyone serving in the military...didn't get a response from anyone...

haven't seen it, don't care for moore-altho i did enjoy roger and me. the further removed they are, the less i think they understand exactly what they're demanding of their troops.
yes, they volunteer-doesn't mean they volunteered for a bs reason.

there are three things needed to wage war, money, money and yet more money.
another quote is something like war's begin when you say, but they don't end when you will.
another on what's needed/reasons: including a righteous cause, a noble intent, and that you can win. no one cares how righteous your cause if you lose. and there's no sense taking up arms if you can't accomplish what you set out to do-hello, afganistan....

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

haven't seen it, don't care for moore-altho i did enjoy roger and me. the further removed they are, the less i think they understand exactly what they're demanding of their troops.
yes, they volunteer-doesn't mean they volunteered for a bs reason.

there are three things needed to wage war, money, money and yet more money.
another quote is something like war's begin when you say, but they don't end when you will.
another on what's needed/reasons: including a righteous cause, a noble intent, and that you can win. no one cares how righteous your cause if you lose. and there's no sense taking up arms if [b]you can't accomplish what you set out to do-hello, afganistan;/b]....

Said a million times, take out terrorist bases, capture or kill bin laden and get the hell out...March-2003 the month that will live in infamy..i.e. Iraq..

'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please' - Machiavelli

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Said a million times, take out terrorist bases, capture or kill bin laden and get the hell out...March-2003 the month that will live in infamy..i.e. Iraq..

'Wars begin where you will but they do not end where you please' - Machiavelli

yeah, that's it..had the gist of it.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, that's it..had the gist of it.

Had that quote in my sig box few years ago...

[dellinger63]

I’d like also to commend those who served and are serving who are from affluent families. They joined not for education or job training but for love and duty to the country.

And while the plan for affluent families, whose children did not serve, to support the troops is admirable it should not be needed. Simply put the Federal Government should put support of the troops at the top of its priority list.

If we have billions to give away to less than friendly governments, to failed companies like Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal Power etc., to endless unemployment benefits we have the money to support our troops. Problem is we have a President who has his priorities completely out of whack.

What the affluent families planning to lend support need to do is use the Ronald McDonald House as a blueprint and keep any money out of the hands of the Federal Government currently failing the vets.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

If we have billions to give away to less than friendly governments, to failed companies like Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal Power etc., to endless unemployment benefits we have the money to support our troops. Problem is we have a President who has his priorities completely out of whack.

What the affluent families planning to lend support need to do is use the Ronald McDonald House as a blueprint and keep any money out of the hands of the Federal Government currently failing the vets.

You might also say if it wasn't for the previous president we wouldn't be funding two wars..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I’d like also to commend those who served and are serving who are from affluent families. They joined not for education or job training but for love and duty to the country.

And while the plan for affluent families, whose children did not serve, to support the troops is admirable it should not be needed. Simply put the Federal Government should put support of the troops at the top of its priority list.

If we have billions to give away to less than friendly governments, to failed companies like Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal Power etc., to endless unemployment benefits we have the money to support our troops. Problem is we have a President who has his priorities completely out of whack.
What the affluent families planning to lend support need to do is use the Ronald McDonald House as a blueprint and keep any money out of the hands of the Federal Government currently failing the vets.

historically, troop support has never been at the top of any presidents list-or any country's leaders for that matter. the army is a tool. individuals don't mean squat, and never have. but of course in your mind, only obama is the issue-and it's a ridiculous contention.
army funding is mostly to corporations. the quicker people get their mind wrapped around 'it's always where the money is' the faster we might see real reform. until big money doesn't have a say in every decision, nothing will really change.
whether it be energy, foreign policy, health care, etc-just look at what benefits the moneyed. that's what will decide which direction is taken. money controls everything. our leaders, the parties, the elected.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

You might also say if it wasn't for the previous president and for congress we wouldn't be funding two wars..

ftfy.

president always gets too much blame, too much credit, depending on what way things are going. congress typically gets ignored, and they actually have more to do with things in general. our day to day lives are far more effected by the legislature.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ftfy.

president always gets too much blame, too much credit, depending on what way things are going. congress typically gets ignored, and they actually have more to do with things in general. our day to day lives are far more effected by the legislature.

You might also say if it wasn't for the previous president,Cheney,Wolfowitz, Perle,some others and for congress we wouldn't be funding two wars.

ftfy..and i agree with your comment..I agree that congress voted yeah on Iraq and should share the blame but if presented with the actual facts might have decided nay...imho...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

ftfy..and i agree with your comment..I agree that congress voted yeah on Iraq and should share the blame but if presented with the actual facts might have decided nay...imho...

i still don't buy the 'we were lied to' bs from congress. not one person has been investigated, implicated or charged for lying to them regarding wmd's or anything else...and yet, barry bonds and roger clemens have been taken to task more than once over steroid use? it's complete hogwash. if that truly had happened, heads would have rolled.
so, yet another instance of lying liars-otherwise known as members of congress.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

army funding is mostly to corporations. the quicker people get their mind wrapped around 'it's always where the money is' the faster we might see real reform. until big money doesn't have a say in every decision, nothing will really change.
whether it be energy, foreign policy, health care, etc-just look at what benefits the moneyed. that's what will decide which direction is taken. money controls everything. our leaders, the parties, the elected.

If the access to endless money (actually credit) was taken away the rest would all go away and we'd live like we were supposed to.

Independent and in pursuit of happiness.