Quote:Not really. The question is rhetorical. I'd expect equipment that gets used to need repair. I don't have any issues with training and paying soldiers or equipping them with the best tools to do their jobs. I'd like people to think about the claims of outrageous funding, since much of these spending bills are not going into soldiers stomachs or pockets, replacing ordinance, or repairing/replacing equipment. Also, they pretend that without a war we would not have a military fighting somewhere else. I have no doubt that if we were not in Iraq, we would have stomped on other brush fires like Venezuela, Iran, or Sudan. Last year Americans spent 2 times more at Walmart than they did on all military spending.
Interesting, I never really gave that much thought. So your saying the armed forces should already have had adequate funds allocated to their cause even before the Iraq war for typical wear and tear, correct? And that the Iraq war really shouldn't have stressed the equipment anymore than America's typical fighting would, correct? Asking for so much money for a bill makes it seem, when you think about it in this light, that Americas armed forces are inadequate and cannot sustain a war anywhere at anytime without help from Congress, but I don't believe that - I'm sure equipment repair and replacement is a cost already factored into armed forces spending. So other than transportation of troops to Iraq and the feeding costs of soldiers on bases in Iraq, where is that money going anyhow, or is our armed forces really that weak and inept that they should need Congressional help for every skirmish they encounter? Kind of makes you think...
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self." -Albert Einsetin