I am very disappointed in the VFW supporting S1416. Then again I have no
confidence in their leadership. In my opinion they are a bunch of
premadonnas. Two years ago I received a very nice letter from the VFW
National Headquarters saying that we know that you are retired from the
military and wish for you to join the VFW and support us, bla bla on and on.
Well I filled out the application and put my information on the form and
sent it along with my check into VFW HQ. A few weeks later I received
another letter along with my returned check stating that they were sorry,
but I could not join the VFW. I was only on Guam loading bombs on B-52s to
bomb Vietnam and I never put a foot on the ground in Vietnam. Generals stood
on the briefing stage and told me we (I) was at war no matter what the
people back home thought. Evidently they did not tell the VFW Committee.
So they can just kiss my a... and another thing. The government told me that
I would have free medical the rest of my life when I joined if I stayed for
retirement. So what did they say about that? Oh no. Pamphlets don't count
they are not law. Recruiters can't obligate the government. That is not law.
The law does not provide for free medical the rest of your life.
Well if they pass S1416 it will be law. It will be in the law that they can
come and take it away and there will always be the little prick that has
never seen the first day in the military try to come get it too. The VFW's
committee's opinion does not mean shi... cause it is not the law.
Wake up America! Before it's too late.
Floyd Petri
----- Original Message -----
From: <TacticalTruck@aol.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 8:24 PM
Subject: [MV] VFW and S1416
> Read something disturbing on www.aero-news.net:
>
> quote
> "First, the VFW's reasoning:
> Bob Manhan, at the VFW, left us a chilling message. "We [VFW] strongly
> endorse the whole Defense Authorization Act, both the House and the Senate
> versions. Look at p. 351 [the committee's opinion, as seen in ANN, which
says
> it doesn't expect WW II planes, for instance, to be targeted for
destruction
> -- even though that's exactly what the wording of the bill says]." He
> continued, "We support this because there is some stuff out there, that
could
> -- if fallen into the wrong hands -- could be used by for criminal,
terrorist
> activities. That's why, generally speaking, we support the whole
[profanity
> deleted] enchilada." Using that logic, the VFW leadership would want to
> disarm the entire United States, down to the last butter knife. [If the
law
> doesn't mean what it says, it should be rewritten to say what it means.
> --ed.]"
> end quote
>
>
> I'm sure many HMV owners belong to the VFW and many of us who are not Vets
> have hauled Vets in our HMVs in parades and such. I feel sure the Vets I
know
> would not feel the same way as the person quoted here. We need to call our
> VFW connections and explain why this bill is so bad to get them to
pressure
> their leadership to change it's position. Has every one caled their
> Congressman yet? Get on the stick! I called Sen. Warner's office today and
it
> appears he's strongly against it.
> Jeff
> TacticalTruck.com
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:59:00 PDT