T Nation

Take Care Of Our Own?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17316437/site/newsweek/?GT1=9033

"How well do we care for our wounded and impaired when they come home? For a country amid what President Bush calls a “long war,” the question has profound moral implications. We send young Americans to the world’s most unruly places to execute our national policies. About 50,000 service members so far have been banged up or burned, suffered disease, lost limbs or sacrificed something less tangible inside them. Schulze is an extreme example but not an isolated one, and such stories are raising concerns that the country is failing to meet its most basic obligations to those who fight our wars.

The question of after-action care also has strategic consequences. Iraq marks the first drawn-out campaign we’ve fought with an all-volunteer military. In practice, that means far fewer Americans are taking part in this war (12 percent of the total population participated in World War II, 2 percent in Vietnam and less than half of 1 percent in Iraq and Afghanistan). Already, the war has made it harder for the military to recruit new soldiers and more expensive to retain the ones it has. If we fall down in the attention we provide them, who’s to say volunteers will continue coming forward?"

Vote me in for President.

You think big-time CEO’s have great benefits and great pay?

All those in favor of large pay increases, better health care etc. for our troops, say “aye”!

Aye!

That should’ve been Bush’s first order. If he wants this war fought, he better pay the fighters!

We waste so much money on bullshit. It would be nice to spend a little on the war vets and war wounded.

Let’s arm them properly too.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
Let’s arm them properly too.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/ [/quote]

Let’s give all the money allotted to the National Endowment for the Arts to the Armed Forces!

$99,000,000! per year.

[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
Let’s arm them properly too.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/[/quote]

Marines always are last in line for the good weapons.

We should have dropped the M-16 based weapons long ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/walter_reed

The sad thing is, this was no surprise to anyone with the slightest interest in our military, yet only when it is front page news is it a “scandal” and the sacrificial heads must roll. Just take care of our own to begin with, how hard is that?

Read what service personnel think about this:http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/2140062311001

[quote]derek wrote:
Let’s give all the money allotted to the National Endowment for the Arts to the Armed Forces!

$99,000,000! per year.[/quote]

Ummmm…that almost buys one fighter jet at wholesale prices.

Or we could put a 50% tax on luxury items so the rich can start paying for the privilege of being rich in the land of the free.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
derek wrote:
Let’s give all the money allotted to the National Endowment for the Arts to the Armed Forces!

$99,000,000! per year.

Ummmm…that almost buys one fighter jet at wholesale prices.

Or we could put a 50% tax on luxury items so the rich can start paying for the privilege of being rich in the land of the free.[/quote]

How about a law requiring that you buy a Hummer for the military if you buy one for personal use…

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
derek wrote:
Let’s give all the money allotted to the National Endowment for the Arts to the Armed Forces!

$99,000,000! per year.

Ummmm…that almost buys one fighter jet at wholesale prices.

Or we could put a 50% tax on luxury items so the rich can start paying for the privilege of being rich in the land of the free.[/quote]

Don’t agree with your soak the rich stuff, but yeah, the NEA is not the problem. $99 million is a drop in the bucket in the defense budget (over $500 billion). Pays for about a third of a single F-22. The problem is not the NEA, or foreign aid, or all these other little programs on the margins that Republicans often snipe at.

The problem is that the vast majority of our defense budget goes to pay for high-tech weapons being built to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist. And regardless of how badly he prosecuted both wars (one a disaster, one headed that way), Rumsfeld only made the machine-oriented bent of the U.S. military worse.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
derek wrote:
Let’s give all the money allotted to the National Endowment for the Arts to the Armed Forces!

$99,000,000! per year.

Ummmm…that almost buys one fighter jet at wholesale prices.

[/quote]

Due to the very title of this thread, I thought giving 99 million dollars to pay for improved services like Walter Reed Hospital care would be pretty helpful.

I find it odd that you think 99 million dollars is not a nice chunk of change for our troops.

I was not aware that we were talking about buying more jets.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Or we could put a 50% tax on luxury items so the rich can start paying for the privilege of being rich in the land of the free.[/quote]

Yes! Then we can penalize Olympic athletes for the “privilage” of working thier asses off day-in-day-out for years to win a medal for thier country.

I personally know two rich men. One works 12 hour days most days per week and is now over 60 years old. He gets 3-4 important calls during his one hour workout alone (doesn’t answer them) and never stops going. Put two sons through college and is the most generous guy I know.

The other is a bit younger and works 7 days a week, started with literally nothing and worked his way up to be legitimately rich. He plans and pays for “Winterfest” every year for the kids of his home town where everything is free in town that day.

You can tell them they should pay for the “privilage” but I think they’ve earned it. That’s the biggest difference between the Left and the Right.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Grimnuruk wrote:
Let’s arm them properly too.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

Marines always are last in line for the good weapons.

We should have dropped the M-16 based weapons long ago.[/quote]

Its not just the Marines. The unit I joined back in January (Field Artillery) deployed to Iraq the year before using M-16s.

Hopefully this isn’t a trend that is starting, but I agree with Zap. Why the Army and Marines have not completely switched over to the M-4 makes no sense. It’s a better all around weapon.

Dustin

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Grimnuruk wrote:
Let’s arm them properly too.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

Marines always are last in line for the good weapons.

We should have dropped the M-16 based weapons long ago.

Its not just the Marines. The unit I joined back in January (Field Artillery) deployed to Iraq the year before using M-16s.

Hopefully this isn’t a trend that is starting, but I agree with Zap. Why the Army and Marines have not completely switched over to the M-4 makes no sense. It’s a better all around weapon.

Dustin[/quote]

Actually the article was about the K&K416 by which replaces the gas tube with a piston system so you don’t get the carbon blowing back into the chamber. No more fouling and reduces gas wear and tear. DELTA bought the first 500 off the assembly line. HK and DELTA ran a quarter million rounds through it and said “It runs like a sewing machine.” Hot damn! I always used to have trouble with the gas blow back stinging and watering up my eyes. The shooters don’t have to worry about that anymore.

Update: the Discovery Channel has a piece on this rifle on the Future Weapons show: First Strike episode. Amazing!

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
derek wrote:
Let’s give all the money allotted to the National Endowment for the Arts to the Armed Forces!

$99,000,000! per year.

Ummmm…that almost buys one fighter jet at wholesale prices.

Or we could put a 50% tax on luxury items so the rich can start paying for the privilege of being rich in the land of the free.

Don’t agree with your soak the rich stuff, but yeah, the NEA is not the problem. $99 million is a drop in the bucket in the defense budget (over $500 billion). Pays for about a third of a single F-22. The problem is not the NEA, or foreign aid, or all these other little programs on the margins that Republicans often snipe at.

The problem is that the vast majority of our defense budget goes to pay for high-tech weapons being built to fight an enemy that doesn’t exist. And regardless of how badly he prosecuted both wars (one a disaster, one headed that way), Rumsfeld only made the machine-oriented bent of the U.S. military worse.[/quote]

True, True, and as much as I loathe the guy, at least Rummy did put more emphasis on Special Operations, though from what I’ve read we need a lot more work at getting commanders to really understand how to use them properly, integrate them during operations, etc.

[quote]derek wrote:
I find it odd that you think 99 million dollars is not a nice chunk of change for our troops.

I was not aware that we were talking about buying more jets.

[/quote]

No, I disagree with you [supporting the idea of]* taking away from the arts as if it were less important. What is the point of fighting wars if we have no culture worth defending? I believe the arts are an integral part of culture–more so than the military. Do not read that as a rip on the military.

  • Edited for clarity and fixed a spelling mistake.

[quote]derek wrote:
You can tell them they should pay for the “privilage” but I think they’ve earned it. That’s the biggest difference between the Left and the Right.[/quote]

I know many more people that work harder than the average millionaire who can barely afford to live so what is your point?

The left believes that change is ok and indeed recognizes it as necessary. The right does not.

The rich may have “worked hard” to “earn” the money they have but in this country it is a privelege not a right; especially since it requires stepping on many toes to become really rich and powerful. I am not talking about a measly millionaire here and there. That is not wealth. Millionaires are nothing in this country.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I know many more people that work harder than the average millionaire who can barely afford to live so what is your point?

[/quote]

So that’s the rich peoples fault?

You want them to pay what, 50% of thier income in taxes? We’re already close. Now what?