Depressing Iraq wounded article

[Vympel]

Don't really know how I feel about the article, but it's depressing as hell nonetheless

[Medic]

For a brief moment perhaps the casualties will believe, then try desperately to keep believing, that they did something brave and worthy and terribly important for that abstraction, country. Some will expect thanks. But there will be no thanks, or few, and those quickly forgotten. It will be worse. People will ask how they lost the leg. In Iraq, they will say, hoping for sympathy, or respect, or understanding. The response, often unvoiced but unmistakable, will be, “What did you do that for?” The wounded will realize that they are not only crippled, but freaks.

My negative dispositions spelled out quite clearly. Everything I do in the Army is in preparation for deployment to a country I like to see as hell incarnate. The war sucks in dollars like the black hole it is, kills and maims thousands of Iraqi's and our own and for what?!

[BoredShirtless]

for what?!

Control. Oil. Money. Greed.

[Medic]

Control. Oil. Money. Greed.

That is of course, always touted by the right as a baseless accusation by far left idealogues.

I cannot, CANNOT for the life of me though, find any reason to disagree with this. It is the singular point that can easily justify the war. Moral scrupples aside, it is the single best answer. And what a telling answer it is.

Those who support the war cannot answer this. When I supported it, I coulnd't. From that point on there is no turning back, ever.

[Edi]

Yeah, that was a very depressing read. Sadder still, there was nothing in it I have the least sort of trouble agreeing with.

Edi

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I'm sorry but that article was a little skewed there. They're saying wounded Iraq veterans would receive absolutely no sympathy, understanding or respect? Hello! I see vehicles on the freeway all the time with "Support our Troops" stickers and Bush has the whole nation riled up in "supporting our troops".

While his administration may not have been that successful in convering "support our troops" to "support our war", it's difficult for me to believe that the majority of Americans would dismiss our troop's involvement as they did in Vietnam.

[Stravo]

Support our troops you say? You mean the same Mr. Bush that did this:

LINK

Bush Cuts Funds for Veterans' Health Care
Learn more
Bush Cuts Funds for Veterans' Health Care
Service Members and Their Families Face Devastating Cuts
Bush Mistreats Iraq Troops
Tell a Friend
Bush VA Spending Fails To Grow With Health Care Costs
Despite Bush's claims, "the annual percentage increase it requested for veterans' health care is 5.4 percent -- hardly a windfall considering that the consumer price index for medical care was 13 percent during fiscal year 2002. VA officials have testified that it would take a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA's health care budget just to maintain the status quo." [Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL) Op-Ed, The Hill, 9/17/03]


Veterans Forced To Wait Months For Initial Visits to VA Doctors
At least 230,000 veterans are being forced to wait over six months for their initial visit to a doctor at the VA medical facilities. In some parts of the country veterans are waiting nearly two years for those visits. Bush's VA Secretary Anthony Principi has acknowledged the danger in these delays, stating "I'm concerned [the delays are] causing quality to be degraded."
The "Independent Budget," an analysis of the VA budget provided by veterans groups, has said "The Department of Veterans Affairs health care system is in critical condition." Meanwhile, the Bush administration opposed a Senate addition to the Iraq supplemental bill that would have added $1.3 billion to veterans' health care. [Air Force Magazine, 10/02; http://www.pva.org/independentbudget/pd ... excsum.pdf; OMB Director Joshua Bolton to Rep. David Obey (D-WI), 10/21/03]


Bush Administration Is Closing Seven Veterans Hospitals
In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:
Canandaigua, N.Y.
Pittsburgh
Lexington, Ky.
Brecksville, Ohio
Gulfport, Miss.
Livermore, Calif.
Waco, Tex.
Joy Ilem, assistant national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, "questioned the need for closures and other cutbacks. 'Everyone is aware of the difficulty VA has meeting demand,' Ilem said. 'When we have hundreds of thousands of veterans on waiting lists (for medical appointments), we don't want to see facilities closed due to fiscal problems.'" There are currently 163 VA hospitals in the US. [Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03; Department of Veterans Affairs]
In mid-August, as Bush vacationed in Texas, a thousand veterans and supporters rallied in Waco, Texas to protest the closing of that VA hospital. The protestors met at the Waco School District football stadium parking lot "for a rally before driving the 22 miles to Crawford," where Bush was vacationing. "Veterans of Foreign Wars State Commander Ron Hornsby told the stadium crowd that the VA commissioner looking at closing hospitals could harm veterans all across the country, not just in Waco. 'We can never repay the veterans -- we hear those words a lot,' Hornsby said. 'At times like this, those words become very hollow, very meaningless.'" More than 1,500 vets joined a similar October rally to protest a VA closing in New York. [San Antonio Express-News, 8/17/03; Associated Press, 10/20/03, 10/28/03]


Bush Proposed Doubling Costs Of Prescription Drugs For Veterans
This year Bush proposed increasing prescription drugs costs for veterans. The Bush plan would have included a new $250 enrollment fee and a co pay increase from $7 to $15 for veterans earning over $24,000. On July 21, the House Appropriations Committee agreed to a Democratic amendment to reject the Bush fee increases and recoup the $264 million in costs by reducing administrative funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. [Reuters, 7/14/03; Washington Post, 7/22/03]


Bush Decided To Cut Benefits For Middle-Income Veterans
On January 16, 2003, the Bush Administration announced it would cut access to health care benefits for 160,000 middle-income veterans due to budget constraints. John Pettyjohn, an Oklahoma veteran who served in Vietnam, said of the cuts, "On one hand, we're sending our sons and daughters out to war and possibly to die, yet on the other hand we're punishing a certain class of veterans who've made money in their lives. The government made a promise to us. What they're doing now is wrong." [Associated Press, 1/16/03; The Daily Oklahoman, 1/18/03]

Don't make me fucking vomit.

[Coyote]

This article seems to be a worst-possible-case scenario, taking all the most dismal things that could be imagined after previous wars (especially Vietnam) and rolling it down the hill towards everyone.

Unfortunately, I also see it as a very possible true future.

I don't expect any wounded (maimed) veteran to be happy about what happened, even the guys from World War Two, who can rightfully feel that they participated in a "righteous" cause, are thrilled that they lost limbs.

I still think the war is necessary. Badly managed, ugly, expensive, yes. But necessary. Right war, wrong leadership. Better leadership, someone that leveled with us about the grim realities and needs we face.

[Aaron]

I'm sorry but that article was a little skewed there. They're saying wounded Iraq veterans would receive absolutely no sympathy, understanding or respect? Hello! I see vehicles on the freeway all the time with "Support our Troops" stickers and Bush has the whole nation riled up in "supporting our troops".

While his administration may not have been that successful in convering "support our troops" to "support our war", it's difficult for me to believe that the majority of Americans would dismiss our troop's involvement as they did in Vietnam.

He didn't say the apathy would be immediate, but that it would set in over a period of years. Hell I served in the Canadian Forces and was injured and than medically retired. I have many of the feelings that he says the vets are developing. And I see the apathy in my own society for our Bosnia,Somalia, and Rwanda Vets. No one gives a shit about them, once the wars have faded from the country's notice.

[Darth Wong]

I'm sorry but that article was a little skewed there. They're saying wounded Iraq veterans would receive absolutely no sympathy, understanding or respect? Hello! I see vehicles on the freeway all the time with "Support our Troops" stickers and Bush has the whole nation riled up in "supporting our troops".

While his administration may not have been that successful in convering "support our troops" to "support our war", it's difficult for me to believe that the majority of Americans would dismiss our troop's involvement as they did in Vietnam.

Bumper stickers are a way of publicly declaring your abstract ideological support. That's not the kind of support veterans actually need. No bumper sticker will help piece a man's life back together when he's lost both his legs and had half his face mangled.

Of course, the same can be said of someone who is similarly disfigured by a drunk driver. In both cases, you will have some who forgive, some who try to find a way to carry on, and some who carry a burning hatred of the man (or men) who put them in that situation and then waltzed away scot-free.

[Medic]

Bumper stickers are a way of publicly declaring your abstract ideological support. That's not the kind of support veterans actually need. No bumper sticker will help piece a man's life back together when he's lost both his legs and had half his face mangled.

People love the lip service. It immediately puts themselves in a percieved moral high ground even if their actions don't suit words (indeed, do they even know what actions suit "support our troops?")

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I'm sorry but that article was a little skewed there. They're saying wounded Iraq veterans would receive absolutely no sympathy, understanding or respect? Hello! I see vehicles on the freeway all the time with "Support our Troops" stickers and Bush has the whole nation riled up in "supporting our troops".

While his administration may not have been that successful in convering "support our troops" to "support our war", it's difficult for me to believe that the majority of Americans would dismiss our troop's involvement as they did in Vietnam.

Bumper stickers are a way of publicly declaring your abstract ideological support. That's not the kind of support veterans actually need. No bumper sticker will help piece a man's life back together when he's lost both his legs and had half his face mangled.

Of course, the same can be said of someone who is similarly disfigured by a drunk driver. In both cases, you will have some who forgive, some who try to find a way to carry on, and some who carry a burning hatred of the man (or men) who put them in that situation and then waltzed away scot-free.

The article seems to imply that wounded veterans of the Iraq war will recieve little to no moral support or appreciation for their effort and involvement in the conflict. And to me, that seems quite a pile of bullshit. I do not for one second refute that veterans lack the adequate materialistic and financial support they deserve as a lot has been cut off during Bush's term. However, that isn't the issue. The article doesn't say anything about that. Instead, it implies that the attitudes of Americans would become apathetic, which is hardly believable given the beaming amount of military personnel appreciation I am seeing here. I'm in fucking left-wing, anti-war California here for Christ sakes.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I'm sorry but that article was a little skewed there. They're saying wounded Iraq veterans would receive absolutely no sympathy, understanding or respect? Hello! I see vehicles on the freeway all the time with "Support our Troops" stickers and Bush has the whole nation riled up in "supporting our troops".

While his administration may not have been that successful in convering "support our troops" to "support our war", it's difficult for me to believe that the majority of Americans would dismiss our troop's involvement as they did in Vietnam.

He didn't say the apathy would be immediate, but that it would set in over a period of years. Hell I served in the Canadian Forces and was injured and than medically retired. I have many of the feelings that he says the vets are developing. And I see the apathy in my own society for our Bosnia,Somalia, and Rwanda Vets. No one gives a shit about them, once the wars have faded from the country's notice.

Yeah but there's one difference.... During Bosnia, Somalia or Rwanda (All of which I then resided in BC, Canada, btw), I don't remember people chanting "support our troops" anywhere as loud as they do here in the United States. I mean, fuck, people sure seemed apathetic DURING the conflict. It isn't that much so during this particular conflict.

Also, the article tends to bring up Vietnam, which was a totally different atmosphere. Americans were not only apathetic towards Vietnam vets but also downright antogonistic. It's an unfair comparison. This time around, while half of the Americans oppose the war, it is hard to find someone who oppose the sacrifice of the men and women of the armed forces.

[Darth Wong]

The article seems to imply that wounded veterans of the Iraq war will recieve little to no moral support or appreciation for their effort and involvement in the conflict. And to me, that seems quite a pile of bullshit. I do not for one second refute that veterans lack the adequate materialistic and financial support they deserve as a lot has been cut off during Bush's term. However, that isn't the issue. The article doesn't say anything about that. Instead, it implies that the attitudes of Americans would become apathetic, which is hardly believable given the beaming amount of military personnel appreciation I am seeing here. I'm in fucking left-wing, anti-war California here for Christ sakes.

You still seem to confuse public declarations of solidarity with actual consideration, offers to help, political support for more generous treatment of injured veterans, etc.

Any asshole can walk around with a big smile on his face saying "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" It's another thing to vote for increased taxes to pay for veterans' medical care. And if you do the former but not the latter, the "moral support" is a joke; it's nothing but an empty gesture and the veterans know it.

[Lord Zentei]

Control. Oil. Money. Greed.

That is of course, always touted by the right as a baseless accusation by far left idealogues.

I cannot, CANNOT for the life of me though, find any reason to disagree with this. It is the singular point that can easily justify the war. Moral scrupples aside, it is the single best answer. And what a telling answer it is.

Those who support the war cannot answer this. When I supported it, I coulnd't. From that point on there is no turning back, ever.

Maybe, maybe not. But gung-ho ideology that caused the administration to bite off too much certainly played a part. They genuinely expected to be welcomed with open arms by all and sundry in Iraq as liberators.

[Robert Walper]

I still think the war is necessary. Badly managed, ugly, expensive, yes. But necessary. Right war, wrong leadership. Better leadership, someone that leveled with us about the grim realities and needs we face.

Agreed. I find it difficult to condemn a fight that is intented to free an oppressed people.

[Medic]

Agreed. I find it difficult to condemn a fight that is intented to free an oppressed people.

I'd like to say the same thing, but we could feel proud about ousting any number of dictator's in a slew of 3rd world nations, at less cost to boot. And would it be any less great? Would Bush not still trumpet those wars as humanitarian and for freedom and democracy?

Sadam, Bush's father's life (or rather attempts on it), "WMD" and oil/territory in the Middle East are all factors NOT in most of these 3rd dictatorships.

I still think the war is necessary. Badly managed, ugly, expensive, yes

Patriotism and "pro-military" as defined by Republicans is bullshit (I am not ascribing these beliefs to you) I oppose the war because I'm a patriotic, pro-military American but I could never be a Republican.

I don't see why the nation as a whole should have to finance such an expensive misadventure that puts the nation further in debt (thanks to the poor leadership decisions of our President who wants tax cuts in the face of higher spending), puts the large scale acquisition of future combat system's at risk or scaleback or outright cuts (Crusader, Commanche, now Raptor and next JSF?) and stretches our reserves thin. What is worth all that?

[Enforcer Talen]

I still think the war is necessary. Badly managed, ugly, expensive, yes. But necessary. Right war, wrong leadership. Better leadership, someone that leveled with us about the grim realities and needs we face.

Agreed. I find it difficult to condemn a fight that is intented to free an oppressed people.

do they want to be free?

[Darth Wong]

I still think the war is necessary. Badly managed, ugly, expensive, yes. But necessary. Right war, wrong leadership. Better leadership, someone that leveled with us about the grim realities and needs we face.

Agreed. I find it difficult to condemn a fight that is intented to free an oppressed people.

Unless, of course, you do not buy the Bush Administration's story about the "intent" behind this war, which is not much of a stretch since they've changed it twice since they first tried to float it.

"We have to take out Saddam to prevent another 9/11!"

"Oh, he had nothing to do with 9/11? OK, we have to take him out to keep him from attacking us with his vast WMD arsenal!"

"Oh, he had no WMDs? OK, we have to take him out in order to ... spread freedom and democracy around the world! Yeah, that's the ticket ..."

[Elfdart]

This kind of reminds me of the end of the "Fair And Balanced Inaugural" clip over at www.ifilm.com in the HOT 100.

Judy Bacharach said the over the top parties and ceremonies were in poor taste considering the war and that troops had to use scrap metal and so on... and that the money would be better spent on the soldiers.

The Fox News flunkie said that Bush & Co were doing a lot for the troops, including a prayer service!

Bacharach said...

Actually, just watch the clip. I can't do it justice by describing it here.

[Frank Hipper]

...I oppose the war because I'm a patriotic, pro-military American...

Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Elfdart]

Why would people think someone against the war was against the miltary? I'm sure there are some out there, but they are just a fringe. If someone was anti-military and had some prejudice against servicemen, wouldn't they just sit back and do nothing and let servicemen come home in caskets or wheelchairs?

Does anyone think Susan Sarandon (for example) actually enjoys getting hate mail, death threats and blackballed in public (and most likely a lengthy FBI file) for being against the war? She doesn't have to serve, so what happens in Iraq is no sweat off her back. She could sit back and count her millions without a worry in the world, but doesn't.

The most contempt for troops and their families comes from war whores. When they complain about one thing or another, laptop grenadiers say "You knew what you were getting into when you signed up, so sit down and shut the fuck up.".

[Coyote]

And that's where the difference lies-- I can very easily see and comprehend why so many people are against the war and question what we're doing.

But we have, I think, learned a very important lesson from Vietnam-- that no matter how much we dislike the war as an act, it is not right to take it out on the men and women who were sent there. People are (for the most part) blaming the people that deserve the blame: the Bush Administration, not the veterans.

Learning that was painful, but necessary.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Bumper stickers are a way of publicly declaring your abstract ideological support. That's not the kind of support veterans actually need. No bumper sticker will help piece a man's life back together when he's lost both his legs and had half his face mangled.

People love the lip service. It immediately puts themselves in a percieved moral high ground even if their actions don't suit words (indeed, do they even know what actions suit "support our troops?")

Heh, it makes politicians seem more like prostitutes when you say it that way:
They'll suck your dick but they won't put food on the table.

[Elfdart]

And that's where the difference lies-- I can very easily see and comprehend why so many people are against the war and question what we're doing.

But we have, I think, learned a very important lesson from Vietnam-- that no matter how much we dislike the war as an act, it is not right to take it out on the men and women who were sent there. People are (for the most part) blaming the people that deserve the blame: the Bush Administration, not the veterans.

Learning that was painful, but necessary.

The problem is that any shyster politician knows he can hide behind servicemen (and now women) and accuse his opponent of hating the boys and girls in uniform. It was an old trick when fatso Goering mentioned it sixty years ago.