To Help US Veterans Charity, George W. Bush Charged $100,000

[Flagg]

I really don't get what's so fucking hard to understand about this. I mean are you alleged people defending this bullshit because you don't understand simple logic and math (and I suck at math, but this one's so easy even I get it), playing devils advocate (very poorly), or just fucking trolling because you want to sniff George and Jebs underwear?

Your problem is that you are hung up on the fact that Bush charged a fee for speaking there and that's apparently keeping you from realizing that he donated a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in discounted services to the group. That is charity on Bush's part, because no matter how much you hate him and how stupid you think the concept is Bush's time and presence are very fucking valuable commodities. As demonstrated by the fact that people are willing to pay him $100,000+ to show up and wow everyone with his famously good public speaking skills and that him doing so apparently brings in ten times as much in donations.

Again, Bush did more for crippled vets in one day than you have in your entire life. And you are angry that he didn't do more.

He's the one who made the crippled vets crippled in the first place you incredibly stupid fucking cumbucket, so don't you ever take that motherfucking smug attitude with me or it's going to go so far down your throat you'll be shitting smug teeth for a year. What is so hard for you to understand about that? You don't get to send people off on an illegal war where they get their limbs blown off, and then 12 years later speak at an event and call a discount "giving to charity". Now go to the hospital, as I cannot imagine you haven't torn ligaments or broken bones playing twister to defend the most evil currently living American.

[Flagg]

ITT: Ralin proves that he cannot understand why a guy who ordered troops to engage in an illegal war of aggression, then profits off of them by giving paid speeches to charities that shouldn't even have to exist is incredibly immoral and downright offensive. AND the stupid motherfucker considers a discount as "giving to charity"! Ralin is a fucking psychopath.

This is one of those "Remember when we had Horsemen? We really need the Horsemen" moments.

[Ralin]

He's the one who made the crippled vets crippled in the first place you incredibly stupid fucking cumbucket,

No, that would be the various partisans they signed up to fight.

so don't you ever take that motherfucking smug attitude with me or it's going to go so far down your throat you'll be shitting smug teeth for a year.

I'll do exactly that you stupid little child. Bush did nothing wrong and was under no obligation to give even more than he did, no matter how much you scream your head off about it.

What is so hard for you to understand about that? You don't get to send people off on an illegal war where they get their limbs blown off, and then 12 years later speak at an event and call a discount "giving to charity".

Yes, yes he can because no matter how ANGRY you are Bush's donation of his valuable time to this fundraiser for much less than he would otherwise charge is a major act of charity and one which by all appearances massively benefited the charity you're pretending you care about.

By the way, still waiting for an answer: what exactly have you done to help these disabled vets you are so concerned about?

[Patroklos]

No, you don't have 2 choices. You have 3. The third being a press release saying that George W Bush is demanding a $100k speaking fee for himself and a $50k speaking fee for Vehicular Homicide Bush, and then they have people who aren't drenched in the blood of innocents volunteering to not just speak, but speak and donate. So Knife if 100% correct on this, it's the charitie's fault as well, they are both to be held in contempt.

Did they have people volunteering to speak for free? Do you have proof these would have materialized? Would those people have brought in 1 million in after expenses income? You are assuming this. There is zero reason for you to do this. There is also the distinct possibility that sans a Bush appearance many attendees, especially rich attendees would not have attended at all regardless of whatever nonexistent speaker you come up with who is likely to attend. The reason you have galas and star speakers is because there are a lot of charities that are all equally deserving of your time and money. These organizations are competing for this limited audience's dollars. So of the Comptroller of Austin is speaking at one and Bush the other and you like Bush (this was in Texas after all) guess who draws in the dollars. And sure you might think that's unscrupulous on the part of a donor to go to an event where the expense ratio might be worse because of a speaking fee but what you think means fuck all to a charity. One big fish who attends for any reason and probably also writes a fat check on top of his ticket and is also now a potential target for an ongoing giving relationship (the other equally important objective of these events along with the money generated there specifically) is far more valuable and preferable to a hundred random people with your attitude who probably can't afford to attend in the first place let alone equal that guys giving. Not only that, the other part of a charity gala is to celebrate and reward donors from throughout the year. Many attendees are attending gratis for having been members of donor drive or outreach boards or for having raised a certain threshold of money from friends and family. So in this sense the speaker is there to elevate the prestige of the organization to keep and recruit more of these people as well as show them all a good time in thanks for their great work. Again there are plenty of charities all equally deserving of time and money, not so much the case with people willing to give time and money. You spend money to make money, its as simple as that.

So again you can say Bush should have been more charitable, but even if he was just a completely market price paid hire at a full fee he was still a tremendously successful hire from this charity's financial standpoint. And a charities financial success = more programs. The charity did nothing wrong here even if you think Bush did.

[Flagg]

No, you don't have 2 choices. You have 3. The third being a press release saying that George W Bush is demanding a $100k speaking fee for himself and a $50k speaking fee for Vehicular Homicide Bush, and then they have people who aren't drenched in the blood of innocents volunteering to not just speak, but speak and donate. So Knife if 100% correct on this, it's the charitie's fault as well, they are both to be held in contempt.

Did they have people volunteering to speak for free? Do you have proof these would have materialized? Would those people have brought in 1 million in after expenses income? You are assuming this. There is zero reason for you to do this. There is also the distinct possibility that sans a Bush appearance many attendees, especially rich attendees would not have attended at all regardless of whatever nonexistent speaker you come up with who is likely to attend. The reason you have galas and star speakers is because there are a lot of charities that are all equally deserving of your time and money. These organizations are competing for this limited audience's dollars. So of the Comptroller of Austin is speaking at one and Bush the other and you like Bush (this was in Texas after all) guess who draws in the dollars. And sure you might think that's unscrupulous on the part of a donor to go to an event where the expense ratio might be worse because of a speaking fee but what you think means fuck all to a charity. One big fish who attends for any reason and probably also writes a fat check on top of his ticket and is also now a potential target for an ongoing giving relationship (the other equally important objective of these events along with the money generated there specifically) is far more valuable and preferable to a hundred random people with your attitude who probably can't afford to attend in the first place let alone equal that guys giving. Not only that, the other part of a charity gala is to celebrate and reward donors from throughout the year. Many attendees are attending gratis for having been members of donor drive or outreach boards or for having raised a certain threshold of money from friends and family. So in this sense the speaker is there to elevate the prestige of the organization to keep and recruit more of these people as well as show them all a good time in thanks for their great work. Again there are plenty of charities all equally deserving of time and money, not so much the case with people willing to give time and money. You spend money to make money, its as simple as that.

So again you can say Bush should have been more charitable, but even if he was just a completely market price paid hire at a full fee he was still a tremendously successful hire from this charity's financial standpoint. And a charities financial success = more programs. The charity did nothing wrong here even if you think Bush did.

On what planet is it not immoral, black and white, for the person who directly caused charities like this to need to exist by launching an illegal war of aggression while not even bothering to upgrade veteran services to prophet off of it? Please tell me so we can round you and every other dumb motherfucker who has no problem with profiting off of the suffering of others, (which is literally no better than a serial killer writing a book about their crimes, it becoming a bestseller, and then sold to a studio for millions? Oh wait, there is, the victims get all the money the murderer earned through their crimes in judgements awarding it to them in wrongful death lawsuits!) who were victimized by your deceptions?

Some dumb motherfucker asked a smug, fuckheaded question about or made some equally smug, fuckheaded comment asking what I've done, or if I've done more for veterans of the Iraq war vets than Bush has. My answer? I've done infinitely more: I opposed sending them to be crippled in the first place, and spoke out debunking the lies being thrown around and swallowed without question by no-brained dipshits like you. Shit, most Republicans still think Iraq did 9/11 and that we found WMD in Iraq. They might as well all be psychopaths since they gleefully enjoy it when America acts like one.

[Flagg]

He's the one who made the crippled vets crippled in the first place you incredibly stupid fucking cumbucket,

No, that would be the various partisans they signed up to fight.

so don't you ever take that motherfucking smug attitude with me or it's going to go so far down your throat you'll be shitting smug teeth for a year.

I'll do exactly that you stupid little child. Bush did nothing wrong and was under no obligation to give even more than he did, no matter how much you scream your head off about it.

What is so hard for you to understand about that? You don't get to send people off on an illegal war where they get their limbs blown off, and then 12 years later speak at an event and call a discount "giving to charity".

Yes, yes he can because no matter how ANGRY you are Bush's donation of his valuable time to this fundraiser for much less than he would otherwise charge is a major act of charity and one which by all appearances massively benefited the charity you're pretending you care about.

By the way, still waiting for an answer: what exactly have you done to help these disabled vets you are so concerned about?

Bush sent them illegally based entirely on lies. The people defending their country are no more responsible than me shooting you in the face if you break into my house.

And as I said, I've done more for Iraqi vets by simply opposing a war based on lies than Bush will ever do, even if he gives a billion speeches a day where he doesn't make a profit off of the human misery and suffering he caused, until the ending of time.

Now get on the fucking rocket, baby.

[Ralin]

And as I said, I've done more for Iraqi vets by simply opposing a war based on lies than Bush will ever do, even if he gives a billion speeches a day where he doesn't make a profit off of the human misery and suffering he caused, until the ending of time.

Now get on the fucking rocket, baby.

So in other words you've done absolutely nothing.

Actual charity beats shriek baby tantrums on the internet about how Bush is a bad person who evilly helped raise millions for charity any day.

[Batman]

That's right, he hasn't. To wit, he hasn't sent them to fight illegal wars on evidence that only an incredibly gullible 2-year old would believe, nor has he done his level best to slash their benefits.

[Ralin]

That's right, he hasn't. To wit, he hasn't sent them to fight illegal wars on evidence that only an incredibly gullible 2-year old would believe, nor has he done his level best to slash their benefits.

People keep saying that as if it makes raising millions for them and donating his time at a cut rate not charity. As opposed to doing jack shit and then pretending to passionately care about the subject the moment someone you don't like does less than you think he should.

[Ralin]

PS:

evidence that only an incredibly gullible 2-year old would believe

Evidently those vets Flagg is suddenly pretending he cares about found that evidence convincing enough to enlist and take part in those illegal wars.

[Batman]

Yup, because those people only enlisted the 'second' they saw that 'evidence' and totally weren't part of the armed forces when Dubya the Stupider committed the US to that war.

[Tanasinn]

The National Guard certainly didn't sign on to be frontline troops in an illegal war sold on lies, either. :V

[Ralin]

Yup, because those people only enlisted the 'second' they saw that 'evidence'

Don't change the subject. Are they as gullible as two year olds or did they know the war was illegal and support it anyway?

and totally weren't part of the armed forces when Dubya the Stupider committed the US to that war.

Are the vets who enlisted after 2003 as gullible as two year olds?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Guys, you're not gonna convince Ralin. He'd think Timothy McVeigh was a swell guy if he'd raised charity funds to help the victims of the Oklahoma City Bombing. Yeah, sure, he was the one responsible for their maiming. But he helped a charity to benefit them, so he's better than you are. If Hitler had given a discounted speech to help the Jews get established in Israel post WW II he'd be better than anyone that hadn't donated money.


Doing one (vaguely) positive thing erases the huge list of negative shit you're directly responsible for. Remember, raising a little over a dollar per veteran you're responsible for getting disabled makes you a better person than someone that was against the goddamn wars. PTSD and lost limbs are fixed by a burger off the McDonald's dollar menu, right? Right?!

Face, Ralin. Bush starting the wars cost the vets more than the million-ish dollars his presence raised. Bush could have provided them far, far more during his tenure as PotUS by telling Congress we have to take care of the veterans of wars fought "to defend our nation" after they come home. Bush giving them an ultimately small discount to say some words is meaningless compared to the harm he is responsible for. The motherfucker doesn't feel bad about sending men and women to die and be maimed on bullshit claims. He doesn't feel bad over his failure to lead the nation in providing for the men and women that sacrificed their long-term well-being for what many of them believed to be the good of the nation. He doesn't feel bad that he took no steps to make sure the VA would have funding for men and women that saw all these commercials saying "Serve in the military and we'll pay for you to get a college education!" and thought it was their only chance to get ahead in life.

If Bush spent every waking moment advocating for veterans, donated every penny he has, sent letters to Congress pushing for them to pass a bill to increase VA funding... If he actually did all of that, maybe he would have paid the veterans back a little bit. Until the motherfucker has raised over a trillion dollars for the unfunded wars he started, until he is responsible for every amputee that his war is responsible for having a prosthetic that's as good as the original, until every veteran that came back with mental scars can enjoy July 4th without having a panic attack with a corner of their brain thinking they're under attack... Until he's done that, he's done less for veterans than Flagg. He created their disabilities by sending them to an illegal, unjustified war of aggression. If you run someone over with your car and they lose a leg from it, giving them a buck fifty doesn't mean you've done more for them than someone that hasn't donated any money to the person but also didn't fucking run them over with a car.

[Channel72]

I pretty much despise the Bush administration, but you know - Ralin's right about one thing. I guess a lot of us forget what the national mood was like back in 2003. It's not like the generic John Q. American Public wasn't just itching for somebody's blood after 9/11. Afghanistan was a nice target, but Iraq was a lot juicier. Besides, where the fuck is Afghanistan anyway? Isn't it like in Mexico or something? Nobody knows - but everyone knows Saddam Hussein is a really bad man who does really bad things, and he totally masterminded 9/11 along with Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, and the League of Shadows (I think).

The points is - Bush, the man, is probably just a clueless over-privileged idiot. He probably even had good intentions, for the most part. Cheney and Rumsfeld... not so much. But really, as much as we might be compelled to want justice for the wounded veterans - (and all the amputees and PTSD sufferers and suicides are heartbreaking) - do any of us really think that the majority of these veterans would sympathize with the political leanings of the average Stardestroyer.net poster? This isn't like Vietnam where they were all drafted - they basically signed up for this, for the most part. Yeah, they were lied to. Yeah, they were sold a "righteous cause" that was based mostly on 9/11 blood-vengeance and bullshit. But I remember the national mood back in 2003. Mainstream Democrats - people like Hillary Clinton, were all beating the war-drums alongside Bush and Colin Powell and his fake anthrax bullshit. Even today, how many of these wounded veterans do you think look at Bush as a hero? I'd be surprised if it wasn't over 70%. How many of these wounded veterans are Republicans (or even Tea Party members) itching to usher in the next Republican adminstration? (Hint: the answer is awkward and it sucks.)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Are the vets who enlisted after 2003 as gullible as two year olds?

As two year olds? No. The lie was transparent (or the intelligence community incompetent, depending on how one feels about assuming stupidity over malice when stupidity will do) to those who looked at it after the fact. At the time, there was a lovely little propaganda machine going. One that decent people could be fooled by years later. Especially after they bought in. People dont like to admit having been conned.

No, that would be the various partisans they signed up to fight.

Sorry, you're going to have to do better than reiterating how much you hate Bush and what a bad president he was.

I am sorry. I generally assume that there is a certain general understanding of criminal and civil legal principles and the ethical principles from which they typically flow that is simply the burden of good citizenship. Apparently you slipped through the cracks of the secondary education system. Because you seem to have difficulty grasping basic concepts, I will do this fairly carefully.


If I, as a private citizen, knowingly or maliciously place someone else in danger, I am both an ethical shit-heel, and potentially expose myself to civil and/or criminal liability. There are certain occupations and tasks that are inherently risky (military service, construction work etc). For those sorts of occupations, a person in a position of authority must hedge and mitigate those risks. Safety procedures, personal protective equipment, appropriate rules of engagement body armor and an exit strategy.... you get the point. Even an officer in a time of war can be brought up on charges of dereliction of duty and send to prison if he orders his men to do blatantly suicidal things for no reason. In a sense, his men owe him their lives if need be, but he has a responsibility to them not to throw those lives away in a fit of stupidity (Mess members, do correct me if I am wrong here, this is my understanding of the law but it is not anywhere near my area of expertise or experience).

This liability (and ethical douchebaggery) can come home to roost even if the harm is done by a third party. I will use a few examples.

Ex. A)Oligarch is a body armor manufacturer. He sells body armor to police departments. There will be two scenarios. The first and instance of liability form civil negligence, another for criminal liability.

1) If, in order to save money, Oligarch let quality control slip and sent out a batch of body armor that was defective (but that he did not know was defective), and police officers got shot and died as a result of the defect, Oligarch is very likely liable in civil court, even though he never pulled the trigger of a gun.

2) If Oligarch knew the body armor was defective and sent it out anyway, he is liable in criminal court for fraud, and possibly second degree murder under the Felony Murder or Depraved Indifference subsets of most second degree murder statutes.

Ex.B)

Captain is a police captain. He gets a call about a disturbance involving a violent man terrorizing a shopping center. He sends someone out without telling that person that the man is armed, and when the officer calls for backup, never gets it. If the officer gets killed, Captain is civilly liable for wrongful death at minimum if they acted stupidly. if it can be shown that this was done deliberately he is guilty of some variety of homicide, even though he did not pull the trigger.

Bush is guilty. He may not have planted the IEDs, but he sent soldiers into combat on false pretenses (analogous to criminal fraud), and did not actually do the job that the commander in chief is supposed to do in a war, which is to have a coherent strategy for the prosecution of that war and the subsequent occupation. At best he displayed negligence with respect to his obligations. At worst he was depraved and indifferent toward the lives of the soldiers under his command and countless civilians besides. To say nothing of the war crimes he is responsible for, all of them felonies under US law he will never be prosecuted for. Any death happening as a result of the commission of a felony offense is the responsibility of the felon, and they are criminally liable for 2nd degree murder and civilly liable for wrongful death.

Under US law, to say nothing of an actual human conscience, he literally owes every single veteran, so say nothing of the wounded ones, vast sums of money in direct and punitive damages, and by all rights should spend the rest of his life in prison (or be executed). But because he was president at the time (we dont actually give our presidents immunity), he will never see the inside of a court. Just like many of his victims, by the by.

As for what I have done... I am at least on the positive side of the ledger balance. I do donate to veterans charities when I can. I will (when I can afford it) go on a perishable food shopping run to supply a homeless vet with everything he needs for a week.

Bush starts off with a negative balance.

[Broomstick]

Evidently those vets Flagg is suddenly pretending he cares about found that evidence convincing enough to enlist and take part in those illegal wars.

I really have to address this myth.

The vast majority of enlisted personnel sent to Iraq had NOT enlisted specifically for that war - they enlisted much earlier, often in response to 9/11 where the US actually was attacked. Or even earlier, often as a way to earn the money to go to college. Thing is, once you're in, you're in and you can be sent away to a war you think is bullshit with no recourse. Well you can do something to get kicked out, but that's basically saying either you go commit a crime or you commit a crime sufficiently vile so as to get you kicked out and have the equivalent of a felony conviction follow you around for life, or an actual felony record.

So, Ralin, stop with the bullshit claim that somehow all those people the US sent to Iraq signed up just for that particular war. Most of them didn't.

[AniThyng]

So if there ever are actual tribunals to punish those responsible for this " illegal " war how far down do we go? Congressmen who voted for the war? Flag officers?

[Alyrium Denryle]

So if there ever are actual tribunals to punish those responsible for this " illegal " war how far down do we go? Congressmen who voted for the war? Flag officers?

Congress was also lied to. You go after Bush, Darth Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the agents who manufactured the evidence, along with those who told them to do it.

I dont know what the actual flag officers knew about the intelligence that was relied upon to justify the war, and thus cannot comment there. However, some of them are culpable for war crimes, and a really hefty chunk of the CIA needs to be chucked into a symbolically resonant metaphorical Oubliette and left to rot.

[Irbis]

He doesn't feel bad over his failure to lead the nation in providing for the men and women that sacrificed their long-term well-being for what many of them believed to be the good of the nation. He doesn't feel bad that he took no steps to make sure the VA would have funding for men and women that saw all these commercials saying "Serve in the military and we'll pay for you to get a college education!" and thought it was their only chance to get ahead in life.

Oh, it's worse than that. Over 150.000 foreigners enlisted in US armed forces in last 14 years, either out of sympathy for 9/11, to get US college education free of charge, or improve their chances of getting permanent resident papers. In fact, Polish press 10 years ago was full of propaganda pieces and testimonies of Polish born troops how good it is to enlist.

How many of these men and women get early grave or being sent maimed home instead of getting anything from Uncle Sam? 10%? 15%? More, if their units were seen as more expendable? Anyway, the point is, Bush shat not only all over USA, but also over other countries. And, right now, he is doing absolute jack shit about that, ignoring their existence. So, even if his speeches were anywhere near meeting the needs of US veterans, there would be still a huge group he is directly responsible for, and wiped his ass with. Any claims of Bushy's moral superiority mark his supporters as even dumber than him.

Bush's donation of his valuable time

Valuable time?

He is ex-president of the US, you ass sucking imbecile. He literally won't be holding another office for the rest of his life and enjoys big retirement fund courtesy of the state. His time is literally free, or at least it should be if he considers his oath (you know, the whole serving the nation thing) seriously. No one forbids him from monetizing it when speaking to his Halliburton cronies, but doing so when he is speaking for charity is a sign of being colossal shitbag.

People keep saying that as if it makes raising millions

Big news flash - do you know how much medical help for one crippled soldier costs?

Millions.

So, maybe move that tiny brain of yours and realize helping one, at best two soldiers financially doesn't exactly outweigh crippling tens of thousands of them in the first place, or is that too big number for you?

[gizmojumpjet]

The vast majority of enlisted personnel sent to Iraq had NOT enlisted specifically for that war - they enlisted much earlier, often in response to 9/11 where the US actually was attacked. Or even earlier, often as a way to earn the money to go to college.

I'm not sure I buy this claim, so I would like to see you support your argument.

Please provide data regarding the number of enlisted military personnel who were deployed to Iraq, including the number of these personnel who enlisted prior to the beginning of the war, and those who enlisted after the beginning of the war. The Iraq war began in 2003 and officially ended in 2011; your data should span the entire length of this conflict.

Thank you.

[Knife]

Evidently those vets Flagg is suddenly pretending he cares about found that evidence convincing enough to enlist and take part in those illegal wars.

I really have to address this myth.

The vast majority of enlisted personnel sent to Iraq had NOT enlisted specifically for that war - they enlisted much earlier, often in response to 9/11 where the US actually was attacked. Or even earlier, often as a way to earn the money to go to college. Thing is, once you're in, you're in and you can be sent away to a war you think is bullshit with no recourse. Well you can do something to get kicked out, but that's basically saying either you go commit a crime or you commit a crime sufficiently vile so as to get you kicked out and have the equivalent of a felony conviction follow you around for life, or an actual felony record.

So, Ralin, stop with the bullshit claim that somehow all those people the US sent to Iraq signed up just for that particular war. Most of them didn't.

Indeed. Even if you supported the war, I did in 2003 but I don't think you did but I don't remember, and enlisted, it still mean that Bush's total mismanagement of that war makes him responsible for those thousands of maimed and injured vets. He ordered the war, he and his staff ran the war that got thousands killed and more hurt, it is unconscionable for him to charge a charity that helps vets for him to speak there.

[Knife]

The vast majority of enlisted personnel sent to Iraq had NOT enlisted specifically for that war - they enlisted much earlier, often in response to 9/11 where the US actually was attacked. Or even earlier, often as a way to earn the money to go to college.

I'm not sure I buy this claim, so I would like to see you support your argument.

Please provide data regarding the number of enlisted military personnel who were deployed to Iraq, including the number of these personnel who enlisted prior to the beginning of the war, and those who enlisted after the beginning of the war. The Iraq war began in 2003 and officially ended in 2011; your data should span the entire length of this conflict.

Thank you.

Well, as a former Marine, you need at least 4 months to train a basic Marine rifleman. 3 months in boot camp and at least one month in infantry school before you get deployed to a unit. Any person who joined specifically for the Iraq war would have gotten there at minimum 4 months after it started. So if some dude joined in March of 03, his boot would last 13 weeks and he would be out at the end of May. So, that basic Marine would have still been in boot when Bush declared combat operations were over in Iraq. That Marine wouldn't hit Iraq conceivably until July after infantry school (if he was a grunt, some MOS schools are longer than 1 month) just in time to see the Hussein kids executed.

[Patroklos]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/ ... -military/

The average length of service for enlisted was 6.7 years in 2011. In other words for a war that lasted 8-9 years the vast majority enlisted after it started. The average officer service was 11ish but given their much smaller numbers they are not going to change the overall picture, especially with 49ish percent of them also joining during the conflict.

Obviously the numbers for Afghanistan will be even greater regarding in conflict enlistments.

TLDR: Broomstick made it up. At least her attempt to support it via enlistment dates anyway. In reity just because you enlisted during a conflict doesn't mean you enlisted because of that conflict. You could have enlisted in spite ofit for instance. There are other threats you could care about concurrently as well.

Also, most servicemen during those years didn't step foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Broomstick]

The vast majority of enlisted personnel sent to Iraq had NOT enlisted specifically for that war - they enlisted much earlier, often in response to 9/11 where the US actually was attacked. Or even earlier, often as a way to earn the money to go to college.

I'm not sure I buy this claim, so I would like to see you support your argument.

Anyone deployed during the first 6 months of the Iraq would would of necessity have had to have signed up BEFORE the war, because you don't go from "sign on the line" to combat instantaneously. You have to be processed, go through basic training, and then whatever further training is required for your position before you are ever deployed to the front.

And, assuming you were alive in the US back then, and conscious, you can not have been oblivious to the military advertising itself as a means to a college education and a better life.

So, there's a start right there.