Can you really believe that republicans care about the troops?

Question

wounded to dead ratios are 8:1, so while we "only" have 3,500 or so deaths, the combat wounded amount to well over 25,000 which is more wounded than even WWII, second only to Vietnam. Why isn't our commander in chief sending a few of those hundreds of billions to care for our troops AFTER they come back maimed, deranged, or worse? if the white house and capitol hill employees have full coverage health care, why can't the troops?

hibernia -
reading comprehension is your friend. at least TRY and catch the point as it flies over your head. *sigh*....the *point* is that modern warfare may not lead to as many deaths as previous wars but it is leading to record levels of wounded, maimed, and disabled. which the so called pro-soldier Bush camp has done a MISERABLE job of caring for once returned from the battlefield. i hope this explanation is able to breach your density.

commander -
thanks for the meat-headed rebuke. its always good to hear from the neanderthal constituency. i genuinely hope my tax dollars didn't pay for a wasted GI bill on YOU.

commander -
oops should have known you wouldn't allow email. guess you got tired of being told how foolish and wrong you are.

Answer 1

All throughout history, returning soldiers have never been cared for. The ruling elite use the military to advance their own economic gains. Paying for the ill effects of that effort is counter-productive to their mission of enriching themselves. I need only remind you of the recent Walter Reed debacle, Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome. But in Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States he points out that this has also been the case in the Revolutionary War, the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War. It was also the case in WWI and WWII as well.

------------------------------

War is a Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the many.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Answer 2

There is no natural stopping place for this war. Before it began the Bush Junta should have known that....the fact that they didn't is the result of 'group-think'....maybe more like a cult...what's normal and reasonable to those inside the cult is abnormal and crazy to those outside. The only way to stop this war is to begin to leave. A slow and gradual stand down without any announcements. Since there isn't much real news coming out of Iraq anyway I doubt that people would notice that the 'war' was over. Or, the administration could start handing out good news and on the basis of that begin a pull out. All I know for certain is that four years is long enough. Onw way or the other it's time to pull the plug and take out the feeding tube and let this 'war' die a peaceful death.

Answer 3

You should recheck your figures on WWII. By some estimates, 50-60 million people died on all sides, so I'm pretty sure there were more than 25K injuries to US troops. Casualties are a part of war and always have been. The VA is taking care of those injured vets, despite erroneous stories that they have been abandoned. I rode on a medivac flight from Europe to the US last year, with about 20 seriously wounded troops. The dedication of the medical personnel taking care of them every minute of the trip was amazing. I have visited Landstuhl Army Medical Center many times and witnessed the same level of care. If you're basing your claim on the problems at Walter Reed, those are administrative problems, not medical care problems. So check the facts next time before you spout off about Republicans not caring for the troops. Most of the troops are Republicans, thank God. There was a saying in the Vietnam days - "If you ain't been there, you ain't ****."

Answer 4

The troops do have full health care coverage for injuries sustained while serving, and the care is very, very good. I know because many members of my family are in the military, and have received care in these places. They all said the quality was excellent, even the VA hospital, when my grandpa went there ~2002. A lot of the money is actually for that very purpose. It's not like soldiers have to get their own medical plans, or pay out of pocket for care, it's all covered and I don't know where you got the idea it was otherwise.

Oh, I can't speak for all Republicans, but I can tell you this one cares about the troops.

Answer 5

Because the Department of the Army and the Department of Veterans' Affairs is paid specifically to create new loop-holes daily in the interest of justifying NOT giving Us what is ours by RIGHT. It took me 8 years to get a disability rating of 10%... I qualify for 30% (yes, I appealed... and was denied all 3 times!). They have destroyed the records of thousands of veterans (including mine) in the two fires ( one in the 70s and another in the 90s) at the records office in St Louis (both fires were inside jobs) to avoid not only giving the benefits earned, but also to avoid prosecution by soldiers like me (lack of evidence is a solid basis for "no case").

Answer 6

So what your really saying is that the Democrats did not care for the troops during Vietnam and now the republicans don't care because of the ratio of wounded to dead. Odd way of making a point, and I disagree, the ratio has nothing to do with how one party feels about the troops in either case, what that ratio tells you, is that once wounded a soldier is receiving quick medical attention that saves his life.

Answer 7

407,000 American troops died in WW2.
The wounded to death ration in that war was 2 to 1. 2 wounded for every 1 death. Doing the math puts the number of wounded well over 800,000. That would be considerable more the 25,000.

Answer 8

Just in case you do not know? The soldiers joined the service branch of their choice knowing that they can be sent into war. They do it to protect our country, which you should give them thanks for. No one tied them up and forced them to enlist. However, I do think the government should take more responsibility of taking care of them when they are wounded and disfigured and are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. They should not ever have to worry about how they will survive in society, and we should never see one veteran on the streets homeless. If you think the dems never supported this war, you are wrong. They also sit back and do nothing to take care of our veterans. My dad was in World War II. He came back a war casualtity. He had to fight to get the care he needed. There were just as many Democrats in office as there were Republicans when he served. All I am saying is that we need to hold all members of congress accountable for what is happening. Not just one party.

Answer 9

There are a higher percentage of wounded because of improvements in military medical and evacuation procedures.

Less likely to die on the battlefield waiting for treatment.

Answer 10

Keep in mind that Congress has not done its job. While it's easy to point the finger at one person (GWB), the two committees (senate and reps) couldn't agree on how to fight their way out of a paper bag if it was ripped in half.