Support our troops.... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 11-29-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Will, you are romanticizing past generations of soldiers. Pinkos, gooks, Nips, ragheads, camel jockeys, Japs, etc... They've dehumanized the enemy for this entire century and likely all the ones preceding it. Hell, look at the portrayals of Japanese civilians in the old Loony Toons cartoons. An enlightened war has yet to take place. I think the gallows humor BOR speaks of is two-fold: it is both a protection of the sanity (through disengagement) of people in inhuman circumstances, and it is a measure of the psychological damage already sustained by those conditions.

I was only speaking of my grandfather, not the entire generation that fought in WWII, Korea or Vietnam. Dehumanization has been a part of training soldiers for a lot longer than the past 60 years, as I understand it. It may very well be as old as warfare itself. That's hardly an excuse, though. I think that we can all agree that on a basic level that war is wrong. Yes, you can do it to stop other war, as a sort of 'fighting fire against fire' sort of last resort, but at the most fundamental level: war is wrong. These racial slurs and 'jokes' about killing people, whether they deserve it or not, serve to dehumanize the enemy, yes? And it's easier to kill someone who you believe to be less than human, yes? And you're more likely to kill someone you belive is less than human, yes? They say that war begits war, and if it's easier to go to war, then war is more likely to continue.

If you can't kill someone without pretending you're living in a video game you have no business being a soldier. If you can't put a human face on the people who you've been told to kill, you have no business being a soldier. I have a feeling that if more people felt the way I do about war, it'd happen a lot less frequently.

SirLance · 11-29-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

US troops today who do not question and resist immoral or illegal orders, are part of an "all volunteer" force, and should reasonably be held to a higher standard of humane, legal, and moral conduct.

US troops are held to a high standard of conduct. It is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The penalties it affords for crimes commited by uniformed servicemen are generally more stringent than that of the civilian criminal justice system.

Disobey a lawful order in combat, and your superior has the legal right (and perhaps obligation) to shoot you in the head. You don't get to pick and choose. You might volunteer for service, but once you have you must obey lawful orders. Unlawful orders are extremely rare. I never encountered one in my years of service, nor ever met anyone else who did.

Support our troops, hell yes. Support the war, hell no. Two different things, in my opinion.

But I will say this, some folks seem to think that putting on a uniform somehow magically transforms you into some sort of superhuman being who can do no wrong, endure any hardship, and always acts with the utmost morality. Sorry to burst the bubbles, but we're just like everybody else. We have drunks, and theives, and bad people, in pretty much the same proportion as society. Sometimes bad people don't get the opportunity to live out thier evil little tendencies until they get into a place where they think they can escape notice or punishment. When they act, they are caught and punished. Until there's some way to identify them, this will still happen.

Some folks are drawn to the uniform like pedophiles are drawn to the preisthood: it provides the best opportunity.

The VAST majority are just like you and me, moral, upstanding, good people.

But good people who VOLUNTEERED to put societies interests ahead of their own.

ubertuber · 11-30-2006, 05:38 AM

I saw an article on a NY Times Select blog that may add to this discussion. You have to pay for a Select membership to get to the article, so I stole it for you guys. However, if you don't have a Times Select membership you should get one. There's tons of great material in there.

In the article, I bolded a few items that I thought stood out. I don't think this young man's piece really supports any particular position taken thus far in our thread. He seems to be exemplifying things that host is saying and things that BOR is saying. I do disagree with him when he says "Some of the comments I’ve read so far depress me a lot. It amazes me that many of the people who “support the troops” over here fighting for “freedom,” are often the ones willing to roll over and let their freedoms at home be taken away." My personal experience has shown that it is more often the opposite.

Be that as it may, I think there is one tidbit here that might speak to host's earlier thread about supporting the troops - and it is a powerful justification that is part of what keeps the good people joining the service in these difficult times. While our service members are in some respects "blunt instruments" who do not agree with or get to comment on the policies they are enforcing, many of them are good idealistic people trying to do a good thing. And whether our national intentions and motives in Iraq and Afghanistan are worthy or honorable, it is better to have good, decent people there on the ground than it would be to have the dregs of our society. While there are bad apples, far more of our service members signed on to "make a difference" than to shoot 'em up.

Mission in Afghanistan blog on NY Times Select

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

Response to Readers: Don’t Judge Me

By Anthony McCloskey

I am sitting here in Afghanistan, nearly 1700 miles from my home in Philadelphia. I am cold, tired, lonely, and a little depressed. My motivation is waning. The end of my tour here is rapidly approaching, and I am eager to get home. It is that eagerness that helps keep me sharp. There are still missions to be completed, and complacency is not an option. My Command Sergeant Major likes to say “complacency is the bedfellow of defeat,” and he is right. Over here, complacency gets people dead.

It is sometimes difficult to remain vigilant when your motivation is on a downward slide. The only things I have to keep me going are thoughts of getting home, and photos of those I love. I sometimes can not help but think as I am planning missions, or even as I set out on a mission, “I only have a few months left. Wouldn’t it suck to be killed in the last quarter of the game?” I try to keep those thoughts from getting to me too much. I often have trouble sleeping.

It also doesn’t help to know that some people back at home are disparaging, not only of the war effort, but also of us. Some of the comments I’ve read so far depress me a lot. It amazes me that many of the people who “support the troops” over here fighting for “freedom,” are often the ones willing to roll over and let their freedoms at home be taken away. And those who are able to recognize the hypocrisy in the system often seem to take it out on the troops. A few of the commenters would have you believe that the service members who are over here fighting and dying should feel ashamed. I’d like to respond to that.

I am not ashamed. Not of my service. I am sometimes ashamed of decisions my government makes, and I am sometimes ashamed of things that Americans do or don’t do, but I have never been, and will never be ashamed of serving my country. I do what I do because I believe in service to the greater good. The American military does not make policy, we enforce it. If a citizen of the United States does not like what we are doing, then it is the responsibility of that citizen to ensure that policy changes are made. Please don’t blame us. We are over here because we love our country and what it stands for.

Some people back home may feel that we are not truly helping the Afghan people. Well I assure you that we are. I can not speak to the intentions of my country’s political powers towards Afghanistan, but I can say with certainty that our intent on the ground is good. Everyday I and my fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines help people. We provide schools, clinics and health care, We provide good jobs and education initiatives.. We are doing good things for the Afghan people.

Just the other day I was speaking with an Afghan man who told me how thankful he was that we are here. He told me, “Perhaps someday Afghanistan will have Thanksgiving.” He was thankful for all the things that we are enabling them to have by providing security and stability, so they can build a new nation. Who in the past has actually helped Afghanistan? The British? The Soviets? The Taliban?

Every day I get to see injured or ill children receive medical treatment they otherwise would not have received. Every day I get to see people learning new job skills. I get to see women who are allowed to dress as they please. I have seen efforts specifically designed to educate women so they can educate their children. How better to create a brighter future for Afghanistan than by teaching its women?

These are all things that make me feel good. There are plenty of other things that make me feel bad. Sometimes I wonder if the impact we are having will last. But mostly these days, I wonder if Afghanistan is going to have a lasting impact on me. And I wonder when it will be my turn to go home.

Deltona Couple · 11-30-2006, 06:54 AM

Ubertuber, a VERY interesting article that I feel makes my personal sentiments on this whole thread evident. I served my time as well, and have seen many horrific things(mostly by the opposing force for those who would hijack that quote), but I have to seen the wonderful things that we have acomplished. Too many look at the bad things, and forget the good things; Education, medical assistance, etc. I read a while back of a platoon that while on patrol, stopped and spent two days helping a small town dig a new well for water....This all being done by our "robot" soldiers who are having their soul removed in training.....lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Dehumanization has been a part of training soldiers for a lot longer than the past 60 years, as I understand it.

Just for your information, that is no longer correct. Current militart training actually now is director towards HUMANIZING the soldier/Marine, and training them on how to be MORE humane and self-thinking, however they are also trained that an order is an order, and is to be followed out unless the soldier can justify that the order in its application becomes unjust. Here is an example. A Captain say has given an order to troops that they are to immediately destroy a bridge that has been used to transport enemy supplies. The troops arrive, and find that civilians are on the bridge fishing. Old-school was, destroy the bridge, damn the civilians. Current military directives require that the soldier in charge attemt to communicate this information to the ordering officer. If unable to communicate, the soldier has the full rights to then "refuse" the order, or attept to comply with the order, while preserving the safety of the civilians. Yes, when given, the order WAS a legal order, however circumstances have changed, and THIS is what we are now being trained to do. WE ARE ALLOWED TO THINK, and be humane, not Soulless, mindless automated troops of yesteryear. It is the current standing directive of all military branches that a given order can be, and is EXPECTED to be refused if circumstances durring the execution of the order has changed, making the standing order unlawful, or inhumane. Now the enemy knows this, and they use it to their advantage. We have had many "Civilian" people in buildings and on bridges that were deemed military targets, and when troops came upon the civilian to relocate them, they were shot by said civilian. This is the way of war. Learn from your enemy and use it to your advantage. This of course makes it difficult to deal with civilians, and yes, sometimes it does, and HAS resulted in innocent lives lost.

As it has been said before, yes, we are most likely not supposed to be there any longer, and some believe that we are there illegally. However as long as congress and NATO say it is a legal action, then orders given to GO are NOT illegal orders. You cannot as a member of the military say "I think the REASON for us being there is illegal, therefore I can disobey this 'illegal' order."
THAT is a violation of the UCMJ. Yes, as a member of the military you have a voice. You can still vote as a way of expressing that voice, and you can still speak out that you disagree with the action, however you CANNOT incite others to disobey orders, or disobey them yourself without being able to defend yourself in the future courts martial that you WILL be attending.

Xera · 11-30-2006, 07:19 AM

Anyone who works close with death dehumanizes the people they see die. I personally, would be far more concerned about the person that can sit there and really consider the humanity of the person they are killing; or watching die, that can still do the job well, than I am the guy that MUST see the person he kills or watches die as just a duty of the job. Anyone that can really consider the implications of death, and can still do the job well, has something seriously wrong with them.

When civilians join the military they can then request the option of being considered "conscientious objectors" this would allow them, in some cases, to work in clerical or other non combatant positions. In times of drafts this has not allowed anyone to legally refuse to report, it has however allowed SOME to not fight. This is done when possible, but possible when talking about the government is a transient term. It does not always happen.

If a soldier were to refuse to go to Iraq after receiving the orders to go, s/he would likely go to jail. It is considered being AWOL. It is against the law to fail to report to the base/unit you are assigned to.

You can NOT refuse to follow a legal order. In much the same way that you might expect very bad things to happen to you if you refuse to follow a legal order given by a police officer, soldiers can NOT refuse to follow a legal order.

Some things are easy to see as being illegal, killing children, burning down civilian houses, raping women, etc. But, if the CO can later prove that there was in fact LEGAL reason for the order, the soldier that refused to follow will STILL be punished.

I've never been in the military. I was set to join right out of high school, but then I got pregnant instead. My ex was a soldier and we decided it would not be in the baby’s best interest for both of us to be in the military. They try, but sometimes married couples get sent to different bases. So I have not been in the military, but I have been closely associated with it.

While in Germany with my ex husband I once told his CO that I did not like something that he had said to me. I said it, my then husband did not, and he was still in trouble because he was failing to "control his wife."

Where the military is concerned, the UCMJ is more than sacred. It is the absolute of life. As much as I fought against it when it was ruling my life, it is necessary.

As for the idea that doing more than wishing our troops well is a waste of time, I would much rather waste my time doing what little I can than sit and do nothing to change conditions. I would much rather be accused of being ineffective than of being apathetic.

PS. I apologize for my last post. I got up and forgot I had already copied over my post. Sometimes I can't spell, and sometimes when I feel strongly on an issue I got to going so fast that I make many more typos than is at all acceptable, so I run everything trough a spell checker before posting, and still manage to screw up pretty well.

NCB · 11-30-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

President Bush announced earlier this month that the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration, will be awarded posthumously to Dunham, who would have turned 25 this month.

He is only the second American Marine to receive the Medal of Honor since the Iraq War began. Despite his life-saving heroism and the award by President Bush, the New York Times REFUSED to write ONE WORD about this gallant Marine, even though he was a New York resident.

http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/2006...-military.html

The lack of respect for our troops goes far beyond people like will. The above is an interesting blurb concerning a MoH recip. These things arent handed out like like candy, and yet the cornerstone of our printed press has not printed one word about it.

Deltona Couple · 11-30-2006, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xera

I personally, would be far more concerned about the person that can sit there and really consider the humanity of the person they are killing; or watching die, that can still do the job well, than I am the guy that MUST see the person he kills or watches die as just a duty of the job.

I beg to differ from you on that point Xera. I would much rather have someone fighting on my side that can look at the situation with humanity BEFORE they kill, than to mindlessly shoot and kill without remorse, and worry about the results later.

Rekna · 11-30-2006, 08:03 AM

The term "support our troops" has been spun so much that it now has no meaning. And i'm not sure if it ever did have any meaning. It is now a political tool used to demonize people against the war.

Deltona Couple · 12-01-2006, 04:31 AM

I am sorry that you feel that way Rekna. Because not everyone shares that sentiment. Many of my friends and others in our local communities are always sending over care packages and letters to those overseas. Supporting the troops doesn't have to mean more than simply letting them know that we all care, and we all are thinking about them and what they are going through. It is not a political tool. If you look at where all the assistance and care packages etc are coming from, it has NOTHING to do with the politics. Most all groups are organized by family members who have a loved one serving.

dc_dux · 12-01-2006, 06:58 AM

It has NOTHING to do with politics? Bullshit!

The Republicans have used the "if you dont support our policies" then you are not "supporting our troops" demogogic rhetoric as a politcal wedge issue since 9/11.

host · 12-01-2006, 12:31 PM

Some troops who need and deserve our support if this "madness" that is the Bush foreign pre-emptive war policy, is going to be stopped before too many more die on all sides:

There is a list here:

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/

and a spotlight on two of them:

Quote:

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/con...ategory/22/39/

On June 22, 2006 Lt. Ehren Watada became the first US commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to the unlawful Iraq war and occupation. He has been charged with "contemptuous words" towards President Bush and conduct unbecoming of an officer. These charges represent the first military persecution of an objector for First Amendment speech since 1965. Including the charge for not deploying to Iraq Lt. Watada faces over seven years in military prison. By placing himself on the line for the truth, Lt. Watada has issued a challenge to all of us. Help Lt. Watada put the War on Trial! For full reports, breaking news, and to donate:www.ThankYouLt.org

Quote:

http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=2125
War Resister Pablo Paredes Wins Surprise Victory: Military Judges Orders No Jail Time For Refusing Deployment Orders
2005.05.13

AMY GOODMAN: What did you say in court?

PABLO PAREDES: Well, I'm going to read a statement that I read in court. It goes as follows:..

....... I have long now been an ardent reader of independent media, and, in my opinion, less corrupted forms of media, such as TruthOut.org, Democracy Now!, books from folks like Steven Zunes, and Chalmers Johnson, articles from people like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein. These folks are very educated in matters of politics and are not on the payroll of any major corporate news programming, such as CNN or FOX News network. They all do what they do for reasons other than money, as they could earn much more if they joined the corporate-controlled ranks. I have come to trust their research and value their convictions in assisting me to form my own. They have all unanimously condemned this war as illegal, as well as made resources available for me to draw my own conclusions, resources like Kofi Annan's statements on how under the U.N. Charter the Iraq War is illegal, resources like Marjorie Cohn's countless articles providing numerous sources and reasons why the war is illegal under international, as well as domestic law. I could speak on countless sources and their arguments as to the legality of the war on Iraq quite extensively. But again, I don't presume to be in a position to lecture anyone here on law. I mean only to provide insight on my actions on December 6.

I understood before that date very well what the precedent was for service members participating in illegal wars. I read extensively on the arguments and results of Nazi German soldiers, as well as imperial Japanese soldiers, in the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, respectively. <b>In all I read I came to an overwhelming conclusion supported by countless examples that any soldier who knowingly participates in an illegal war can find no haven in the fact that they were following orders, in the eyes of international law.</b>

Nazi aggression and imperialist Japan are very charged moments of history and simply mentioning them evokes many emotions and reminds of many atrocities. So I want to be very clear that I am in no way comparing our current government to any of the historical counterparts. I am not comparing the leaders or their acts, not their militaries nor their acts. I am only citing the trials because they are the best example of judicial precedent for what a soldier/sailor is expected to do when faced with the decision to participate or refuse to participate in what he perceives is an illegal war.

I think we would all agree that a service member must not participate in random unprovoked illegitimate violence simply because he is ordered to. What I submit to you and the court is that I am convinced that the current war is exactly that. So, if there's anything I could be guilty of, it is my beliefs. I am guilty of believing this war is illegal. I'm guilty of believing war in all forms is immoral and useless, and I am guilty of believing that as a service member I have a duty to refuse to participate in this war because it is illegal.

I do not expect the court to rule on the legality of this war, nor do I expect the court to agree with me. I only wish to express my reasons and convictions surrounding my actions. I acted on my conscience. Whether right or wrong in my convictions I will be at peace knowing I followed my conscience.

That was my statement.

Quote:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/051305X.shtml
Navy Judge Finds War Protest Reasonable
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 13 May 2005

"I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
<b>-- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial</b>

In a stunning blow to the Bush administration, a Navy judge gave Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes no jail time for refusing orders to board the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard before it left San Diego with 3,000 sailors and Marines bound for the Persian Gulf on December 6th. Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant found Pablo guilty of missing his ship's movement by design, but dismissed the charge of unauthorized absence. Although Pablo faced one year in the brig, the judge sentenced him to two months' restriction and three months of hard labor, and reduced his rank to seaman recruit.....

Rekna · 12-02-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

I am sorry that you feel that way Rekna. Because not everyone shares that sentiment. Many of my friends and others in our local communities are always sending over care packages and letters to those overseas. Supporting the troops doesn't have to mean more than simply letting them know that we all care, and we all are thinking about them and what they are going through. It is not a political tool. If you look at where all the assistance and care packages etc are coming from, it has NOTHING to do with the politics. Most all groups are organized by family members who have a loved one serving.

That is what supporting the troops should be but unfortunately the neocons decided to politicize the term in order to prey on peoples emotions and garner support. It is the same thing they did with the word terrorist. Somehow we now lump anyone that doesn't agree with the US policy as a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer.

Deltona Couple · 12-04-2006, 05:33 AM

Yes Rekna, but it is up to the common people to use that phrase in the RIGHT way and voice our opinions. I support the troops in my OWN way, not based on political pressures or belief.

host · 11-21-2007, 09:20 AM

It is probably "just an oversight", these offenses against combat wounded US soldiers...the conditions at Walter Reed hospital and the following demands for "payback" of enlistment bonuses....

If so, how come the president didn't neglect to use the wounded troops for his own PR purposes, but not pre-empt these offenses against them, by his government?

How come he sets "a record for the most vacation time enjoyed by any POTUS, while he says "we are at war", and these offenses to our troops keep happening?

Quote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record With Long Sojourn at Ranch, President on ... Bush rarely takes the type of vacation one would consider exotic -- or, ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201703_pf.html

Quote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070725-4.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 25, 2007

President Bush Jogs with Wounded Soldiers, Discusses Care For Returning Wounded Warriors
South Lawn
4:25 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I've been running with Max and Allen -- I mean, Neil. I met these guys at Walter Reed. Neil lost both legs, and he told me he's going to run with me on the South Lawn of the White House. Max lost his leg, and he told me he was going to be jumping out of airplanes with the 101st Airborne. Sure enough, he's jumping out of airplanes with the 101st Airborne, and along with Neil, he's running on the South Lawn.

President George W. Bush meets with wounded veterans U.S. Army Sgt.Neil Duncan (Ret.), left, and U.S. Army Specialist Max Ramsey, right, for a jog Wednesday, July 25, 2007 around the South Lawn of the White House. White House photo by Eric Draper Running with these two men is incredibly inspirational for me. And it should be inspirational to anybody who has been dealt a tough hand....

<img src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/images/20070725-4_wg8o0655-250h.jpg">

Quote:

http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/mi....2.571660.html
Wounded Soldier: Military Wants Part Of Bonus Back
Reporting
Marty Griffin
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ―

The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

<h3>Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.</h3>

One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.

He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.

Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.

A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.

"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.

It's a slap for Fox's mother, Susan Wardezak, who met with President Bush in Pittsburgh last May. He thanked her for starting Operation Pittsburgh Pride which has sent approximately 4,000 care packages.

He then sent her a letter expressing his concern over her son's injuries, so she cannot understand the U.S. Government's apparent lack of concern over injuries to countless U.S. Soldiers and demands that they return their bonuses.

While he's unsure of his future, Fox says he's unwavering in his commitment to his country.

"I'd do it all over again... because I'm proud of the discipline that I learned. I'm proud to have done something for my country," he said.

But Fox feels like he's already given enough. He'll never be able to pursue his dream of being a police officer because of his wounds and he can't believe he's being asked to return part of his $10,000 signing bonus.

KDKA contacted Congressman Jason Altmire on his behalf. He says he has proposed a bill that would guarantee soldiers receive full benefit of bonuses.

His thoughts are "with them"? If that was true, could offenses against the wounded, as described above, or at Walter Reed hospital really still be happening? Does the president's incompetence know any bounds?

Quote:

http://kdka.com/topstories/Susan.War....2.389042.html
* May 10, 2007 9:17 pm US/Eastern

Presidential Honor Bittersweet For Local Family
To help with Operation Pittsburgh Pride, you can visit their Web site.
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― President Bush comes to our area tomorrow to speak to the graduates at St. Vincent College and to honor a couple of local volunteers.

One of those volunteers has been collecting and sending necessities to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But for the organziers of Operation Pittsburgh Pride, the effort has taken a tragic turn in the past week.

Susan Wardezak got a phone call early this morning and learned her son, Jordan, who has been serving in Iraq, was injured when his Bradley armored vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb. The explosion was so bad it blew the the armor off of it.

"In the commotion there was a sniper near the wreckage and he opened fire," Ron Wardezak, Jordan's father, tells KDKA. "Jordan took the majority of it physically by the rollover. He wasn't shot fortunately but five of the soldiers that were with him were killed in the accident. Some were shot."

Jordan's suffering from a severe concussion and he has limited vision in his right eye. It's second time he has been wounded.

Not long after Jordan's Army unit arrived in the country, Susan needed an outlet for her anxiety and started answering the soldier's small personal needs that her son would tell her about by email.

Now called Operation Pittsburgh Pride, the Wardezak's have overseen the sending of more than 2,000 boxes, which is why she will be honored by the President when he arrives tomorrow.

For a moment, Susan will have the ear of the President. But she says she won't make a personal plea.

"I don't think it's fair of me to ask the President to bring my son," she said. "I've thought about that too, okay he's been hurt twice but I don't think its fair of me to ask him to bring my son home, because there are so many other mothers out there that [...] that's what gets me they don't even get to bring their kids home."

The Wardezaks say it's too soon to know if Jordan's most recent injuries are serious enough to bring him home. In seven months, his unit has lost 20 percent of its personnel.

To help with Operation Pittsburgh Pride, you can visit their Web site.

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17160574/
Forced to battle the system at Walter Reed
Wounded soldiers face neglect, frustration at Army’s top medical facility

....On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of "Catch-22." The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.

Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.

"We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it," said Marine Sgt. Ryan Groves, 26, an amputee who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months. "We don't know what to do. The people who are supposed to know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of stalling."

Soldiers, family members, volunteers and caregivers who have tried to fix the system say each mishap seems trivial by itself, but the cumulative effect wears down the spirits of the wounded and can stall their recovery.

"It creates resentment and disenfranchisement," said Joe Wilson, a clinical social worker at Walter Reed. "These soldiers will withdraw and stay in their rooms. They will actively avoid the very treatment and services that are meant to be helpful."

Danny Soto, a national service officer for Disabled American Veterans who helps dozens of wounded service members each week at Walter Reed, said soldiers "get awesome medical care and their lives are being saved," but, "Then they get into the administrative part of it and they are like, 'You saved me for what?' The soldiers feel like they are not getting proper respect. This leads to anger."

<h3>This world is invisible to outsiders. Walter Reed occasionally showcases the heroism of these wounded soldiers and emphasizes that all is well under the circumstances. President Bush, former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and members of Congress have promised the best care during their regular visits to the hospital's spit-polished amputee unit, Ward 57.</h3>

"We owe them all we can give them," Bush said during his last visit, a few days before Christmas. "Not only for when they're in harm's way, but when they come home to help them adjust if they have wounds, or help them adjust after their time in service."

Along with the government promises, the American public, determined not to repeat the divisive Vietnam experience, has embraced the soldiers even as the war grows more controversial at home. Walter Reed is awash in the generosity of volunteers, businesses and celebrities who donate money, plane tickets, telephone cards and steak dinners.

Yet at a deeper level, the soldiers say they feel alone and frustrated. Seventy-five percent of the troops polled by Walter Reed last March said their experience was "stressful." Suicide attempts and unintentional overdoses from prescription drugs and alcohol, which is sold on post, are part of the narrative here.

Vera Heron spent 15 frustrating months living on post to help care for her son. "It just absolutely took forever to get anything done," Heron said. "They do the paperwork, they lose the paperwork. Then they have to redo the paperwork. You are talking about guys and girls whose lives are disrupted for the rest of their lives, and they don't put any priority on it."

Family members who speak only Spanish have had to rely on Salvadoran housekeepers, a Cuban bus driver, the Panamanian bartender and a Mexican floor cleaner for help. Walter Reed maintains a list of bilingual staffers, but they are rarely called on, according to soldiers and families and Walter Reed staff members.

Evis Morales's severely wounded son was transferred to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda for surgery shortly after she arrived at Walter Reed. She had checked into her government-paid room on post, but she slept in the lobby of the Bethesda hospital for two weeks because no one told her there is a free shuttle between the two facilities. "They just let me off the bus and said 'Bye-bye,' " recalled Morales, a Puerto Rico resident.

Morales found help after she ran out of money, when she called a hotline number and a Spanish-speaking operator happened to answer.

"If they can have Spanish-speaking recruits to convince my son to go into the Army, why can't they have Spanish-speaking translators when he's injured?" Morales asked. "It's so confusing, so disorienting."

Soldiers, wives, mothers, social workers and the heads of volunteer organizations have complained repeatedly to the military command about what one called "The Handbook No One Gets" that would explain life as an outpatient. Most soldiers polled in the March survey said they got their information from friends. Only 12 percent said any Army literature had been helpful.

"They've been behind from Day One," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who headed the House Government Reform Committee, which investigated problems at Walter Reed and other Army facilities. "Even the stuff they've fixed has only been patched."

Among the public, Davis said, "there's vast appreciation for soldiers, but there's a lack of focus on what happens to them" when they return. "It's awful."

Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, commander at Walter Reed, said in an interview last week that a major reason outpatients stay so long, a change from the days when injured soldiers were discharged as quickly as possible, is that the Army wants to be able to hang on to as many soldiers as it can, "because this is the first time this country has fought a war for so long with an all-volunteer force since the Revolution."....

Willravel · 11-21-2007, 09:34 AM

I wonder if Bush even views them as human beings. It seems as if he goes through the motions publicly to show sympathy, but the reality is that his and his administration's behavior sends a frighteningly clear message: soldiers are just tools for our ends, not people. If Bush does realize that they are living, feeling human beings, that would suggest that he may be sociopathic. How else could one sit in Walter Reed and watch a man with one leg learn how to walk again, and then go on TV and talk about how it's worth the sacrafice?

Plan9 · 11-21-2007, 09:40 AM

Do you feel bad when you lose pawns during a chess game?

...

Very few people here know what it is like to point a gun at someone and know that you might have to off them in the service of fat rich white guys 8k miles away.

Willravel · 11-21-2007, 09:43 AM

If they were people? Shit yes. I understand the burden of command and if I were a military commander in a real war, I'd understand having to send people to die, but Iraq is a slaughter without meaning.

host · 11-21-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070725-4.html
President Bush Jogs with Wounded Soldiers, Discusses Care For Returning Wounded Warriors
South Lawn
4:25 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I've been running with Max and Allen -- <h3>I mean, Neil.</h3>....

If the president was not distracted, or not "on vacation so much"...as of Aug. 9th, he had <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5042364.html">spent 418 day</a>s of his presidency in Crawford, not to mention the additional time spent at Camp David, Kennebunkport, etc.....he would have made the effort to get Neil's name correct, the first time...it's the same as his own brother's name....and he would have signed an executive order barring the Pentagon attempt to take back the enlistment bonuses:

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004758.php
Pentagon Official on Wounded Vet Story: "We're Not Sure What Happened"
By Paul Kiel - November 21, 2007, 12:34PM
Yesterday, we <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004754.php">noted</a> a story about Iraq veterans who were being asked to return part of their enlistment bonuses because their injuries prevented them from completing their tours. The story focused on one vet in particular, Jordan Fox from Pittsburgh.

Well, the story kicked up something of a firestorm, so Brigadier General Michael Tucker, deputy commanding general of Walter Reed (he was tapped after the scandal broke), showed up on Fox News early this morning.

Reacting to Fox's case, he said, "We're not sure what happened but we're gonna fix it." <h3>Here's the clip:</h3>
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004758.php

The problem goes far beyond just that one soldier, though. No numbers are available, but the story yesterday quoted estimates by veterans groups that this sort of thing happened to "thousands" of others.

Tucker said that army policy "is that soldiers who are wounded in combat or have line of duty investigation injuries... we will not go after a recoupment of any bonuses they receive." Recouping bonuses, he said, "doesn't pass the common sense test."

But notice that phrasing. While that policy, if implemented, would prevent injured soldiers from having to pay back bonuses they'd already received, they might still not receive their full enlistment bonus. That's because the Army could still withhold parts of the bonus on the basis that the soldiers didn't complete their full tour due to the injury.

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who introduced a bill last month that would require the Pentagon to pay bonuses to wounded vets in full within 30 days after discharge for combat-related wounds, said he was "heartened" by Tucker's announcement this morning that the Army won't seek repayment of bonuses. He added:

“However, I am disappointed that the policy does not go further by stating that wounded soldiers will also receive the remaining balance of future bonus payments. It is preposterous for our government to have a policy that says that a soldier who has sustained serious injuries in the field of battle has not fulfilled his or her service obligation."

Pentagon rules, Altmire says, prevent enlistees from receiving their full enlistment bonus unless they fulfill their entire military obligation.

Plan9 · 11-21-2007, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If they were people? Shit yes. I understand the burden of command and if I were a military commander in a real war, I'd understand having to send people to die, but Iraq is a slaughter without meaning.

How exactly did you learn / experience the burden of command? *points to C&C: Red Alert CD*

I've been in charge of XX men and X million dollars of equipment in a "mildly unfriendly" zone and the really scary thing that I learned from it was that the more you have to manage in an increasingly dangerous environment... the easier it is to assign numbers and strip away faces. It becomes resource management. My team members became their attributes and I ranked them in my head based on how physically useful they were instead of our friendships / their families / human crap.

NCO perspective: These guys are my ants and I keep them alive because our team is a cohesive unit that benefits from the effort of all members.

Officer perspective: The Army is an ant farm and nobody in charge of the ant farm looses much sleep over the loss of a few ants as long as other 99% of the colony survives.

host · 11-21-2007, 10:06 AM

Isn't this a disater, close to a "decimation" of fielded US troops, via casualty stats incurred by the total number of US troops who have served in Iraq?
....Consider figures this high, that don't even include wounded medivaced out of Iraq.....

Quote:

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
32,348 Total U.S. Iraq War Casualties Total Excludes Soldiers Who Required Evacuation by Medical Air Transport
with Non-Hostile Injuries and Illnesses as of 10/31/07 29,584
Total US Iraq War Casualties Plus Soldiers Evacuated: 61,932
3,859 Dead 28,489 Wounded

How could they credibly say that "they didn't know" that enlistment bonus paybacks were being demanded by DOD, until the fifth year of this war?

Willravel · 11-21-2007, 10:08 AM

I've managed people since I was 16 (admittedly in a work environment, not a military environment). I've found that if you treat subordinates like human beings, they work better. I mean I'd treat them like human beings even if it didn't make them work better, but it's a good arrangement. If I was responsible for any number of soldiers, I'd do my best to make sure that the mission was successful while simultaneously making sure that they weren't at undue risk. I don't want to lost 12 men simply because they didn't have adequate armor or because they were driving a truck that goes from 0-60 in 12 months.

Plan9 · 11-21-2007, 10:09 AM

Ya know... it took the Army over a year to get my enlistment bonus processed. So long that they took taxes out of it despite the fact I was deployed (tax free income) when they should have authorized and transferred it.

I had lost an arm or a leg and would be living on DOD disability for the rest of my life... my $XXk bonus wouldn't really be a major concern.

Sucks that this happens, but the real travesty is the VA not paltry amounts of enlistment bonus money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I've found that if you treat subordinates like human beings, they work better.

Not when people are trying to kill you!

host · 11-21-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I've managed people since I was 16 (admittedly in a work environment, not a military environment). I've found that if you treat subordinates like human beings, they work better. I mean I'd treat them like human beings even if it didn't make them work better, but it's a good arrangement. If I was responsible for any number of soldiers, I'd do my best to make sure that the mission was successful while simultaneously making sure that they weren't at undue risk. I don't want to lost 12 men simply because they didn't have adequate armor or because they were driving a truck that goes from 0-60 in 12 months.

How many vacation days have you taken, since Jan. 20, 2001?
I can anticipate the argument, "the POTUS is working, even when he is in Crawford...." The news reports of the way he spent his days, "working" in the fall of 2002, 2004, 2006, clearly show that he was actively campaigning for himself or for allied candidates during those months. I'll concede that those travel and speech making days were "work" days, if you'll concede that, during "a time of war", even half of 418 days spent in Crawford, especially in view of the results of this president's tenure, would be considered excessive....derelict.

Plan9 · 11-21-2007, 10:22 AM

Willravel · 11-21-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

How many vacation days have you taken, since Jan. 20, 2001?

Not including holidays or being sick? Not one. Just another way I'm more responsible than the so called leader of the free world? I guess so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I can anticipate the argument, "the POTUS is working, even when he is in Crawford...." The news reports of the way he spent his days, "working" in the fall of 2002, 2004, 2006, clearly show that he was actively campaigning for himself or for allied candidates during those months. I'll concede that those travel and speech making days were "work" days, if you'll concede that, during "a time of war", even half of 418 days spent in Crawford, especially in view of the results of this president's tenure, would be considered excessive....derelict.

I wish people would let me go visit my multi million dollar ranch for 4 weeks at a time where I play with my dog and chop wood and call it work. I wish I could take a few days to visit family on the East coast.

Ustwo · 11-21-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

How many vacation days have you taken, since Jan. 20, 2001?
I can anticipate the argument, "the POTUS is working, even when he is in Crawford...." The news reports of the way he spent his days, "working" in the fall of 2002, 2004, 2006, clearly show that he was actively campaigning for himself or for allied candidates during those months. I'll concede that those travel and speech making days were "work" days, if you'll concede that, during "a time of war", even half of 418 days spent in Crawford, especially in view of the results of this president's tenure, would be considered excessive....derelict.

Is there a straw you will not grasp?

Christ you would think this was 1940 and if the president wasn't at the Whitehouse there was no reliable way to contact him or for him to contact others.

Not to bring up a BJ by a fat chick, but because that was in the Whitehouse was it 'work'? Well for Clinton? For her its in the definition. Now why do I bring that up? Because quite frankly host you don't have a clue what is done where, by who when. Maybe hes out pulling his pud on the ranch, maybe hes in constant meetings, but you don't know, you just want something else to bitch about incessantly.

And yes presidents campaign, its part of the job, its part of the system, its sadly unavoidable. As far as I know the only president in recent history that tried to get involved in every detail was Carter. You might recall how well that worked out

Willravel · 11-21-2007, 11:03 AM

Straws? The idiot was on vacation for months at a time right before 9/11, when it's been uncovered since there was a shitton of intel ranging from the UK to even now the Mussaud that there would be an attack, and that information was DISMISSED by Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et all. His vacationing, his being a couch potato instead of being a leader, has everything to do with the shitty state our country is in.

loquitur · 11-21-2007, 01:31 PM

heh....... well I just read that George and Laura went on record saying that Hillary is a very impressive candidate, formidable, and likely to be a good president if elected. Click here.

What the...........?????!!!!!!! There has to be some sort of Macchiavellian calculation in there, but I gotta tell you, that's just weird.

Willravel · 11-21-2007, 01:44 PM

George is an idiot and Laura is a deer in headlights. They were probably asked a question they weren't ready to answer.

Ustwo · 11-21-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

heh....... well I just read that George and Laura went on record saying that Hillary is a very impressive candidate, formidable, and likely to be a good president if elected. Click here.

What the...........?????!!!!!!! There has to be some sort of Macchiavellian calculation in there, but I gotta tell you, that's just weird.

Maybe its a cunning reverse psychology ploy.

Hilary has pretended to be a moderate for 7 years now (see my sig for an example), the republicans need a radical if they are going to stand a chance.

filtherton · 11-21-2007, 01:50 PM

The funny thing is that for all the shrill hatred that many on the right have for clinton, she's probably the most republican-ish candidate on the "likely to be elected" roster.

host · 11-21-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

....Because quite frankly host you don't have a clue what is done where, by who when. Maybe hes out pulling his pud on the ranch, maybe hes in constant meetings, but you don't know, you just want something else to bitch about incessantly.

And yes presidents campaign, its part of the job, its part of the system, its sadly unavoidable. As far as I know the only president in recent history that tried to get involved in every detail was Carter. You might recall how well that worked out

Ustwo, I owned and managed a service business. I analyzed and responded to customer complaints. I worked mightily to avoid receiving repetitive complaints over the same or similar deficiency. Mr. Bush already received his 2007 wake up call about neglect of the wounded....the reports of wounded at Walter Reed living in squalor and maggots, urine and feces:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...033000200.html
At Walter Reed, Bush Offers an Apology
After Touring Hospital and Visiting Patients, He Vows to 'Fix the Problem'

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 31, 2007; Page A01

.....The president inspected new accommodations for patients who had been living in squalid quarters and visited a physical therapy room to talk with soldiers who lost arms or legs in Iraq only to find themselves lost in a broken system back home. The stories they told him about their frustrations at Walter Reed, he said later, left him troubled and reinforced his commitment to resolve their grievances. "I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong," he said in a speech to hospital staff members after the tour. "It is not right to have someone volunteer to wear our uniform and not get the best possible care. I apologize for what they went through, and we're going to fix the problem."

The visit provoked more emotional responses on an issue that has stirred deep anger across the country, triggered congressional hearings, and resulted in the dismissal of the Army secretary and two generals. Some derided Bush's tour as a political stunt, while others expressed appreciation for the symbolism as long as it will be accompanied by real change at Walter Reed and throughout the system of medical care for veterans.

<h3>"What they don't want is another photo op,"</h3> Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who visited the facility on Wednesday, said in an interview. "They are very angry and frustrated with that. We all go up and stand with them and get back in our vans and go away. They stay behind, angry in their wheelchairs."....

Bush took "another photo op" from the two wounded troops that he jogged with at the white house in july, even as the pentagon was hitting up other wounded soldiers for money due to the unserved portion of the period specified in their enlistment contracts.

This time, docking bonuses of wounded by DOD is inexcusable. All the absentee president had to do to avoid this was to appoint a staff member to monitor how the wounded and their families are treated. A legislative liason with this as a priority would have been aware of the proposed legislation to end this practice.

Clearly, we know enough to credibly say that the president is not committed enough to his responsibilities of official office. Just as in the issue of how the DOD repsonds to the combat wounded troops, even after all the reporting about he spends his time, in between doing what is billed as one of the most important and challenging jobs in the entire world,

Bush and his staff have done nothing to strengthen his commitement to his work. His stint as US president is a carbon copy of his stint at TANG in the early 70's...job performance below the minimum required, absent from duty much of the time....

This is not "about Clinton". Clinton was not in office in the midst of a two front war and chanllenged by a dramatic currency and debt deterioration. Clinton had a reputation as the brightest one in any room that he was present in, and as a workaholic. Bush has no commitment to a government problem solving role. Bush, as Reagan did, believes in a diminished role for government, professing little positive faith in the effectiveness of, or the potential for government to improve society, so they both have set records for time spent away from Washington, spent on personal pursuits during their presidencies.

Do you have the slightest idea how you come off, criticizing me in response to my pointing out a well supported glimpse of Bush's abysmal record. It doesn't change his record when you respond to information about it by shooting the messenger...it just makes you appear like you do on this forum.

<h2>3-1/2 Years Ago:</h2>

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
Powell Calls U.S. Casualties 'Disquieting'

By Dana Milbank and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 9, 2004; Page A16

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday gave the administration's most sober assessment yet of the uprising in Iraq, calling the recent rise in U.S. casualties "disquieting" and acknowledging that coalition allies are "under the most difficult set of circumstances."

Powell served as the administration's point man while President Bush spent the second straight day out of public view on his ranch in Crawford, Tex. In congressional testimony, Powell said that despite the troubles in Iraq, the U.S. military will be able to quell both the new Shiite unrest and the Sunni insurgency within "the next few days and weeks." ....

.... Bush spent the morning watching national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's televised testimony to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, then toured his ranch with Wayne LaPierre Jr., chief executive of the National Rifle Association, and other leaders of hunting groups and gave an interview to Ladies' Home Journal. On Sunday, he is to appear in public at nearby Fort Hood, the home base for seven soldiers recently killed in Baghdad.

Democrats criticized Bush for taking the Easter-week vacation while U.S. forces are struggling to put down an uprising in Iraq. Campaigning in Milwaukee, Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, said: "I notice President Bush is taking some days off down at Crawford, Texas, and I'm told that when he takes days off, you know, he totally relaxes: He doesn't watch television, he doesn't read the newspapers, he doesn't make long-term plans, doesn't worry about the economy. I thought about that for a moment. I said, sounds to me like it's just like life in Washington, doesn't it?"

White House communications director Dan Bartlett retorted that Bush is "not skiing" in Texas, as Kerry did on a recent vacation in Idaho. He said Bush remains in contact with his military advisers and is spending Easter weekend with his family. "Most Americans will understand that," Bartlett said.

This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, <h3>or more than 40 percent of his presidency. .....</h3>

<h2>23 Months Ago:</h2>

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...123001326.html
Down on the Ranch, President Wages War on the Underbrush
Bush Conscripts Aides in Tireless Pursuit of Clearing Ground

By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; Page A03

CRAWFORD, Tex., Dec. 30 -- On most of the 365 days he has enjoyed at his secluded ranch here, President Bush's idea of paradise is to hop in his white Ford pickup truck in jeans and work boots, drive to a stand of cedars, and whack the trees to the ground.

If the soil is moist enough, he will light a match and burn the wood. If it is parched, as it is across Texas now, the wood will sit in piles scattered over the 1,600-acre spread until it is safe for a ranch hand to torch -- or until the president can come home and do the honors himself.

Sometimes this activity is the only official news to come out of what aides call the Western White House. For five straight days since Monday, when Bush retreated to the ranch for his Christmas sojourn, a spokesman has announced that the president, in between intelligence briefings, calls to advisers and bicycling, has spent much of his day clearing brush.

This might strike many Washingtonians as a curious pastime. It does burn a lot of calories. But brush clearing is dusty, it is exhausting (the president goes at it in 100 degree-plus heat), and it is earsplitting, requiring earplugs to dull the chain saw's buzz.

For Bush, who is known to spend early-morning hours hacking at unwanted mesquite, cocklebur weeds, hanging limbs and underbrush only to go back for more after lunch, it borders on obsession.

Aides are corralled to help, although Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a frequent guest, has escaped brush duty. "The tradecraft she uses to get out of it is highly confidential, and I can't discuss it," said national security adviser Steven J. Hadley. To date, no visiting foreign leaders have been conscripted.

The president "clears brush like he rides his bike," said deputy press secretary Trent Duffy, who has sawed beside Bush. "He goes at it."....

11-30-2006, 07:19 AM	#45 (permalink)
Xera Crazy	Anyone who works close with death dehumanizes the people they see die. I personally, would be far more concerned about the person that can sit there and really consider the humanity of the person they are killing; or watching die, that can still do the job well, than I am the guy that MUST see the person he kills or watches die as just a duty of the job. Anyone that can really consider the implications of death, and can still do the job well, has something seriously wrong with them. When civilians join the military they can then request the option of being considered "conscientious objectors" this would allow them, in some cases, to work in clerical or other non combatant positions. In times of drafts this has not allowed anyone to legally refuse to report, it has however allowed SOME to not fight. This is done when possible, but possible when talking about the government is a transient term. It does not always happen. If a soldier were to refuse to go to Iraq after receiving the orders to go, s/he would likely go to jail. It is considered being AWOL. It is against the law to fail to report to the base/unit you are assigned to. You can NOT refuse to follow a legal order. In much the same way that you might expect very bad things to happen to you if you refuse to follow a legal order given by a police officer, soldiers can NOT refuse to follow a legal order. Some things are easy to see as being illegal, killing children, burning down civilian houses, raping women, etc. But, if the CO can later prove that there was in fact LEGAL reason for the order, the soldier that refused to follow will STILL be punished. I've never been in the military. I was set to join right out of high school, but then I got pregnant instead. My ex was a soldier and we decided it would not be in the baby’s best interest for both of us to be in the military. They try, but sometimes married couples get sent to different bases. So I have not been in the military, but I have been closely associated with it. While in Germany with my ex husband I once told his CO that I did not like something that he had said to me. I said it, my then husband did not, and he was still in trouble because he was failing to "control his wife." Where the military is concerned, the UCMJ is more than sacred. It is the absolute of life. As much as I fought against it when it was ruling my life, it is necessary. As for the idea that doing more than wishing our troops well is a waste of time, I would much rather waste my time doing what little I can than sit and do nothing to change conditions. I would much rather be accused of being ineffective than of being apathetic. PS. I apologize for my last post. I got up and forgot I had already copied over my post. Sometimes I can't spell, and sometimes when I feel strongly on an issue I got to going so fast that I make many more typos than is at all acceptable, so I run everything trough a spell checker before posting, and still manage to screw up pretty well. __________________ ~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~ "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." ~Erno Philips

12-01-2006, 04:31 AM	#49 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	I am sorry that you feel that way Rekna. Because not everyone shares that sentiment. Many of my friends and others in our local communities are always sending over care packages and letters to those overseas. Supporting the troops doesn't have to mean more than simply letting them know that we all care, and we all are thinking about them and what they are going through. It is not a political tool. If you look at where all the assistance and care packages etc are coming from, it has NOTHING to do with the politics. Most all groups are organized by family members who have a loved one serving. __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

12-01-2006, 06:58 AM	#50 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	It has NOTHING to do with politics? Bullshit! The Republicans have used the "if you dont support our policies" then you are not "supporting our troops" demogogic rhetoric as a politcal wedge issue since 9/11. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-04-2006, 05:33 AM	#53 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	Yes Rekna, but it is up to the common people to use that phrase in the RIGHT way and voice our opinions. I support the troops in my OWN way, not based on political pressures or belief. __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

11-21-2007, 09:40 AM	#56 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Do you feel bad when you lose pawns during a chess game? ... Very few people here know what it is like to point a gun at someone and know that you might have to off them in the service of fat rich white guys 8k miles away. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 11-21-2007 at 09:43 AM..

11-30-2006, 08:03 AM	#48 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	The term "support our troops" has been spun so much that it now has no meaning. And i'm not sure if it ever did have any meaning. It is now a political tool used to demonize people against the war.

11-21-2007, 09:34 AM	#55 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I wonder if Bush even views them as human beings. It seems as if he goes through the motions publicly to show sympathy, but the reality is that his and his administration's behavior sends a frighteningly clear message: soldiers are just tools for our ends, not people. If Bush does realize that they are living, feeling human beings, that would suggest that he may be sociopathic. How else could one sit in Walter Reed and watch a man with one leg learn how to walk again, and then go on TV and talk about how it's worth the sacrafice?

11-21-2007, 09:43 AM	#57 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If they were people? Shit yes. I understand the burden of command and if I were a military commander in a real war, I'd understand having to send people to die, but Iraq is a slaughter without meaning.

11-21-2007, 10:08 AM	#61 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I've managed people since I was 16 (admittedly in a work environment, not a military environment). I've found that if you treat subordinates like human beings, they work better. I mean I'd treat them like human beings even if it didn't make them work better, but it's a good arrangement. If I was responsible for any number of soldiers, I'd do my best to make sure that the mission was successful while simultaneously making sure that they weren't at undue risk. I don't want to lost 12 men simply because they didn't have adequate armor or because they were driving a truck that goes from 0-60 in 12 months.

11-21-2007, 10:22 AM	#64 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	__________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-21-2007, 11:03 AM	#67 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Straws? The idiot was on vacation for months at a time right before 9/11, when it's been uncovered since there was a shitton of intel ranging from the UK to even now the Mussaud that there would be an attack, and that information was DISMISSED by Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et all. His vacationing, his being a couch potato instead of being a leader, has everything to do with the shitty state our country is in.

11-21-2007, 01:31 PM	#68 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	heh....... well I just read that George and Laura went on record saying that Hillary is a very impressive candidate, formidable, and likely to be a good president if elected. Click here. What the...........?????!!!!!!! There has to be some sort of Macchiavellian calculation in there, but I gotta tell you, that's just weird.

11-21-2007, 01:44 PM	#69 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	George is an idiot and Laura is a deer in headlights. They were probably asked a question they weren't ready to answer.

11-21-2007, 01:50 PM	#71 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The funny thing is that for all the shrill hatred that many on the right have for clinton, she's probably the most republican-ish candidate on the "likely to be elected" roster.