Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalor

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sprayber
A couple of years ago we got a new Training NCO and all he was interested in doing was marking time until retirment. Thankfully that didnt last long when the new commander came in.

ROADs are always fun.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
However, there is another issue. Members of the military consistantly vote Republican and conservative. To fund tax cuts, especially since the Gingrich House back in the 1990's, support services have been "contracted out" and veterans benefits reduced whenever politicians thought they could get away with it.

Nice generalizations, but if you listen to the Barbara Boxers of the Democratic Party and their rhetoric, you can see why military personnel wouldn't vote for them. And they're not exactly known for funding veteran's benefits, either.

The VA system sucks - if I was given a choice between treatment in a VA hospital, or self-treatment with whatever materials I could lay my hands on (even if that was limited to a hacksaw and a bag of ready-mix), 99.9% of the time I'd opt for self-treatment. The VA sucked when they killed my uncle, they sucked when they killed my brother, and they still suck. In fact, from the creation of the agency onwards, the VA medical system has generally been pretty abysmal, regardless of who was in office.

The Bush administration has taken this to new lows, rescinding Clinton administration initiatives to go out and encourage veterans to take advantage of their benefits.

What initiatives, lol. It was during the Clinton administration that the VA ****ed over my brother and then his widow and kids. And I've known a lot of veterans and their survivors who've been in a similar situation, due to my involvement in Agent Orange issues.

The Bush administration is not your old traditional Republican party - they support a leaner, meaner military, which translates to fewer Main Battle Tanks, and more Stryker light combat vehicles, which are deployed easier (read more cheaply) and could not pass the required heavy machine gun ballistics test (read a 50 caliber HMG will penetrate them). But heck, we'll still deploy them, with little armor appliques that might work rather than flunk them. Since an RPG 7 shaped charge round will penetrate them, we'll deploy them with screen cages to pre-detonate them, we hope (and if not, well, it's only one crew that dies). I guess General Dynamics gave the Bush Reelection Committee enough money.

More nice generalizations, but if you haven't noticed, nobody comes out to play with our M1A2 brigades. The impetus behind the Stryker (which is a royal piece of ****) came from within the Army itself, with a bunch of Chairborne Lima Delta's in the Pentagon who decided that wheeled vehicles were the future of mechanized warfare - never mind that the Germans learned that lesson in WW2 and the Soviets learned it later in Afghanistan. They've long had their nose up the asses of their benefactors on the Hill, and made sure to protect themselves and shaft the enemy in promotion boards, etc.

[Az]

It seems that our army is on the Stryker bandvagon, as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

There used to be a really "interesting" video clip online of what happened to a fully loaded BTR-80 going over an improvised anti-vehicle mine.

The thing with mechanized infantry instead of light fighters and airborne is that by definition they're lazy ****ers who'd rather ride than walk - they don't see the point of spending most of your time dismounted and providing flank security plus examing the road or flat terrain you're on for signs of booby traps.

Wheeled vehicles are too constrained by terrain, so it's fairly easy to find places where their movements can be channeled into killing zones, or you find that the drivers and commanders are under too much pressure to move fast or cover lots of ground, so they can get roadbound for operational as well as terrain reasons.

[Kirnwaffen]

Even on active duty, my cousin holds on to his original medical records, and, the last time he came home, he hadn't been paid in six months.

[Mr. Harley]

Michael the Great wrote: Nice generalizations, but if you listen to the Barbara Boxers of the Democratic Party and their rhetoric, you can see why military personnel wouldn't vote for them. And they're not exactly known for funding veteran's benefits, either.

Sorry, didn't make my point clear. I don't support the Barbara Boxers. I also don't support the "new" Republican party, and the neoconservative movement behind it. I used to like John Kerry, and was for John McCain except he was eliminated before I got to vote for him in our Republican primary. That was due to a concerted effort by the Republican party establishment, which does not necessarily represent the viewpoint of Republican voters.

I also vote for Democrats, choosing whoever votes for my social libertarian (I firmly believe the government's job is NOT legislating morality, but instead providing a generally safe nation where I have the freedom to go about my own business) and I guess what is now is considered a fiscal radical - I believe in balanced budgets with honest accounting. Since the tax-cut and pass-on-the-deficit-to-our-kids neo-conservatives took over the Republican party aparatus, I've given up on voting on that issue, both parties are irresponsible (yes, the Democratic party record on that is terrible - but right now the Republicans are controlling the budget, and my vote is on my representatives' record, not the party record - I bother to look up how they vote. Yes, Virginia, some of us still bother to ignore ads and actually look up a candidates record.)

However, to associate Democrats and Barbara Boxer is guilt by association, something you'll notice I took pains to avoid. Some Democrats are strongly pro-military and pro-defense, and they deserve the votes of those in the active military. Note that I specifically identified a specific constituency in the Republican party (neoconservatives, their own label for themselves!) who I have a real issue with. My statement about active military and voting patterns is not a generalization, but exactly to the point. If they can be relied on as a population - statistally determined, not generalization - then those Republicans who run against the truly genuine interests of a strong military can safely hide under the label (I'm Republican) and vote in ways tremendously damaging to the military, both active service and vets.

What initiatives, lol. It was during the Clinton administration that the VA ****ed over my brother and then his widow and kids. And I've known a lot of veterans and their survivors who've been in a similar situation, due to my involvement in Agent Orange issues.

Read up on your news and the adminstrative initiatives that are within the power of the executive branch. The Clinton administration specifically tried to inform veterans of their benefits, at least towards the end of the administration. The Bush adminstration quietly rescinded the initiative. Draw you own conclusions.

The quality of the services provided to our veterans is scandalous, and the fact the general voter does not make it an issue is an indictment of our country. Not just the politicians, but the voters who let them get away with it budget after budget (the House and Senate set the spending, not the President). The Democrats while in control of the Senate and the House were no friend of vets. But the Republicans have been in control of the House since 1994, and the Senate more or less since 1996 except for that hiccup w/Jeffers. They have spend substantially more effort, time, and PR on taxcuts than on VA benefits.

Your brother was killed (I believe the term negligent homicide probably is appropriate with the hideous denial campaign over Agent Orange) by an incompetant VA system that extends back, well, both Patton, MacArther, and Eisenhower essentially savaged peaceful vets in 1931, trying to get their benefits promised them just after WW1. Civil War vets also had terrible problems. It just goes to show that this is a long-standing American tradition.

More nice generalizations, but if you haven't noticed, nobody comes out to play with our M1A2 brigades. The impetus behind the Stryker (which is a royal piece of ****) came from within the Army itself,

Did you bother to read my post? WE AGREE! If I did not think the Stryker was a degredation in our combat preparedness, then I wouldn't have complained. I state it's going to get more GI's killed. Implicit. Than what. The current armored force of Bradley's and M1 Abrams. I can spell it out next time with my first post, but make for a much longer post (compare this to my last one), which I had hoped wasn't necessary .

Again, you're right but you need to check your news stories, the little "tidbits" of info that sneak accross our radar screen. First of all, who is advocating the new "faster, meaner" military. Mr. Rumsfield, the current Secretary of Defense. That I will blame the George Bush for. He appointed the man. There was a test between the new Stryker and the proposed M113A4 or whatever name they have for it now (at Fort Knox), with new composite armor, and extended track base, and I don't know if it included the new high-speed band tracks. The military won't release the results, but anecdotal evidence at some Military forum sites from people claiming to be there state unequivocally the Stryker was obviously inferior.

Plus, the DOD was supposed to have a comparitive evaluation of the Stryker versus alternatives unless waived by either the administration or Congress, I cannot remember which (that takes alot of digging and my notes are at home - I'm on break). In I believe 2001 the waiver was granted. Note it HAS to be Republicans who granted the waiver, and I will argue for Neoconservative. I saw an analysis that guestimated the rebuild cost for an upgrade M113 to be in six figures, versus over 2 million for the Stryker. Apiece.

Being in bed and cozy with military contractores again is a great American tradition from both parties. This time, and this case, specifically sits with both DOD, the current adminstration, and the House and Senate armed forces committees. Since the Republicans are in contol of all but the DOD, and get to appoint their generals inside the DOD (dissenters always get nailed by whoever is in charge, but look what has happened to dissenters in recent years and what happened to DOD and intelligence people who tried to warn the Bush adminstration about problems in Iraq), I can sit the Stryker fiasco squarely in the lap of the Republican party. This is specifically a case a trading soldiers lives for money, influence, and agenda.

The Kennedy administation did it in Vietnam (reference both equipment and dealing with the civilian side of the conflict), and the idiots in charge right now haven't learned a d@#*med thing from history.

George W. Bush at a Yale speech in 2001 - "And to the C students, I say: You, too, can be president of the United States. "

I guess he must have gotten one of his C's in History. Or given that he had a C average, maybe that was one of his D's. The answer to the Stryker test fiasco. The first unit will be deplyed in Iraq NEXT YEAR. I rest my case.

Edited becauase I accidently posted before I finished