Comments on: Rubbing Salt In the Wound(ed)

By: Anonyomous

Anonyomous — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:49:03 +0000

Hey, check out this website and support troops and anti-abortion in one fell swoop:

http://www.misspoppy.com/catal.....ctid=16346

By: Julie

Julie — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:42:10 +0000

It is definitely disgusting how the wounded vets are treated. My friend was hurt over in Iraq a few years ago. Luckily he is okay now and not suffering any physical ill effects. However, he was just at Walter Reed fighting for a friend of his who lost his eyesight and his ear, among other things, who is not getting all the compensation or help he deserves. I can’t understand why we aren’t trying to help the people who serve this country better.

I understand that a lot of these bonuses are being handed out now to encourage more people to sign up because they need to boost their enlistment numbers. You have some soldiers who are on their 3rd, 4th and 5th tours of duty over to Iraq. Someone said something about sucking it up since they signed up for free healthcare, and school and 0% loans, etc. That may be the instance for some people, but not for all of them. My friend went to college on his own dime and then when he was done with school, he didn’t know what to do with himself and signed up for the Army, figuring he could give back to the county. This was Pre-9/11. A lot of people signed up after the attack to support the fight because they love their country. Now years later the numbers of people enlisting into the Army have declined because the war isn’t going well, people aren’t supporting the troops and there are too many horrible stories out there which speak on how the wounded soldiers are being treated when they get back.

A lot of people are just misinformed about everything going on. And there is a lot of cover up so all these stories aren’t getting out about what is going on behind the scenes. I know I haven’t read up on everything, but I see bits and pieces. I am no expert… but there is a lot of fishy stuff going on!

By: john proffer

john proffer — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:08:11 +0000

Wow.. I’m shocked, but not totally surprised. The US Government will screw you every which way to next Thursday if they thought they could get away with it. Geez.

Hopefully whoever wins the next presidental election will focus on cleaning up Bush’s mess.

By: Ponder

Ponder — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:06:10 +0000

I completely agree with you that, in the event a solider suffers injuries that will prevent him/her from continuing to serve in the military, he/she should be allowed to retain full rights over the promised monetary bonuses.

Just for the record, are all the cases you were referring to about soldiers that became injured within the initial three months?

By: kim

kim — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:36:59 +0000

When the war first began they were only using high school graduates too. It’s supposed to be a “high-tech” war, so “educated troops” were needed and therefore we couldn’t use high school drop outs because we weren’t doing hand-to-hand combat. Well–guess what?? One of my son’s friend’s dropped out of high school and he is in Iraq right now! I asked my son how he could get in the military when they weren’t taking high school drop outs. “That all changed with the war!” he said, “They’re desparate for troops now, so they take anyone.” It’s true. At some point in the past four years, they’ve changed the requirements so they allow high school drop-outs. It used to be a fully volunteer military. Now I’m not so sure. It looks like some of the people going over there now are kids who probably have no other choice. THIS kid didn’t. His parents didn’t want him. He was homeless. It was a sad story. I would have taken him in if I had known but I found out too late. Before you know it, they’ll be sending 16-year-olds over to Iraq. (sigh)

By: Vikki

Vikki — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:24:41 +0000

Pondering:

Basically, the bonus is to guarantee that you’ll be in the military for a minimum of three months, in Jordan Fox’s case. According to several friends with ties to the military, the bonuses can range in monetary value as well as the time committment in order to earn that bonus.

Which makes sense. But what if you get seriously injuried? I think you should be able to keep the bonus, because if not for that injury more likely than not they would have fulfilled that obligation.

By: Michele Ketcham

Michele Ketcham — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:15:07 +0000

This doesn’t surprise me one bit. After all, the Bush administration has already forced the reserves to serve much, much longer than they were supposed to. My husband’s father’s girlfriend is in reserves, and she was only supposed to serve up to a year. But so far she’s served almost 2 1/2 years, and there are many reserves in the same boat as her, and it’s quite a widespread problem.

What we are seeing is an extreme level of desperation by the Bush administration: they know they don’t have enough soldiers…and they know they’re running out of money, since Congress has made it clear that they will not keep writing blank checks to cover the cost of the war.

By: Pondering

Pondering — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:43:10 +0000

Can you elaborate a little bit on the military position here: what’s their argument for asking wounded soldiers to pay them back? What’s the “time specified” you’re referring to? How widespread is this practice? Just curious to hear what’s the other side’s perspective.