NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm

Congress appears ready to slash funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts, an injury that military scientists describe as a signature wound of the Iraq war.

House and Senate versions of the 2007 Defense appropriation bill contain $7 million for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center — half of what the center received last fiscal year.

So let me see if I have this straight. Somehow wanting our troops back home and out of harm's way ASAP is unAmerican and is disrespectful of our troops, but cutting by half the budget to help treat the most pervasive type of injury in the War is giving our troops a ticker-tape parade?

Would ANY of you object to shelling out an extra fraction of a dollar in taxes to help our troops?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm

So let me see if I have this straight. Somehow wanting our troops back home and out of harm's way ASAP is unAmerican and is disrespectful of our troops, but cutting by half the budget to help treat the most pervasive type of injury in the War is giving our troops a ticker-tape parade?

Would ANY of you object to shelling out an extra fraction of a dollar in taxes to help our troops?

No, I wouldn't object.

But, those are two different things. When someone orders me to cut and run, it's just as insulting to me.

Why don't you ask a soldier, instead of assuming what they think?

But if they don't cut funding for veterans and veteran illnesses, they won't be able to buy the 18, $132mil each F-22s, or the new ground assault vehicles, or rockets, or anything else like that.

But if they don't cut funding for veterans and veteran illnesses, they won't be able to buy the 18, $132mil each F-22s, or the new ground assault vehicles, or rockets, or anything else like that.
Well, they could get rid of tax cuts for the rich, and money for the poor.

No, I wouldn't object.

But, those are two different things. When someone orders me to cut and run, it's just as insulting to me.

Why don't you ask a soldier, instead of assuming what they think?

Do all soldiers think with one mind? Are you representative of all soldiers? Are they happy that they are in the middle of a developing Civil War while Congress cuts up their benefits?

Who said anything about "cutting and running"?

How about I use an equally imflammatory and inaccurate phrase to describe "staying the course"?

How would you feel if you were ordered to "stay and die in the middle of an ungrateful populace that mostly wants you dead."? How's that for playing word games? You wanna keep playing word games?

On the other hand, we could call leaving Iraq by a nicer name, such as "strategic withdrawl".

Is retreat NEVER an option, DK? You'd make a sorry excuse for a tactician if that's how you think. You'd be a miserable excuse for a businessman as well.

Because it's better to shell out on better military training to PREVENT these injuries in the first place.

And comparing Iraq to Vietnam is silly.

Because it's better to shell out on better military training to PREVENT these injuries in the first place.

And comparing Iraq to Vietnam is silly.
You mean to prevent injuries caused by happenings beyond one's control, regardless of level of training?

Do all soldiers think with one mind? Are you representative of all soldiers? Are they happy that they are in the middle of a developing Civil War while Congress cuts up their benefits?.

No, I'm not representative of all soldiers, but I speak with quite a few every day.

None of them, including the ones I speak to in Iraq and Afghanistan, want to leave.

They feel that it would be far worse if we were to leave now.

And it would be "cutting your losses and running away".

I've got a great idea. I can TG you the link to a forum full of active duty soldiers. You can go over there and propose that we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and see what kind of response you get.

You mean to prevent injuries caused by happenings beyond one's control, regardless of level of training?


How are happenings beyond ones control?

If you can improve America's air combat capability, and thus reduce the amount of people that need to be deployed on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.

If you can develop automatic (drone) combat vehicles to reduce the amount of troops on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.

In general, once you increase the efficiency of the military, then YOUR SOLDIERS GET HURT LESS.

Because it's better to shell out on better military training to PREVENT these injuries in the first place.

And comparing Iraq to Vietnam is silly.

So you're calling Iraq a silly war? It's not worthy of the same level of consideration as Vietnam? The body count isn't sufficiently high for you?

If you can improve America's air combat capability, and thus reduce the amount of people that need to be deployed on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.
You do realize you cannot fight a battle with solely aerial capability. Especially against an enemy with no aerial capability and against a non-traditional enemy. You cannot reduce the people needed on the ground by increasing air presence.

In general, once you increase the efficiency of the military,
You cannot reduce people needed on the ground by increasing air presence, human or otherwise. Until the US develops terminator robots or Cylons or something, ground troops will be needed wherever there are hotspots.

How are happenings beyond ones control?

If you can improve America's air combat capability, and thus reduce the amount of people that need to be deployed on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.

If you can develop automatic (drone) combat vehicles to reduce the amount of troops on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.

In general, once you increase the efficiency of the military, then YOUR SOLDIERS GET HURT LESS.
They also get hurt less if they are not busy invading other countries

How are happenings beyond ones control?

If you can improve America's air combat capability, and thus reduce the amount of people that need to be deployed on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.

If you can develop automatic (drone) combat vehicles to reduce the amount of troops on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.

In general, once you increase the efficiency of the military, then YOUR SOLDIERS GET HURT LESS.

So...you're in favor of removing our ground forces? Gee, and when Dems call for that, it's "cutting and running". When someone else calls for it, it's "increasing the efficiency of the military."

How about this Allanea: How about you slash bugetary expenditures for treating brain trauma AFTER you reduce the presence of ground troops?

I've got a great idea. I can TG you the link to a forum full of active duty soldiers. You can go over there and propose that we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and see what kind of response you get.

And what kind of response would I get if I proposed that they stay there in perpetuity? But, as usual, you've steered the conversation away from anything that just might make you think critically of your beloved leaders in the Republican lead Congress who think it's okay to slash funding for brain trauma caused by bombs DURING A WAR THAT IS BEING FOUGHT WITH A HEAVY EMPHASIS ON ROADSIDE BOMBS.

Also, I suggest you look up the origin of the phrase "cutting and running." It is NOT shorthand for "cutting your losses and running away."

Here's a hint: It's a nautical term.

How are happenings beyond ones control?

If you can improve America's air combat capability, and thus reduce the amount of people that need to be deployed on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.

If you can develop automatic (drone) combat vehicles to reduce the amount of troops on the ground, you reduce the amount of injuries.

In general, once you increase the efficiency of the military, then YOUR SOLDIERS GET HURT LESS.

If, If, In general, once. Thanks for being specific.

You say IF we do x, then soldiers will get hurt less.

WHEN the soldiers arent there, they wont get hurt. The minute they leave, they dont get hurt. What is more efficient?

Air Combat? I assume you mean bombing, because I dont see an Al-Qaeda fighter anywhere.

But, those are two different things. When someone orders me to cut and run, it's just as insulting to me.

And "stay there and die" is OK?

And what kind of response would I get if I proposed that they stay there in perpetuity? But, as usual, you've steered the conversation away from anything that just might make you think critically of your beloved leaders in the Republican lead Congress who think it's okay to slash funding for brain trauma caused by bombs DURING A WAR THAT IS BEING FOUGHT WITH A HEAVY EMPHASIS ON ROADSIDE BOMBS.

Also, I suggest you look up the origin of the phrase "cutting and running." It is NOT shorthand for "cutting your losses and running away."

Here's a hint: It's a nautical term.


What kind of response would you get if you asked them to stay until radical Islam was stomped out by re-educating the children and killing all adults who resisted?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm
Would ANY of you object to shelling out an extra fraction of a dollar in taxes to help our troops?


I would. Call me unAmerican, call me heartless, call me what you want, but I stopped caring about our troops about a year ago. Most of them voted for this war. Also I hate to break it to America, but in case you were unaware it is an all volunteer military. Furthermore this means that at some point each soldier made the concious decision to sell off thier right to decide who is thier enemy. That my friends is called a mecenary. Hard to swallow but I feel I am just calling like it is. It is however much easier to swallow after hearing soldier after soldier defend this war and Prez. Bush, and then begin complaining about being there.

you know what would reduce soldiers injuries ands deaths?

not going to war.

why not stay in and have a nice quiet love in.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm



So let me see if I have this straight. Somehow wanting our troops back home and out of harm's way ASAP is unAmerican and is disrespectful of our troops, but cutting by half the budget to help treat the most pervasive type of injury in the War is giving our troops a ticker-tape parade?

Would ANY of you object to shelling out an extra fraction of a dollar in taxes to help our troops?


They need castration these idiots who send us off to war then get all cheap .

They should examine their own fucking brain damage .

What kind of response would you get if you asked them to stay until radical Islam was stomped out by re-educating the children and killing all adults who resisted?
Sounds to me like you're framing the question in such a way that those being asked have two equally untenable options--they can either be cowards who run before the "job" is done, or they can be monsters who commit genocide. But hey, that's your stock in trade, DK.

I'm becoming accepting of the fact that we're in the Middle East for good now. If not Iraq, we'll be elsewhere. Hopefully, European and Asian countries will behave because our hands are tied.

Bush really mussed us all up.

I don't know why I've been posting odd statements from left field all day. I need to shower as I smell foul.

Sounds to me like you're framing the question in such a way that those being asked have two equally untenable options--they can either be cowards who run before the "job" is done, or they can be monsters who commit genocide. But hey, that's your stock in trade, DK.
None that I have talked to want to stop until radical Islam is finished.

But those are all infantrymen. I'm sure the support specialties would rather go home.

None that I have talked to want to stop until radical Islam is finished.

But those are all infantrymen. I'm sure the support specialties would rather go home.
Then they're short-sighted. Radical Islam has existed since the first guy who thought Muhammad was a pussy split off from him. There are radical elements of any group, so saying that you want to stay until radical Islam is finished is like saying you want to stay until you find WMD in Iraq. It ain't gonna happen, and you might as well recognize that fact.

None that I have talked to want to stop until radical Islam is finished.

But those are all infantrymen. I'm sure the support specialties would rather go home.
Then they are idiots if they think they will end a religous movement in their lifetimes

And "stay there and die" is OK?
Stay there until it's stable again is OK.

It's the insurgent's job to die for his beliefs.

Then they are idiots if they think they will end a religous movement in their lifetimes
Not if you re-educate the children, bring a secular government into power, and let a generation or two pass.

Then they're short-sighted. Radical Islam has existed since the first guy who thought Muhammad was a pussy split off from him. There are radical elements of any group, so saying that you want to stay until radical Islam is finished is like saying you want to stay until you find WMD in Iraq. It ain't gonna happen, and you might as well recognize that fact.

So, why don't you tell the women in your life to start wearing burkas, because it's obvious that they're going to win anyway.

Oh, and go down to the mosque and convert so they don't kill you when they get here.

But if they don't cut funding for veterans and veteran illnesses, they won't be able to buy the 18, $132mil each F-22s, or the new ground assault vehicles, or rockets, or anything else like that.



Or paying 500 Billion for the F-35, which, I might add, the Airforce doesn't even want.

Not if you re-educate the children, bring a secular government into power, and let a generation or two pass.
Show me one example where it has worked sucessfully because of specific intervention of an invading force

Either way thoes solders will be long gone in a "generation or two" in a war torn envroment, they are going to be drawn to one thing or another I just hope the "another" is not worse then what we are trying to take away

So, why don't you tell the women in your life to start wearing burkas, because it's obvious that they're going to win anyway.

Oh, and go down to the mosque and convert so they don't kill you when they get here.
Not wiping them out is a far cry from them winning, but you knew that. :rolleyes:

Not if you re-educate the children, bring a secular government into power, and let a generation or two pass.
Ask Catholicism how that went with Protestantism.

So, why don't you tell the women in your life to start wearing burkas, because it's obvious that they're going to win anyway.

Oh, and go down to the mosque and convert so they don't kill you when they get here.
Yeah of course cause pointing out the problems with trying to erradicate a religous POV is exactly the same as giving up and leting them do whatever they want :rolleyes:

Ask Catholicism how that went with Protestantism.
Got rid of the Nazi influence in Germany. And it sure changed the viewpoint in Japan.

Got any more arguments?

Not wiping them out is a far cry from them winning, but you knew that. :rolleyes:
You said it was pointless to struggle - so why not surrender now.

Or do you not believe anything that their radicals write, believe, and teach?

Got rid of the Nazi influence in Germany. And it sure changed the viewpoint in Japan.

Got any more arguments?
Who will re-educate those children? The soldiers who enter their homes, or the people who shut off their water?

Why the hell did I even respond, knowing I will get nothing other than a dubious rebuttal?

You said it was pointless to struggle - so why not surrender now.

Or do you not believe anything that their radicals write, believe, and teach?
Way to go from one extreme to another.

You said it was pointless to struggle - so why not surrender now.

Or do you not believe anything that their radicals write, believe, and teach?
Quote me saying that, you lying fuck. Go ahead.

You said it was pointless to struggle - so why not surrender now.

Or do you not believe anything that their radicals write, believe, and teach?
Struggling isn't pointless, but trying to eradicate a religious ideology like that is pointless. You want us to stay in Iraq, kill off the radicals one by one and re-educate their children? Fine, but first you're going to have to do the same to every country in the region without exception. You'll probably have to go farther than that, now that I think about it, and do some ethnic cleansing in Europe and America as well, along with Indonesia and a few other Muslim countries in Asia, just to be sure you didn't miss any. Otherwise, once we leave Iraq the radicals will enter the country, by deception or by force, and start their own reeducation.

We could simply tolerate the existence of radical Islam and let the Muslims sort themsleves out, as an alternative. I don't even know if there is enough of a movement within Islam to do such a thing, but I don't care. Splits within a religious ideology should be dealt with by those who follow that ideology. The terrorists that follow the radical teachings have done a good job of bringing non-Muslims into a Muslim affair and brought a lot of moderates to their side by giving them a common enemy, us. If we finish stablilizing Iraq, then leave and let them sort their own shit out, the radicals won't have the Great Satan to blame for making them kill other Muslims. They'll have to account for their own hatred of fellow Muslims without using the U.S. as a scapegoat, and that would lead to a much greater weakening of radicalism in Islam than any reeducation the West could do.

I've got a great idea. I can TG you the link to a forum full of active duty soldiers. You can go over there and propose that we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and see what kind of response you get.
How about he goes to that forum and suggests that spending to help their injured comrades be cut? You think the response would be better just because a Republican suggested the latter?

How about he goes to that forum and suggests that spending to help their injured comrades be cut? You think the response would be better just because a Republican suggested the latter?
Right now, they're more upset about Democrats who tell them every day on the news that what they've been doing for the past few years is wrong, bad, and evil.

I'm sure the first question they'll ask Gymoor is how much tactical gear he's purchased with his own money and sent to troops directly in combat. Advanced optics that Congress never authorized for everyone (only certain troops, but now a lot of troops go door knocking), etc.

I'm at a little over 15,000 dollars worth of equipment so far. I bet Gymoor is at zero. I'm sure that his credibility will also be zero there.

Right now, they're more upset about Democrats who tell them every day on the news that what they've been doing for the past few years is wrong, bad, and evil.

Name one Dem who says that the troops (the troops in general, not specific soldiers who actually HAVE done something wrong,) are evil.

I'm sure the first question they'll ask Gymoor is how much tactical gear he's purchased with his own money and sent to troops directly in combat. Advanced optics that Congress never authorized for everyone (only certain troops, but now a lot of troops go door knocking), etc.

A) THat what taxes are for. B) Why do you continue to defend the asshats who run congress (Republicans,) when they continuously short-change you guys while you're there and after you get back?

I'm at a little over 15,000 dollars worth of equipment so far. I bet Gymoor is at zero. I'm sure that his credibility will also be zero there.

I applaud you for that. But then again, I nether sent them there nor do I cut their funding once they are there.

Right now, they're more upset about Democrats who tell them every day on the news that what they've been doing for the past few years is wrong, bad, and evil.
Way to dodge my point. Just be honest, call a spade a spade, and admit that the Republicans are being just as bad to the troops as the Democrats supposedly are.

I'm sure the first question they'll ask Gymoor is how much tactical gear he's purchased with his own money and sent to troops directly in combat.
Why should citizens have to buy that? The government is meant to provide military equipment to its soldiers. That's basic.

I'm at a little over 15,000 dollars worth of equipment so far. I bet Gymoor is at zero. I'm sure that his credibility will also be zero there.
"Give us money and we'll agree with you".

They need castration these idiots who send us off to war then get all cheap .

They should examine their own fucking brain damage .

A-fragging-men! (Did we really just agree completely and perfectly on something??? :eek:)