Steve Inskeep's interview with Secretary of Veterans Affairs Gen. Shinseki would indicate … maybe not.
A few key points:
— Steve noted that “it may be startling to some people to realize that the backlog … pending cases, pending disability clams at the V.A. has soared in this year and is now above 700,000.”
Shinseki said that “last year when we talked … (it was) probably 4 to 500,000.”
What happened?
The V.A. closed about 900,000 cases last year, Shinseki said, “and then we got 1 million cases back in. These are new cases, for the most part.”
— Has the weak economy meant that many veterans who used to have employer-provided health care are now turning to the V.A. for help?
“That's a good point,” Shinseki said. “Over the past, probably 18 months, the economic downturn has had that impact on families.”
— Homelessness among veterans has also contributed to the increase in the backlog of cases, Shinseki said. While the department has “committed to ending homelessness” among veterans within five years, the effort is “just not going fast enough.”
The idea that we're not providing adequate support for people who have given their souls, bodies, and minds for our safety … it's just damned shocking. The very phrase “homeless vet” is appalling in and of itself.
Maybe something on which we can get bipartisan movement in the new Congress. Just a thought.
<
p>The fact that our country would send our soldiers into harms way without adequate protection and then leave them homeless when they return really says something about what America is. It’s infuriating.
I stand in awe of your courage and commitment. You are, without question, the most honorable citizens of our country.
<
p>
The problem is not with the VA but rather with the large number of Veterans who have filed PTSD claims. Many of them don’t have a claim at all and it is their appeals on top of appeals that clog the system.
It’s easy to classify somebody with physical problems. The hidden psychological problems are a crap shoot to sort out because there are so many claims that have to be verified.
Maybe the government just errs on the side of being cheap.
I’ve known people who provided services in the VA. There’s not enough money to meet the demand, and so they put up roadblocks to keep whatever is inside the VA at a manageable level.
Rush Limbaugh made $58 million last year. He and the other rich people can contribute a few more pennies on the dollar to help our vets.
Too little, too late? Denied Vets get care for Agent Orange exposure
Govt. looks for ways to deny claims and responsibility…Agent orange being the most telling…(look at 9/11 responders and construction workers who responded, they are still fighting for govt. to recognize the serious health consequences to them)…
<
p>You know a nation’s priorities by how they spend their capital resources…the US favors military spending which requires unending war…and the loss of our greatest capital, our sons and daughters.
<
p>That we ask people to fight for us and then treat them with disrespect is a national shame.
The formula used to be quite simple if a man had a Conbat Infantryman’s Badge,or Marine Combat Action Ribbon, or other indicators of combat such as medals for valor or a Purple Heart it would follow stressers were indicated.
Being in a rear area bunker while a base got mortared is not a stresser unless the bunker is hit and people are killed and wounded. Now go back to the roots of PTSD and they called it shell shock but the difference is it was constant bombardment during WWI.
Several years ago the VA started relying on official after action reports because of all the phony claims, accompanied with I’ll swear to your lies letters. Even today I could write out a phony PTSD claim and get it through by just knowing the unit a person served in.
It would never happen but I’d like to see some of these people take polygraph tests. Believe me some of the best and most gruesome war stories I’ve ever heard come from people who never knowingly saw a live enemy soldier.
As with all government agencies, the VA is numbers driven. It has X amount of dollars to shell out for services and claims. A dozen years ago a claim for a disability was relatively easy when the WW2 veterans were dying off and there hadn’t been any serious wars. The VA feared their jobs endangered. They were awash in money.
<
p>That changed. Even the VFW, which assists veterans with claims, has a tough time getting claims through.
<
p>I don’t expect Congress to help, there are banks and large corporations to nurture. What’s one vote when millions of dollars of political contributions are on the line? Doesn’t every generation go through this?
<
p>You brought a smile to my face with, “best and most gruesome war stories I’ve ever heard”. I remember a guy talking to me in a line at a deployment station. He had a long gruesome story about Vietnam.
<
p>”Oh, I was at Dong Ba Thin, where were you?”
<
p>”Ah… Chung King.”, he said.
…it is the entire claims process that is gumming up the system…not just PTSD claims. In fact Obama and all have implemented regulations that that allows for PTSD treatment without going thorough the claims process.
<
p>In fact, one solution to solving the claims process is to simply end it. The system we have in place amuses the veteran did not suffer an injury and we place the burden of proof on them to prove it beyond any doubt. They have to sight the battles they were in, who was with them to verify the battle, ect. And as you point out, PTSD may not be attributable to one event, but rather a combination of 4 one year tours dealing with 1000 days of combat stress.
<
p>Why do we force people who have voluntarily served our country and risked their lives to such a close examination. Every year millions of Americans file a tax return, claiming deductions and we cut them refund cuts based on their word. We then randomly audit people to keep the system honest and if people aren’t, we send them to jail. Don’t veterans desire the same kind of honer-code system? Let a vet file for claims on a “short form” and have the claims audited and if their is issues, there will be consequences for the bad apples. For the vast majority of legit claims, the system will be cheaper to run and far more responsive to those in need.
Pogo,
The problem is as I stated earlier. I could write a phony PTSD claim in a minute just by knowing the unit a person served in. Being in a war zone does not mean you’ve been in combat, or that you’ve had any kind more serious than your air conditioner breaking down.
even the VA’s use of after action reports don’t go into enough detail to catch the lies of the phony’s.You’re right there should be penalties for lies , and I’m all for using lie detectors because a lot of these guy’s can turn on the tears just like little girls.
…but this comment confirms your complete ignorance with regards to the psychological trauma of combat. Attitudes like your only continue to stigmatize people into NOT getting treatment that is available. I’m not sure if you are a veteran yourself, if you are, your representation of men and women who volunteered for serve as little girls who cry would indicate you are a loathing self-hating one.
Nobody at the VA denies people claims because the government doesn’t have any money. The people who adjudicate the claims have a long drawn out process they use , and they use it without anybody telling them they must deny or approve.
The problem lies with the phony claims. Now the courts have ruled the phony’s must be giving the benefit of the doubt. I knew a guy who fueled and did maintenance on a plane at Tan Son Nhut. The plane later crashed killing the crew and he used that incident to file and win a PTSD Claim.He now get’s 100% and loves to tell people he’s a disabled veteran.
The problem is with the people like him who somehow feel inadequate because they didn’t actually serve in combat. They would be the first people to remind you that there were no lines in Vietnam.
Recently I have helped people I served with write PTSD claims. I have no problem doing that even 40+ years after the fact.I was among the first to file a PTSD claim in Massachusetts and I got awarded 100% for it and than went into denial about having it. It’s only been in the last year or so that a light went on an I realized I have it but in my case it’s no longer disabling because I found out the triggers by accident and I’ve been fine since I got treated at the Bedford VA Hospital.
Let’s just say a big part of me never left the war zone, but that should not be equated with he’s crazy and dangerous. I’m actually not a pacifist but let’s say I’m more against the two bush wars than hippies were against my war.
Joel every time a REMF get’s a pimple on their butt they cry agent orange. Again Rear area troops are nothing but whiners, I believe it’s because they have a need to be accepted by line troopers who have nothing but scorn for rear echelon troops, who act like they’re “brothers in arms” for lack of better words.If you dig hard enough you’ll also find these are the same guy’s who got spit on by peace loving hippies. Really talk about a false analogy that’s the best.
<
p>I witnessed AO and it’s effects first hand when I got there in Feb 66 we had to hack our way through the jungle while the VC had the luxury of using the trails. By the time I left, I found myself using a machete less and less. At that time I thought it was from the bombing and shooting and didn’t know it was because of AO. When I got back in Oct 67 I don’t recall ever using a machete for anything , and the red ant’s where all but gone out of the III Corp area which was also fine with me. Everybody knew what AO was I suppose it was a double edged sword, but we needed it. I still don’t believe it’s as bad as people think. Diabetes is a national epidemic and the VA recognizes AO exposure as presumptive cause of Diabetes.
it’d be easier to clear the queue of veterans requiring care. That, my friends, would be both short and long term savings of money, of quality of lives, and quantity of lives.
<
p>Just a thought.
I have to confess that I am not entirely signed up for some of the assumptions of the thread-starter and, for that matter, some of the comments that follow.
<
p>My fundamental issue? I enthusiastically agree that when we have a compulsory draft, we have a concomitant obligation to provide extraordinarily high post-service benefits for military veterans who were drafted.
<
p>I have a much harder time embracing the same enthusiasm for men and women who were well-paid during their service and who receive generous retirement benefits (beginning at an early age in comparison to the private sector). It isn’t as if the many risks of military service aren’t widely publicized. It isn’t the specific level of benefits or care that I’m struggling with (such as the issues discussed here). Rather, it is the almost religious fawning that we offer this latter category of veterans.
<
p>There are many occupations that involve significant risk to life and limb, and that have similarly high risk of subsequent emotional disorders. Deep-water diving, timber workers, mine workers, and even railroading are each examples of high-risk professions. In the public sector, firefighters and police face many of the same risks that confront military personnel.
<
p>Not to put too fine a point on it, but — seriously folks —
mercenariesprivate contractors are, today, providing services that, in their day, were provided by a great many of today’s WWII and Korea veterans.<
p>Should we offer the same level of honor to an ex-Blackwater/Xe employee that we accord a vet who provided security during Korea?
<
p>I don’t think so. Why not? Well, the ex-Blackwater employee knowingly signed up for a job that he or she was well-paid to do. But isn’t that exactly what every enlistee in the US military does today?
<
p>I’m not trying to bash veterans. I am fundamentally disturbed by the long-term consequences of shifting to a mercenary military — especially when we do not simultaneously adjust our attitudes towards that military.
Conscription is just a way to guarantee that the military will always be available to do the bidding of the politicians as they seek to satisfy the military/industrial complex. I’d prefer to see the end of these wars.
<
p>Having grown up in a country with the draft, I can think of few organizations more corrupt than the Selective Service system. It got the poor, uneducated minorities off the street and out of the way.
<
p>If you want a draft, how about we start with anyone whose parents make over $200,000/year? Or go to an Ivy League school? Or work on Wall Street?
I share your assessment of the selective service. I think that if we were to return to compulsory service, it should be for everyone.
<
p>The problem I have with today’s approach is that it preserves the worst aspects of the old system while weakening the few aspects that were positive.
<
p>In today’s world, the children of poor and uneducated minorities are still the primary targets of the recruiters. Calling military service “voluntary”, while providing essentially no viable economic alternative, is a cruel ruse.
<
p>Including “anyone whose parents make over $200,000/year”, “go to an Ivy League school”, or “work on Wall Street” is the point — perhaps if those children were to be the cannon fodder of the next “preemptive invasion”, there would be stronger resistance to such idiocy.
<
p>A major flaw in the Vietnam-era Selective Service was that the wealthy and powerful sent the children of somebody else to do their killing for them. The “voluntary” military service of today worsens, rather than improves, that fundamental inequity.
<
p>I’m not going to elaborate, but I appreciate your candor and willingness to say something that needs to be said.
<
p>And to clearly separate your points, which I understand are entirely different in the context of this thread, from mine, I will offer this entirely discretely: veteran status has become a fetish, a distorted and almost pornographic one at that. A large fraction of the people I served with are not even admirable. But just having donned that uniform, boy, and a transformation of nearly metaphysical proportions occurs. Instant hero; just add military service. Been there, done that. Wrong.
You nailed it, precisely.
I think we mainly just pretend to hold veterans in high esteem, but when it comes down to caring for them, or spending money on them, you get situations like the one at Walter Reed several years ago. It seems generally to be a lip service thing. But I suppose you would know better than me, as a combat veteran yourself.
In any event, thank you for your service, lightiris.
…especially those who have seen combat deserve everything we can humanly provide for their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way. Blackwater is a private company, so they can provide whatever pension they want, but it’s not our responsibility. IF we absolutely must have a draft (last time it was really necessary was WWII IMO) then I agree it should be universal, but except when we absolutely can’t do it with people volunteering and our national existence is at stake we shouldn’t have a draft. To me it is a fundamental violation of my civil liberties to be forced to put my life on the line for an optional war. I also think a draft should never be used to leverage opposition to a war, but only if on the merits we need more people.
War itself is a “fundamental violation” of everyone’s civil liberties. The problem is the optional war, not who fights it.
<
p>The approach you advocate ducks the reality of that fact, and does so with the blood of the unfortunates who pay the ultimate price. Economic force is just as effective as physical coercion. The point is that nobody should put their life on the line for an optional war.
<
p>In my view, we should avoid any approach that enables optional war — and every war that the US has engaged in since WWII has been optional.
…but don’t use potential draftees as pawns. Apparently we have different views of what it means to choose. I’m starting to feel like you’re saying military service is not a choice the way some have argued that gambling is not a choice and thus predatory. You do take a gamble (to continue the metaphor) when you sign up for service, but I don’t accept that anyone is forced into it absent an actual draft. This is a multi-faceted issue. It’s fine to encourage service, but we must also bend over backwards to provide for those who serve, be responsible about our decision making to put them in harm’s way and promulgate other policies of opportunity so that no person ever feels that military service is his or her only viable option.
Suppose we succeed in providing other opportunities, so that the only people who choose the military are those who like war and combat. What does our military look like, then? Are we sure that we can retain civilian control over a self-selecting force, armed to the teeth, of men and women who genuinely and freely choose to become warriors?
<
p>As much as I am repelled by compelling anyone to go to war, I fear that the alternatives are, at least so far, even worse.
…but there are plenty now and I am sure still would be who do it for all the right reasons. Joining the military is about being prepared to defend us, but not eager to take someone out. I’m certainly confident that both civilian and senior military leaders will be responsible. The military does not on its own choose to go to war based on the popular vote and mob mentality of enlisties.
When war-mongers are disproportionally represented in a generation’s “enlistees”, those war-mongers are very likely to also be disproportionally represented in the “senior military leaders” of ten or twenty years hence. I hate to play the “age card” on you, but I’ll gently suggest that I do not share your confidence in our “senior military leaders”, and I have a few extra decades of experience to draw on.
<
p>I’d like to remind you that we live in a nation where our senior civilian leadership gave orders, which our armed services carried out, for which we prosecuted and executed Japanese and German leaders fifty years ago — and those civilian leaders have not yet even been accused, never mind prosecuted, convicted, or punished. I never dreamed, in my most radical fantasies of my youth, that a U. S. President would institute and then carry out a formal and written policy of torture.
<
p>This nation carried out an unprovoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign nation in 2003, based in large part on the personal whims and political agenda of those in charge.
<
p>I hope you’ll therefore forgive me if I am rather less sanguine about what we do and do not have to fear from those whose fingers are literally on the triggers of the most fearful arsenal of weaponry in human history.
We’ve gone 200+ years without a coup d’etat unlike many democracies in this hemisphere and even survived a Civil War, though even that crisis was precipitated by civilian rather than military leadership. I feel your problems and solutions don’t quite match. In other words I too object to approval of torture on the part (and apparently now the confession) of Bush & Co. and I also disagreed with going to war, but those are policies that should have been fought and Congress often did not do its job. I don’t see our senior commanders such as Petraeus as war mongers. The biggest war mongers seem to be the ones who avoided military service rather than embraced it. Not sure what your Japanese/German reference is about. Do you object to the Nuremberg Trials? We tried our best to show the world that even the allegedly most evil deserve due process. I’m not even familiar with executing Japanese leaders; we even let the Emperor keep his throne. There was that whole internment thing of course, but it doesn’t sound like that’s what you are talking about since those were American citizens and we didn’t execute them.
On December 23, 1948, General Tojo and six others were hung at Sugamo prison.
It does appear from the article you linked that McArthur tried to follow similar procedures as Nuremberg, though I take not of the victors justice criticism.
I assume you’re past the age where that would affect you?
I’m genuinely conflicted. Of course I don’t want to see my children — or those of anyone else — sent to war. On the other hand, it was the very real threat of being sent to fight in a war that I couldn’t even vote against that sent me into the streets in 1968. The 18 year old voting age was one of the few triumphs of our generation, and I am appalled at the apathy our counterparts demonstrate today. It troubles me enormously that today’s young people (who are today’s potential cannon-fodder) by and large can’t be bothered to vote.
<
p>What I really want is for our government to act more responsibly.
<
p>It appears to me that a culture of chicken-hawks who have no skin in the game whatsoever happily send fellow chicken-hawks to Washington who loudly beat the war-drums without any regard for the human suffering their bellicosity creates.
<
p>I really don’t know what the answer is on this one, but I do think that we, as a nation, acted more responsibly when the human impact was spread more broadly across the electorate.
…with a war tax of some sort. This would demonstrate more universal sacrifice while of course covering the extra costs of prosecuting a war. It’s also much more acceptable than forcing me to risk my life against my will.
Of course you’d prefer a war tax. Money is always less dear than blood.
<
p>My guess is that actual physical coercion — armed agents of the government forcing you to choose between boot camp and jail — would motivate you to at least vote, if not hit the streets and man the barricades, in a way that no “war tax” ever will.
<
p>When I say that everyone should have some “skin” in the game, I mean skin — not money.
<
p>War is not a program that we watch on TV or a video game that we walk away from when we’re tired. This nation’s track record, when it comes to when to fight and when to walk away (and what side to fight on when we do) has been abysmal since somewhere around the Eisenhower administration.
<
p>Surely our extravagantly expensive misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the equally extravagant federal deficits that have funded them, demonstrate the futility of attempting to use economic mechanisms to reign in the consequences of the fear-mongering, bigotry, and xenophobia that have characterized so much of our political sphere since 9/11.
<
p>War is about carnage, brutality, blood, passion and evil. I believe that those primal forces will always trump simple economics when push comes to shove.
…is to subject even more people to the blood and carnage directly and against their will? NO THANK YOU! To force me to risk my life is a fundamental violation of my human rights and is morally wrong on so many levels. At least two criteria need to be present for me to even consider a draft as good policy: Sustained attack on the United States by a defined and targetable enemy, and exhaustion of all means and manpower already available to our armed forces. Fortunately, we have evolved into such a superpower that it is currently unlikely that either criterion will exist and even more unlikely that both will. There are several factors to consider, and while I suspect you may disagree I don’t think that justification for some military action necessarily always entails justification for a draft.
The whole “war” thing gets a lot more personal when it’s your own life at stake, doesn’t it.
<
p>Where do you get the idea that is more moral to pay somebody else to kill on your behalf than to demand that you risk your own life and limb? I remind you that in criminal matters, the person who pays for a murder is just as culpable as the person who carries out the deed.
<
p>I suggest that if all of us knew that we and our children were going to be in harm’s way, we might be far less provocative in our foreign policy, and far more engaged in demanding that our leaders take responsible positions on matters of war and peace.
<
p>Your direct, heartfelt, and visceral reaction is precisely why I think compulsory service for everyone is an option that should be back on the table.
We supposedly cherish inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and a draft has the potential to deny all three. You and I and plenty others are perfectly capable of demanding more responsible policy without our own necks on the line and we should do so. In a free country a draft should be an absolute last resort and never used just to manipulate public opinion. I see military service as one of many respectable callings in which I personally have no interest. I might be more open to more general service not all military in nature such as AmeriCorps, but not everybody has to play the same role. Do YOU want to be dragged around the world against your will and placed in harm’s way – really? Please don’t take your displeasure at recent military policy out on an entire generation of the able-bodied; take it out on our leadership that made those decisions.
War and the military are not and should never be line-items in a budget and “respectable callings” in which only some of us show interest.
<
p>When an armed intruder threatens the life of you and your family, you don’t get the option to choose whether or not you have an interest in defending yourself — you defend or or die. In my view, war — and the military — is society’s way of protecting itself from that armed intruder. It is not optional, it should not be something we choose, and it most certainly should not be something we pay others to do on our behalf. It is also a shared obligation.
<
p>I don’t call fifty years of military policy “recent”. As a nation, we have lost ground in the fight against the militarization of our culture. It isn’t just that every war we’ve fought since Korea has been wrong and immoral, it is that we’ve persuaded ourselves that this behavior is somehow “right” and “moral”. It isn’t. We have become the gunfighter in the classic westerns who, having needed to defend himself once with a pistol, is seduced by the illusion of power that his weapon gives him and becomes a monstrous easily-riled killer who shoots anybody who disagrees with his current whim, whatever that might be.
<
p>I do include non-military service (such as AmeriCorps) in my umbrella of options for performing compulsory service. Our draft has always included a “conscientious objector” provision allowing draftees to perform non-combat roles, and I believe that should continue (though it must be more obtainable than the farce it became during the Viet Nam era).
…limit my understanding of legitimate military action as strictly one of narrowly defined self-defense. I support using it for humanitarian missions where force may be required (Yugoslavia, Somalia), defense of another nation from an intruder (Kuwait), and to punish aggression against us while not being an actual invasion in the conventional sense (Afghanistan). However, neither of those examples warrants a draft because we were not under sustained direct threat and we had more than enough military might to go without. When deployed correctly our armed forces can and I believe have been used for a greater good. I cannot agree that it should not be budgeted. We tried the idea of no standing armies early in the Republic and that was dropped for good reason. It is absolutely respectable to be willing to sacrifice yourself and I’m glad people do it, just like I’m glad the fire department comes to douse my neighbor’s house when necessary though I have no interest in being a firefighter. (There are countless other examples of services and professions I’m glad exist and have the utmost respect for though I have no interest; there’s nothing wrong with that.) We obviously have an unresolvable philosophical difference of opinion, but I stand by my fundamental principle that war policy notwithstanding, it is immoral to press one into service against their will.
Personally I think we need to bring back the draft for no other reason than to get these kids off the street and bring strangers together in such a way that they realize their differences are minute. They need the regimentation and it’ll be boys going in and men coming out.
I would make it so that people could choose between combat arms units and support units. Combat arms troops would get paid 1/3 more than the non combatants who would forfeit 1/3 of their pay. Combat arms troops would also get bonus’s for completing various schools.
As a pragmatist I would also have an American Foreign Legion
modeled on the French example. If for no other reason than to give our military insight into other cultures. We lost in Afghanistan because out lack of understanding it just isn’t official yet.
I’m not a sexist but there would be no women in the military period. They’re not only a distraction but the present day levels of sexual assault make a priority.
<
p>
<
p>As a female veteran, I find this statement disrespectful, sexist, and wholly dismissive of the valuable contribution that female soldiers make in military service. Women contribute more to the military than their vaginas. I suspect you are well intentioned, but I suggest you are ignorant about the role of women in military service–particularly United Nations Peacekeeping. I wonder how you’d feel about an all-female force? They’ve been used, you know, and they can more effective than their male counterparts. Educate yourself
I’ve read where 1/3 of the women in the military have been sexually assaulted. The way the military treats it is a crime but that’s beside the point. Let’s go back to the beginning and the treatment of veterans.
Rape is a traumatic experience 1/3 of women in the military are sexually assaulted. In 2008 3000 cases where reported. So let’s assume 30 cases a year are violent enough to warrant a PTSD claims of 100% disability that cost alone is adds up to more than $1.5 million a year. For those 30 cases it could end up costing the tax payers $75 Million over the lifetime of those 30 victims. I forgot to add in all the other benefits too such as health insurance, GI Bill etc.
<
p> Just Google rape in the military and you’ll see where I’m coming from.
I don’t even know where to begin.
<
p>Let me see if I have this straight: women should not be allowed to serve in the military because male soldiers rape them in high numbers and the expenses associated with the females’ subsequent medical and/or psych care is a financial burden.
<
p>Do I have that right?
Really, Why? Do you have a secret formula that keeps young testosterone laden boy’s from not going overboard.
Did you google the rape thing? Can you tell me how you would solve the problem ? I don’t care about your feelings about equality as much as I do about young women being sexually assaulted. You apparently got through it w/o a problem but what about your fellow female soldiers.
Here’s an example I was 5 feet away from Raquel Welch after the Bob Hope show on Christmas 1967. Less than 6 months later a Major Thompson came to my hospital bed in Japan. She is still the most beautiful woman I have ever seen in my life. She asked me about the menu, and I replied: “It would be a lot better if you were on it.” She smiled and than realized what I said and said ‘Oh” and walked away. Well the next day it was all moot, I was listed as VSI and was sent on my way to the hospital at Ft. Devens.
I doubt my little remark was traumatizing to her and had any long lasting effects and yes it was uncalled for. Rape is traumatizing and no matter how you slice it the long term cost are not worth the short term gain’s
Mr. Anderson, I encourage you to share exchanges of this sort with a competent therapist. That is not the role of this community.
<
p>I, frankly, find it awkward and embarrassing when you pursue such exchanges here. Your pain is clear, and your desire to heal is clear.
<
p>I wish you the best of luck, and hope that you have access to the resources you need. Beyond that, I will try very hard ignore your comments here.
You can keep your ad hominen comments to yourself, and stop dismissing the fact’s in doing so.
<
p> Go ahead and GOOGLE -Rape in the military, and tell the system isn’t broken,
<
p>This thread is about the VA and the backlog of claims.
Well 1/3 of women who have served obviously have valid claims.
So how much is that attributing to the backlog?
<
p> How many million of dollars does that cost because you are afraid to look at the fact’s?
<
p> To get back to the real world this all started with my ideal selective service beliefs that will never come to fruition anyway.
In that ideal military I had people like you covered by
stating you could opt out of a combat MOS.
<
p>By the way your assumption’s about the poor and uneducated be drafted are totally wrong so before you make anymore unsupported assertions maybe you had better do a little research.
<
p>
Rational discussion is not possible. Good luck to you.
Come on Iris show me where I’m wrong rather than just dismissing my beliefs w/o explanation.
I’ve got Tom making false stereotypical assertions on one side and you or the other. Neither of you has put up one valid reason as to why I’m wrong. He’s against war, good for him but like shit war happens. In my ideal draft I left a big weasel hole for people like him, who want no part of combat. I’m a firm believer that people who don’t want be in a combat situation shouldn’t be, but if by accident it happens they should be minimally prepared like you were.
Give us some insight into what it’s like to be a women in the company of a bunch of young troopers who are to focused on you to do their job.
Did you know in the Vietnam 8 women to many were killed in action. So far 88 have been killed in the bush wars. So I assume it’s alright with you that casualties and sexual assault are up and you don’t have a problem with it.
Go ahead hero take up her cause and you explain to me how to keep all them testosterone laden boy’s from sexually assaulting and raping their fellow soldiers?
<
p> Go ahead and do the math on the legacy cost of allowing women to serve beside men?
<
p> Do you think the system is backlogged because women who haven’t even been in the war zones are rightfully filing PTSD claims because they’ve been attacked by their fellow soldiers.
<
p> Are we to consider those PTSD claims just part of the cost of having women in the military?
<
p> By the way Tom, I really don’t care about the financial cost because I don’t pay income taxes anyway. Besides under the new PTSD rules you only have to show up to get PTSD. It’s just another way to kick the men who do the fighting in the teeth.