On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:14:33 -0500, John Fields did most oddly state:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:07:33 GMT, The God of Odd Statements wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:53:19 -0500, John Fields did most oddly state:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:57:29 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:

Hmmm, and what has happened to the servicemen injured saving Kuwait?
The ones who are in wheel chairs or blind living in run down trailers?
Any money for them?

---
Nope. That wasn't part of the deal.

Gee, why am _I_ not surprised? Of course, who cares what happens to a
bunch of worthless, lowlife grunts who were lucky enough to visit the
Middle East on the taxpayer's dime?

---
Their families and friends do, and their country does. ---

No, their country doesn't -- not meaningfully. There may be lots of
verbiage to that effect, but it's all hot air. I don't mean individual
citizens (who aren't in a position to do anything significant), I mean
your government and military.

They were just lower-income types
anyway, right? Not useful people, like the rich. Not anyone who
_matters_. Well, aside from the rich people who volunteered, but they
were silly. Leave the actual fighting to the little people, the cannon
fodder -- it's what they're for.

Right?

---
Kinda. When you join the service as enlisted, (just for example, let's
say the Army Infantry) the presumption is that if you have to go to war
you're going to be a grunt, you're going to be put in harm's way, and
you're the one who's going to have to do the dirty work. There's no
mystery about that, and it's just the way it works.

And then get dumped on the sidewalk, with a "So long, sucker!"

Certainly there's no presumption that a grateful foreign nation which you
helped will repay you in monetary terms, since that's not part of the
deal.

Considering how your government and military tend to prefer that someone
else look after vets with Gulf War Syndrome, I don't see why not. I
support the individual troops, you see, not merely the idea of them, as
the wingnuts do.

Simple-

minded, yes.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered!
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:

"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken

"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'

"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt