Bush and Co. Should Set Up Veterans Fund

McGyver

In consideration of the increasing solder fatalities and injuries from the war in Iraq, and the upsetting revellations of poor pre-war intelligence and bad planning, I believe it would be a nice gesture if Bush, Chenney, Halliburton, and other defense companies who profited from the war set up a special fund to help the families and injured soldiers.

Such a gesture would be a nice condolance offering to the affected families, and the sharing of proceeds from the war with those who actually took on the RISK - could be a real PR booster to this increasingly unpopular war.

Any takers out there?

Pengwuino

For one, there is an entire department of the United States government that deals with this sort of thing. Two, your ignorant statements are going to cause a s*** storm here. I say, lay off the michael moore propoganda.

rachmaninoff

Department of Veterans Affairs

Archon

I don't see any ignorance reflected in the post. Observe:

Increasing soldier fatalities and injuries: Yes
Bad pre-war intelligence and planning: Yes
Defense Companies profitting: Yes
Bush/Cheney profitting: Yes
Nice Condolances: Yes
PR booster: Yes
Increasingly unpopular war: Yes

So? I don't see propaganda. This an question based on objective observations. It's not an attempt to spread lies or change opinions.

My actual response: it would be a good thing to for them to do, but I really doubt it's going to happen. As the others have said, there's already a Department to take care of such things. Anyway, defense companies don't really have to have a good image with the public: they sell their products to the military, not to civilians.

edward

The Bush administration, under pressure from veterans groups, recently upped the death benifit paid to families from $12,420 to $100,000.

In addition military personel may carry federally subsidized life insurance policies for up to $400,000.

http://www.political-news.org/breaki...in-action.html

Those who are severly wounded are at the mercy of an underfunded Veterans Administration.

http://www.notinourname.net/troops/d...ht-12aug03.htm

solutions in a box

The veterans benefits were what the veterans groups lobbied for.

The increased death benifits were a pure public relations effort by RUMMY, and meant to help recruiters. Most of the increased benefits come from the private insuance policies.

Insurance companies are are making big bucks off of this. The war has gone on long enough that they have some historical statistics to us in figuring the actuarial tables.

Pengwuino

Sounds like exactly what this post asked for then.

Pengwuino

Ouch you surely are wrapped up into something. Lets see... #2 is opinion... #3 doesn't make sense since companies far beyond the realm of "defense" are also profiting... #4 is a total lie, no evidence to support it, thoroughly debunked in previous threads... #5 is objectionable seeing as how most people are so brainwashed as to call it a "PR ploy" and will put the all-encompassing negative light on it as they do with anything and everything the US government is currently doing. These "facts" that have been pointed out are either lies or debatable and have been thoroughly covered in previous threads to the point of destroying 34.3% of the braincells of people who do indeed participate in them.

loseyourname

Are you looking for a private fund set up by defense contractors, a public fund enacted by legislation, either, or both? Bush himself could not personally do either, although he could encourage it. It seems as if a public fund is fairly out of the question, though. As heartless as it sounds, the US really can't afford to increase the cost of the war further. A public fund would probably need to be set up after troops are withdrawn.

edward

No it sounds like someone put a set dollar amount on what a soldiers life is worth. But at least it is much more than the $12,000 + change that it was.

The guys with limbs blown off still have a prolonged fight to try and get a disability rating high enough to live on.

Pengwuino

As opposed to....

Should they go out adn give them hugs? Is that better?

edward

That sounds more like your style. Have you hugged a dead soldier today?

Archon

#2: You think we had GOOD pre-war intelligence and planning? Surely you're not "brainwashed" enough to believe that Iraq actually had WMDs or direct connections to 9-11.
#3: Defense companies have profited. Therefore, I am correct.
#4: Profits need not be material. I doubt that Bush's motives were all as altruistic as you seem to naively believe.
#5: I see a problem. If, as suggested by the original poster, the companies/president should do this as a PR booster, then saying it's a "PR ploy" is not the result of brainwashing: it is the truth. Generally, people are not brainwashed so that they'll believe the truth: they are brainwashed so that they'll believe lies. This would not be the case here. Anyway, what makes you think anyone with a valid criticism of the government is brainwashed? That doesn't seem like a very Democratic viewpoint.

You forgot 1, 6, and 7.

Anything else?

Finally, a question: were you by chance among the people who ended up losing 34.3% of their brain cells?

Pengwuino

There has already been threads where various left-wingers proved that Saddam had WMD's. I would point to the ring-wingers and various government agencies and international agencies such as the UN but you would probably dismiss them as lies.

But why single them out?

So what were they then? If you know there wrong, then you must have a reason as to WHY he profitted.

Incorrect, it is brainwashing. Requesting a good faith effort in the form of a PR action and then criticizing those actions in a negative light is a form of hypocricy brought upon by brainwashing. This is like saying that teachers should be given more money and then complaining that they are getting paid too much for the job they do. You can't think of the same action in both a good and bad light.

That normally means im not an idologue like you that is forced to disagree with everything someone else says.

russ_watters

This may just be a grammar issue, but "Bush" is not a defense company...

I, for one, was pretty insulted when I heard about the money the government was paying victims of 9/11 (I was in the Navy at the time). But that doesn't mean I think families of soldiers should be getting million-dollar gifts from the government. Soldiers already have great life insurance policies/death benefits. Giving large bonuses for dying smells like turning soldiers into mercenaries.

Archon

If he had WMDs, where are they? Anyway, the point is that our intelligence was just good enough that Bush was able to predict a short war followed by a friendly greeting and unimpeded democratic development, and got almost exactly the opposite.

Because they are the most closely related to the soldiers themselves. Because they profit from the materials that soldiers use in battle. But it doesn't matter: many companies of all sorts have profited, so this applies equally well to all of them.

I'll give you an even better reason for Bush to do this. He led us into a war that cost the lives of almost 2000 American soldiers. He owes them something because he is responsible for their deaths.

We seem to be talking about different things. I'm saying that if a company sets out to boost its image through a PR campaign, and people call it a PR ploy, then the people are right. They aren't brainwashed into believing that everything the company does is wrong: they're stating the truth. This is not brainwashing.

You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that I'm brainwashed because I've supported McGyver's idea and then said that people calling it a PR ploy would be right. This is incorrect for two reasons:
1)I advocate it because of its meaning to the families of the dead and wounded soldiers, not as a PR ploy, so my opinion and that statement are technically unrelated.
2)If it's mean as a PR ploy, and people call it a PR ploy, then they're bloody well right, not brainwashed.


I agree, and therefore am not an ideologue. So you're wrong.

Townsend

Just so you know, I had a 250K subsidized insurance policy that started while I was on active duty. Before that it was 100k policy and before that I have no idea. I don't really know much about the death benefit though since well, I am still here...

Anyhow, I just wanted to share that information. It may or may not be relevant to this. I don't want to inject my opinion or anything....just putting out information...