Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush and Co. Should Set Up Veterans Fund

  1. Aug 12, 2005 #1
    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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 12, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  4. Aug 12, 2005 #3
    Department of Veterans Affairs
  5. Aug 12, 2005 #4
    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.
  6. Aug 12, 2005 #5
    Send your kid to Iraq : win $500,000

    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.


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

    http://www.notinourname.net/troops/disabled-fight-12aug03.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Aug 12, 2005 #6
    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. Aug 12, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sounds like exactly what this post asked for then.
  9. Aug 12, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  10. Aug 12, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  11. Aug 12, 2005 #10
    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.
  12. Aug 12, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As opposed to....

    Should they go out adn give them hugs? Is that better?
  13. Aug 13, 2005 #12
    That sounds more like your style. Have you hugged a dead soldier today?
  14. Aug 13, 2005 #13
    #2: You think we had GOOD pre-war intelligence and planning? :eek: 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?
  15. Aug 13, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  16. Aug 13, 2005 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  17. Aug 13, 2005 #16
    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. :biggrin:
  18. Aug 13, 2005 #17
    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... :smile:

    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... :smile:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Aug 13, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I dont remember him saying there was going to be unimpeded democratic development. I do remember hearing many stories about people been greated adn even getting gifts from Iraqies after the liberation.... they werent on the 'mainstream' however :-/.

    So simply because when someone thinks of soldier, they think of defense? So simple public impression should dictate who gets blamed in life? I suppose this is a dumb point to make anyways.

    No no, i mean why did he profit? If he did profit, i can surely see why you would say he should pay up something but first i wanna know how he actually did profit.

    Im talking about this specific case. Someones demanding that a company/companies do something that will result in a PR boost but then someone saying them doing it woudl be evil because itd be a "PR ploy". It can't be both but i think you would need to talk to the OP about that.

    Wait wait, "If it's meant as a PR ploy"... the problem is that a ploy and a genuine act of generosity cannot be differentiated unless you are on the 'inside' of the company... which none of us are. If say, General Dynamics did something like that, we would have no idea if it was a genuine act or a ploy unless we worked there. The fact that your agreeing that it would be a good idea means that you assume they are doing it with genuine faith and not as a PR ploy. You then said people are correct in saying its a ploy. The real question is, would you agree with the action if he called it a PR ploy instead of implying that it woudl create good PR as an unintended consequence.

    You are brainwashed, you did not actually agree with me. By agreeing with me, you have agred that upon agreeing with my agreeance, agreeing to brainwashing through agreeancewashing. Tooty fruity. Codeword: 480. Mission: Assassinate Ronald McDonald.

    *waves spiny red thing infront of you*
  20. Aug 13, 2005 #19
    Both "friendly greeting" and "unimpeded democratic development" were meant to indicate that Bush didn't expect us to still be in Iraq fighting "insurgents" and struggling to make things work.

    I know I shouldn't have been so specific. But did you read the rest of that paragraph? I specifically said that most, if not all, companies involved in the war and reconstruction have profited.

    Surely you can also see why he should "pay up" if he incurred some cost. In this case, I'm saying that he incurred a cost totalling nearly 2000 American lives and those of many more Iraqis. He should pay this cost back in some way to the families of the American soldiers killed in Iraq (and hopefully to the Iraqi families as well, but I'm not that optimisitic).

    I can only speak about my own opinion, which is that it should be done to compensate/help the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. Even if it is a PR ploy, though, the end result is the same, so I wouldn't object either way.

    But if "General Dynamics" set out to improve its image with a PR ploy of some sort, then it is an objective fact that its actions represent a PR ploy. If someone then says that these actions are a PR ploy, then that person is right, just as a 5-year-old is right if he says "8" when asked for the square root of 64. This is the case even his answer was a guess: the square root of 64 is 8, so he is correct no matter how he came to his answer.

    Anyway, people would have reason to call such a thing a PR ploy even without inside knowledge, merely based on how large companies have acted in the past. This is not brainwashing, but inferring something based on consistent past behaviour.

  21. Aug 13, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    Yes but i asked why you singled them out in the first place.

    You still arent making any sense unless you are making the absolutely rediculous statement that Presidents should be accountable in some sort of monetary way to people that have died under his command in the military. Did people demand FDR "pay up" in WW2? Did anyone ask Clinton? Did anyone ask any other President in US history to pony up some dough?

    Well theres a whole government agency that goes out and helps families of soldiers killed in every war in our military. Theres no reason people should expect defense contractors to pay up. If anything, the contractors should expect US citizens to pay them because they are the ones making some of the greatest military equipment on this planet. Do you really think its reasonable for to demand money from them simply because they were asked to supply weapons for our troops? I mean they practically border on treason if they refuse to supply our military... but you expect them to pay money if they do comply with our government?

    But what if there doing it in all good faith? The results will be the same, theres not going to be oanything to distinguish ploy from good faith. You could show a child the #8 and then ask him "is this the square root of 64 or is it the cubed root of 512?". He has absolutely no reason to think either way is how the results came about. All he sees is hte result, he isnt told what the equation was.

    How have they acted? You are going simply on BELIEF. You dont know how they have acted, you simply believe they acted a certain way and unfortunately, you have no way to telling what their past actions were or what there present actions are.[/QUOTE]
  22. Aug 13, 2005 #21
    And some were profiting even befor the war!!

    "Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said
    Affiliates Had $73 Million in Contracts
    By Colum Lynch
    Special to The Washington Post
    Saturday, June 23, 2001; Page A01

    UNITED NATIONS -- During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

    "Iraq's different," he said.

    According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

    Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say that, as far as they knew, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also says that although he never spoke directly to Cheney about the Iraqi contracts, he is certain Cheney knew about them."
  23. Aug 13, 2005 #22
    Ok. Proof by contradiction:
    Given that a majority of Americans supported the war when it first began, and that everything is going as planned ( :rolleyes: ), it is intuitively obvious ( :smile: ) that popular opinion of the war would not have changed, since by hypothesis, conditions are exactly as expected and a majority of Americans supported the war when it first began. But popular support for the war has declined to levels significantly below the initial numbers, a contradiction. Thus, our hypothesis must be false, so either the majority of Americans didn't support the war when it first began, or things aren't going as planned. The first is obviously not the case (proof left to the reader :biggrin: ). Thus, the war is not going as planned. QED. :smile:

    How is this relevant? It applies to all of the involved companies. Now, are you going to respond to the point or not?

    I'm hardly saying that Bush should be personally paying the families of dead and wounded soldiers. But yes, he does have a responsibility to these families, because he led us into a war justified by lies.

    Now, has anyone asked Bush to pay up? If your answer is yes, then things have obviously changed since FDR and Clinton. If the answer is no, then we are led to the inescapable conclusion that I'm not necessarily "people."

    I don't understand how we got to this point. I originally said the equivalent of "it would be a nice gesture if defense companies/our president would help support families that have lost members in Iraq. But I don't expect it or demand it." I don't see how this turned into "defense companies/our president must support the families of dead and wounded Iraqi soldiers as a PR ploy. I demand this."

    If the company is doing it in good faith, then it is, first and foremost, a nice gesture of assistence to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. I first advocated the possibility of this as such a gesture: if it's used mainly as a PR ploy, then it's rather despicable (for the companies), even if the end result is the same.

    It's a semantic thing, so just forget about it. I'm right in this specific case: no matter how the child gets the answer, if he says 8 when asked the square root of 64, he is correct. It's not a very good example anyway. Of course the people could be brainwashed, but the way you said it equates to some massive leftist conspiracy to seperate Americans from reality. Quite apart from the fact that this seems more likely to come from the right, in this case such a conspiracy would lead Americans to the truth: a PR ploy is a PR ploy, no matter how you look at it.

    It seems to me that companies in the past and present alike have based their actions mainly on the desire to profit as much as possible. This is why we call them capitalist. Thus, when a big company (especially one that doesn't deal directly with the American people) does something that has the incidental side-effect of boosting image, I tend to think that the image-boosting was the actual intent, in spite of what the company may be saying. Much as you assume that people are brainwashed if they disagree with Bush. This isn't based on belief so much as inferred from personal observations (I mean, come on. You could call anything that hasn't been rigorously proven a "belief." It's a meaningless word in this context, especially considering the extent to which our national and international policy has been determined by out president's system of beliefs. This is evidence enough of the importance of "belief.").
  24. Aug 13, 2005 #23
    :cry: That was beautiful man...
  25. Aug 15, 2005 #24
    Debating the War, or Compensating the Deserving


    I tried to steer clear of the political debate on the Iraq war, but it seems you inserted it. Shameful. I was actually trying to help Bush and unite the country by having those who profitted most from the war, Bush's defense co. campaign contributors, possibly oil interests too - establish a special veterans fund. It wasn't all that long ago that the feds began offering special VA loans on housing, and free education after service. So think progressive. We have entered new and volatile times, and the Iraq situation has no end in sight and will no doubt be inherited by subsequent administrations.

    Curiously, I wonder what price oil would be today if we hadn't invaded Iraq? If there is a general concensus that oil would be lower, then Bush and his oil partners have personally finacially benefitted (indirectly) from the war.

    So what's a soldier's life worth today? What are your two legs worth? Though the government benefit figures have been raised, I would bet that a national poll would indicate it should be raised further, and DISABILITY benefits for no legs aren't much, and that is where a private fund would go a long way and help sentiments over this military action in Iraq.

    Meanwhile, Iran, North Korea, and China can almost have their way on foreign policy issues knowing that the U.S. military is stretched thin. A sad revellation on the opportunity costs of this Iraq war!

    Yes, the U.S. public desperately needs a PR shot in the arm, and those who have profitted the most would be wise to initiate the fund. It may look like a ploy, but it will carry a lot of good will.

    Enjoying this discussion. Maybe Washington should tune in!
  26. Aug 16, 2005 #25
    White House should give all soldiers royalties from Iraqi oil exports, so they would not have to worry about new conscripts.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook