Your excuses for dismissing this article are just that - excuses. Brain damaged as an “unprofessional term?” What? Are you by any chance a neuro surgeon? I thought not. An epidemic is defined by Websters as “affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time.” Seems the article makes the case pretty clearly on that score. The condition IS new precisely because battlefield medicine has advanced to the point where those who would have been killed by these afteraffects are now surviving. For you, average Joe Schmo, to call Dr. Schneider (who actually helps and cares for our troops) a liar in that respect is hilarious. As for it being a “leftist ploy of propoganda,” I’d advise you to leave the house more often. I see the news piece as a testament to the sufferings of those who have served in Iraq. Sorry its not like the warm and fuzzy DoD pieces you cherish but reality rarely is.
“Wouldn’t a no answer here have been cause for at least some concern about what the true goal of this article might be?”
Nice dodge but what exactly is FALSE in the article mentioned? Or are you only concerned that it doesn’t posses a spin you approve of?
“Why would you think a tree planting or school opening could only be propaganda? Are you infering that there is no real tangible value to providing an educational resource for Iraqi children?”
Because thats no way to quantify that we’re making headway over in Iraq. Its simply a silly numbers game that tells the average voter nothing about whats going on over there.
And when a news report comes out a few months later, which the DoD curiously doesn’t see fit to mention, about how the majority of those “civic projects” are a disaster, filled with corruption etc etc a person hearing that becomes even more disheartened and less supportive of our operations. The pieces of evidence that we’ll be succeeding in Iraq are intangible and its idiotic for the DoD to operate otherwise.
“Please point out to me where the above article made the charge that our troops are not getting medical care. I don’t believe that charge was made, so the premise that this article is going to help the troops at all, is rediculous.”
If it weren’t for stories such as this I’m pretty sure its safe to say the quality of care these troops would be getting would decline signifigantly. Walter Reed exposed some pretty ugly truths.
“What it infers is that we are sending off our “Michaelangelos” to war, destroying a whole genertion of talent. That is demeaning to our President and a transparent attempt to use the injuries to our troops as a wedge issue to get us out of Iraq.”
That’s what you, a Bush partisan, are infering. Not I. I read this article as mainly about the medical conditions that some unfortunate soldiers are going through. But thanks for proving my point that your main problem with the article is its possible negative affects on Bush’s polls numbers.
“Nobody but nobody has expressed the opinion here that our troops shouldn’t get the best possible care.”
Once more, if these types of news stories, such as the one about how the wounded were inundated with buercratic bs at Walter Reed, were to be hushed up as you wish, the consequence would be a lowered level of care. Put the conditions of the injured front and center, you can bet they won’t be forgotten.
“How can you put a name on something that didn’t exist?”
Several posters on this very thread have made it clear that it does exist. And the doctor referred to the patient as “Michaelangelo” not due to some nefarious scheme but due to patient’s interest in art. Your partisan lens skewed that translation.
“The main goal of this article was to kill off the moral of U.S. Citizens who support this war, and reinforce the opinions of those who dispise it.”
Which seems to be the only thing you really give a damn about. Not the troops, their families or what they’ve endured. Only Bush’s support levels. Disgraceful.
“Do you think we should have removed Saddam Hussein and moved 170,000 troops to Iraq in order to bring it under control?”
Yes to Saddam being removed from power. No to nation building idiocy.
“Do you think we should pull our troops out now in as little time as possible? If not, how long should we give it?”
Again, nation building in that hellhole is just plain naieve and dumb. They’re modern day barbarians. Simply kill anyone who threatens us or our allies and be on our way.
To return to the main issue, my point stands - your concern for the troops ends when discomforting news (which might have political consequences) begins. The troops only role in your eyes seems to be smile while being awarded their purple hearts then shut up and disappear in some dank VA hospital.
KantianBurke
IMO YO that we shouldn’t be in Iraq speaks volumes. No wonder you don’t mind the MSM using our toops to kill morale on a daily basis.
There were injuries like these in other wars. There were wards full of men who had suffered shell shock. You didn’t know this?
I’ve spent enough time explaining why I won’t buy into A.P. acting as if it cared one whit for our troops.
Thanks for your response. I’ve spent enough time on this topic, so I’ll let your comments end this.
I do care about our troops, I do realize they have real valid injuries. I am sorry that they do. I will not appologize for thinking A.P. is a marxist organization that has sought to destroy our efforts in Iraq, and continues to do so.
ga medic
I appreciate your additional comments. To suggest that I am confused and could be confused further is an opinion you are welcome to.
Take care.