Why are celebrities pandering for donations for wounded vets?

[donttread]

Don't get me wrong, I support the soldiers who sign up as snot nosed kids who know nothing about the world and then have no choice where they go or what they do.
But for God's sake doesn't it seem like the absolute least the people that send them in as fire fodder to have their bodies and minds broken could do is fund first class physical and mental rehabilitation?
All projected war budgets should have to include a reasonable estimate of these expenses and the projected deaths, disabilities and PTSD should be made public before war is declared.
Let Exxon build a state of the art psychiatric center and Haliburton and Black Water can foot the bill for top notch physical therapy facilities.
The fact that our government asks the people to sends their kids half way around the world to get messed up where no direct threat to our country exist: AND THEN ask the people to fund the treatment they refuse to allocate is criminal!

[PattyHill]

I agree. I'd much rather my taxes go toward taking care of veterans than to making more bombs, making more war, or even subsidies to oil companies (who so often are part of the reason we go to war).

I have proposed a tax on gun sales where the proceeds would go toward medical expenses of anyone wounded by gun fire. Seems reasonable that those who profit off of war should have to help pay for the consequences.

[donttread]

I agree. I'd much rather my taxes go toward taking care of veterans than to making more bombs, making more war, or even subsidies to oil companies (who so often are part of the reason we go to war).

I have proposed a tax on gun sales where the proceeds would go toward medical expenses of anyone wounded by gun fire. Seems reasonable that those who profit off of war should have to help pay for the consequences.

I disagree with the gun tax but do agree that the government needs to fund the results of their failed, unnecessary wars

[Peter1469]

I agree. I'd much rather my taxes go toward taking care of veterans than to making more bombs, making more war, or even subsidies to oil companies (who so often are part of the reason we go to war).

I have proposed a tax on gun sales where the proceeds would go toward medical expenses of anyone wounded by gun fire. Seems reasonable that those who profit off of war should have to help pay for the consequences.

A tax on gun sales couldn't collect enough money to pay for very many gun shot victims. Anyway, why tax gun sellers for selling legal products? If they break the law and illegally sell guns, then prosecute them.

[PattyHill]

A tax on gun sales couldn't collect enough money to pay for very many gun shot victims. Anyway, why tax gun sellers for selling legal products? If they break the law and illegally sell guns, then prosecute them.


I won't turn this into a gun thread. I only brought it up because it was similar to charging Halliburton and others for the wounded soldiers.

[Mac-7]

Don't get me wrong, I support the soldiers who sign up as snot nosed kids who know nothing about the world and then have no choice where they go or what they do.
But for God's sake doesn't it seem like the absolute least the people that send them in as fire fodder to have their bodies and minds broken could do is fund first class physical and mental rehabilitation?
All projected war budgets should have to include a reasonable estimate of these expenses and the projected deaths, disabilities and PTSD should be made public before war is declared.

Let Exxon build a state of the art psychiatric center and Haliburton and Black Water can foot the bill for top notch physical therapy facilities.

The fact that our government asks the people to sends their kids half way around the world to get messed up where no direct threat to our country exist: AND THEN ask the people to fund the treatment they refuse to allocate is criminal!

How would you do that?

Pass a law that says "Exxon shall...?"

[Peter1469]

I won't turn this into a gun thread. I only brought it up because it was similar to charging Halliburton and others for the wounded soldiers.

It isn't similar. The guns worked as intended. The cases where Halliburton was successfully sued were cases of negligence. Like hiring unqualified electricians leading to electrocution deaths of soldiers taking showers.

[donttread]

How would you do that?

Pass a law that says "Exxon shall...?"

Yes, double, no triple, the tax on war based profits

[PattyHill]

It isn't similar. The guns worked as intended. The cases where Halliburton was successfully sued were cases of negligence. Like hiring unqualified electricians leading to electrocution deaths of soldiers taking showers.


This thread wasn't about suing Halliburton (as far as I know). It was about baking into their contracts an allotment to cover the medical expenses for wounded veterans.

[The Xl]

The government has all the money to pay for these wars, but none to take care of the troops.

That's because the wars aren't for defense, aren't for the good of the people, they're for special interests, and the troops are fodder

[magicmike]

It isn't similar. The guns worked as intended. The cases where Halliburton was successfully sued were cases of negligence. Like hiring unqualified electricians leading to electrocution deaths of soldiers taking showers.

If a few fried troops is all you think came out of the wars, then I guess we don't have much to worry about.

The reason celebrities have to hawk these charities, and I can't stand the commercials, is because our congress refuses to adequately fund care for returning troops.

Until they do try donating to the DAV. I do.

[Dr. Who]

The government has all the money to pay for these wars, but none to take care of the troops.

That's because the wars aren't for defense, aren't for the good of the people, they're for special interests, and the troops are fodder
In the history of war, the troops who fought in good faith have generally been abandoned by their governments. This is not unique in America. Soldiers are generally considered expendable and if they happen to survive, they are a low budget priority because there are always more to fill their shoes. To a degree war has always fulfilled more than one purpose. It addresses geopolitical issues, but it also disposes of the surplus population of males with limited options.

[Mac-7]

Yes, double, no triple, the tax on war based profits

War based profits?

You mean Exxon selling diesel fuel to the military is a war based profit?

Don't be silly.

And how do you single out Exxon?

I guess like willie sutton you go where the money is.

[southwest88]

I object to stating it as celebrities pandering (the OP title). In the first place, I don't care who is raising money to meet the obligations of the state - We promised we would take care of our military & spooks & diplomats, in return for their service. If we fail in that undertaking, we can scarcely claim the moral high ground when France, NATO members, etc. fail to meet their manpower or military contributions to the common cause.

Secondly, pandering carries extremely negative sexual overtones (see the definition). If we as a state promised & failed to deliver on care for the people or their survivors who answered the call to duty, & it falls to non-state actors to redeem our broken promises, that is not reprehensible. That redemption shows a higher sense of morality than did the penny-pinching REMFs who sent men, women & children out to be maimed, or die, on a budget.

I grant that the high rate of casualties & deaths from IEDs was unexpected. However, even our on-again, off-again experience in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait - should have reminded our knowledgeable people in the field & administrators @ the military & various spook agencies & diplomats that no military nor diplomatic plans involving the Middle East nor SW Asia seem to ever work out even reasonably close to what was intended. To that extent, & to the extent that knowledgeable & questioning voices were deliberately ignored or plowed under, I hold the W admin & their cronies & camp followers primarily responsible.

The US mass media, especially the 24/7 so-called news - get second place. (& cheerleaders' uniforms [with corporate logos], pom-poms, megaphones, tight sweaters - all skirts, no pants. Sorry, boys, you get dressed appropriately for your function. Apologies to any real journalists left working in the vast wasteland - I'd revisit the old resume, if I were you.)

[donttread]

In the history of war, the troops who fought in good faith have generally been abandoned by their governments. This is not unique in America. Soldiers are generally considered expendable and if they happen to survive, they are a low budget priority because there are always more to fill their shoes. To a degree war has always fulfilled more than one purpose. It addresses geopolitical issues, but it also disposes of the surplus population of males with limited options.

Equally dispensable alive or dead it would seem

[Beevee]

The money isn't there because each is a volunteer.

I wouldn't mind betting that if conscription were the case, there would be more money than was needed because the outcry of the families of those conscripted would sway the voting at elections.

[donttread]

War based profits?

You mean Exxon selling diesel fuel to the military is a war based profit?

Don't be silly.

And how do you single out Exxon?

I guess like willie sutton you go where the money is.

Or Haliburton, Black water, BP . arms dealers etc