No matter what you think of the war in Iraq, I think this is even more disturbing:

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200709 … A0S01.html

I also think it's important for people (especially us Americans) to read this, and do something. I realize there's only so much one can do, but here is a place to start:

http://www.dav.org/

Anyway, I realize this doesn't have anything to do with games nor music, but most of us are so fortunate, I feel we can all help a little
Hope everyone's having a good weekend,

-avatar!

Sounds good to me.  How much are you donating, avatar?  I'll match and double your contribution.

Wow, that's awesome Angela
Being a graduate student, I really can't afford to donate as much as I would like, but I feel that any contribution is better than none. So my contribution was $30.

cheers,

-avatar!

Very good.  $60 it is, then. :)

Rock on! I hope others join in and support our wounded vets...

cheers,

-avatar!

According to Discover magazine, the main problem is that soldiers can literally be blown to pieces and still survive. Normally, when humans are blown apart, they die. Because of advances in battlefied medical services, far more soldiers are surviving. Imagine what would've happened in, say, the Civil War, if they had had advanced medical support. What would those wounded soldiers have done with their lives? Who would've taken care of them? Where would the money have come from to support them?

It may seem as if I'm against advances in medical technology, but my point is that if the government fixes soldiers, then it should complete the fix. The government does not carry things out logically. If a soldier loses part of his arms and legs, he is not going to be very useful. Knowing this, the doctors still save his life. (If the government wants to preserve life so badly, why send them there in the first place?) After the doctors have done their work, the government should step in (that means taxpayers) and support the damaged soldier that can no longer be productive. If there is not enough tax money, then logically, other tax monies should be diverted, such as tax money that supports inmates. It would be logical to kill inmates, which would save an enormous of tax money that could be diverted to support people that followed orders (soldiers), rather than disobeyed them (inmates).

Oh Jesus Christ, I don't even know where to begin.

I'll just go with this - is "usefulness" the only quality that should dictate whether or not a person lives or dies?

Yeah, Jodo Kast is making a strictly "utilitarian" argument, but his compassion for the soldiers is clear, so he's not a dick at least.

(he could've said "let's see more soldiers die," and he didn't. Other utilitarians may see that as the best solution).

If you're going to get all "oh Jesus Christ" pissy/whiny about what Jodo has to say, let's see here ... hmm ... good reply ... Oh, I GOT IT!

Suggest something better.

Ramza

Yes, because the people making the decisions read STC. Quick, Kirin! Tell them what to do!

I propose a national pie reserve.  Veterans love pie.  Oh, wait... the higher-ups might enjoy pie too, and they may try to withhold it for themselves.  I'm afraid the veterans may never get the pie they deserve.

But seriously, I hate to derail a thread like this.  Consider a $30 donation as my apology, pie-less veterans.

My point in the above post is that the U.S. government sends people into situations that could potentially render them useless, which means someone will have to pay for that person to continue existing, since a useless person will not be generating income. Also, medical science has advanced considerably which means that people that should be dead are allowed to exist. That is very problematic because it costs a lot of money to keep someone alive that should be dead.

You have to understand that this matter confuses me far more than it confuses you. You seem to have no anger about the situation, however, you did quickly respond to my post, which I believe you did not understand (based on your response). The U.S. government doesn't help soldiers wounded in war. It repairs their bodies, but that's not help. That's basic. The help comes in the form of financial assistance to assure the person can still pay their bills, which does not happen.

Another source of confusion is why the U.S. prison system even exists. That's a terrible waste of tax money. So many good things could be done if we simply eliminated those wasteful structures and implemented a punishment system. A prison is a cruel torture device. A quick death is neither torture nor cruel.

I'm tending to agree with Mr. Kast here:  whatever happened to "eye for an eye"?

I believe it was updated to "do unto others..."

The whole US war machine is what I'd consider such as an outside spectator. If one combines the military budget with all related expenses in other departments one gets around 1 Trillion dollars (more than a third of the federal budget). Even if one ignores those related expenses (which includes extra-budgetary supplements regularly necessary for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) one still gets a military budget higher than the world's next 14 biggest spenders combined.

Considering all that tax moneys thrown around (regardless if the amount is justified or wasted) I find it very disturbing that it's all allocated in a way that used war veterans are still turned into outcasts.

Yes, the money spent in Iraq is extremely draining.  Just this weekend, there was a debate over the Chip healthcare funding (Children's Health Insurance Program) bill.  Bush stated he would veto it, but if the U.S. were not spending so much money in Iraq, there would be money to fund this.

I totally agree with Jodo that if the government wants to send men and women into combat situations, it needs to support them during and after combat through proper financial and medical aid.  Charities and private donations should not need to step up to the plate for this.

<sarcasm> I suppose, the military loves it when soldiers die, because a dead man has no expenses. </sarcasm>

  Seriously though, this matter is disturbing. There was an article in the latest Discover magazine about the American military budget for 2008 and it amounts to $500,000,000,000. The article mentions nothing about allocating money for veterans. In fact, the military seems to be very proud that it can repair soldiers that have been hit by an IED. Wow. So the military has Doctor Frankensteins.

  I only say this because it seems reasonable: All war veterans should be financially supported by military recruiters.

I can well imagine. Back years ago here, it was known that if you had a major injury and you needed piecing back together, you'd be better going up north to Northern Ireland because the surgeons there had become so skilled at piecing limbs together and improvising (like cutting off a big toe and stitching it on a hand to replace a thumb for example) after the bombings. I imagine war surgeons are much more advanced and skilled, especially with the money you guys in the US pump into your "defense".

As for them supporting veterans, totally agree. If lives don't mean a thing to them, maybe the financial implications will have people think twice about throwing people into combat.

I'm glad people are reading and looking into issues involved with our (US) veterans! Debate is good, learning is even better. Still, I don't want the thread too derailed since it's original purpose was to get people to donate, or at least learn about the plight, of those who sacrificed themselves in the war. Even if it's only $5 or $10, if everyone from STC donated it would be awesome
So far, thanks goes to

Angela (who doubled my donation) and Kirin (who matched it)! Who's next??

cheers,

-avatar!

http://www.dav.org/

I'd be willing to donate money to a fund (or cause) that banished the existence of militaries and implemented a new law stating that politicians (world leaders) must fight each other. It's not my responsibility to fix the mistakes of politicians, although I would be willing to help punish them.

.