View Full Version : american army being treated poorly
what do you guys make of the whole thing surrounding the walter reed army medical center? how the soldiers are being treated poorly there,i mean,there are cockroaches there! and even though i'm against this war to begin with i still don't think those soldiers deserve that kind of treatment! they go through hell in that war so the least they can get when they come home wounded is a room without cockroaches don't ya think? and i also can't believe how the guy that ran the hospital says "the pictures and the news are pretty one sided,you should also look at it from the other side"honestly,what other side? have you guys seen the pictures? it's bad
oh and to those of you that doubt that this is bush's fault,you should watch this
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1e02i_bob-woodruff-p2
Ashlyn
03-09-2007, 02:30 PM
Double-posting is actually against FB rules, so I merged those for ya, Bely. :)
I just read an article about this as well, and you're right, it's quite horrific. We should be treating our wounded soliders FAR better than this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html
:lol: @ The Jon Stewart video. I wouldn't say it is specifically Bush's fault, but those that are to blame need to be fired. End of story.
amberdawn
03-09-2007, 02:45 PM
oh and to those of you that doubt that this is bush's fault,you should watch this
No, it's not his fault. Bush doesn't run the medical center, Bely. He is not responsible for how they treat their patients.
olivetree
03-09-2007, 02:56 PM
No, it's not his fault. Bush doesn't run the medical center, Bely. He is not responsible for how they treat their patients.
Amen.
Not every federal medical center for soliders is bad. Look at Brooke Army Med Center here in San Antonio. It's top notch, yet it is run by the government.
Also, the problems at Walter Reed may not be new. They may have been going on beofre Bush was elected. We may not even know how long the problems have been truly going on. You can't say it's because of Bush. It's not because of Bush. It's because of people like Francis J. Harvey who forgot to do their job the proper way. And like I said, the problems may have exisited before the Iraq War and before Bush.
Double-posting is actually against FB rules, so I merged those for ya, Bely. :)
I just read an article about this as well, and you're right, it's quite horrific. We should be treating our wounded soliders FAR better than this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html
:lol: @ The Jon Stewart video. I wouldn't say it is specifically Bush's fault, but those that are to blame need to be fired. End of story.
oh,in that case thanx,and sorry,i won't do it again :-) and uhm,yes it's bush's fault,he's the one that started the war,he's the one that's such an avid troop supporter,he's the president! you know "the decider",he should've known about this and taken proper action. The guy running the hospital was fired and then the replacement turned out to be no good either so he was fired too,check this out
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1dz7r_bob-woodruff-p1
amberdawn
03-09-2007, 03:33 PM
Bush is not the one who hires people for the hospital! You really seem like you just want to blame Bush for everything bad in the world, no offense.
OTH man
03-09-2007, 04:36 PM
I laugh at the fact that Jon Stewart is your great source
..hes a comedian
and bush doesnt run the hospitals.. or hire those who do
I laugh at the fact that Jon Stewart is your great source
..hes a comedian
and bush doesnt run the hospitals.. or hire those who do
he may be a comedian but that doesn't mean he's lying about facts. Besides research shows that ppl that watch the daily show are more informed about current events than when they watch any other news program. and i find it weird how he's commander in chief so he decides what happends with the soldiers in war but what happends to soldiers when they come home is out of his hands? Because he may not run those hospitals or hire ppl to do so but he is however in charge of the budget (well technically the senate is i believe) but he could've made sure more money went into the care of wounded soldiers or just soldiers in general because i think the soldiers also lack body armor (sp?) which would also explain why so many return home wounded.
OTH man
03-09-2007, 04:54 PM
Can you show me this research that says the Daily Show viewers are more informed?
Ashlyn
03-09-2007, 04:58 PM
On top of that, "Daily Show" viewers know more about election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey
"Daily Show" viewers are 78 percent more likely than the average adult to have four or more years of college education, while O'Reilly's audience is only 24 percent more likely to have that much schooling.
From here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/).
OTH man
03-09-2007, 05:04 PM
Yes, election issues, because they actually discuss that- but i wanna see where daily show viewers know more about iraq, bush, ect. and more informed means the bad AND THE GOOD
I don't get how that second quote applies whatsoever.. because more DS viewers went to college their more informed on the issues?
Ashlyn
03-09-2007, 05:16 PM
They're more educated... and more educated generally equals more informed. It's not ALWAYS, and I don't mean to make a generalization, but it just proves that Bill O's idea that the DS viewers were just stoned slackers was complete BS.
OTH man
03-09-2007, 05:17 PM
Oh, I don't watch either... when it comes to polotics i generally only watch H&C
Heather
03-09-2007, 06:16 PM
Wow...okay.
I think a few things need to be pointed out. The area of Walter Reed that is falling apart is in an outpatient wing, and amounts to less than ten rooms. Also, the reason the conditions are so poor in that wing, is because Congress cut the funding that went for the maintenance of the hospital.
So, whatever way you look at it, its not Bush's fault. And as soon as he found out about it, he did something about it.
As for the body armor controversy, that was two years ago, and again due to cuts in Congress. He didnt sign a bill allowing it to happen.
hey,i found this clip relating to the walter reed incident on youtube. Apparently congress didn't cut the funding for it. It appears that the whole thing has been privatized and corporations took over and surprisingly those corporations cost more than if government workers would do the job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02UCcv2g-Vo
Heather
03-15-2007, 07:29 PM
Thats because the government contracts with Walter Reed were stopped. So, they had no choice but to use contractors, and private corporations, which cost more.
Thats because the government contracts with Walter Reed were stopped. So, they had no choice but to use contractors, and private corporations, which cost more.
what do you mean "they had no choice"? couldn't the government have made a new contract? why was it stopped in the first place? and also the guy in the video also says that normally the ppl at walter reed were supposed to discharged but since they need more ppl in the army they can't do that that's why they put alot of ppl in walter reed
Quinton
03-16-2007, 07:07 PM
Wow...okay.
I think a few things need to be pointed out. The area of Walter Reed that is falling apart is in an outpatient wing, and amounts to less than ten rooms. Also, the reason the conditions are so poor in that wing, is because Congress cut the funding that went for the maintenance of the hospital.I'm curious. Did any of that funding that was cut go back into defence?
Heather
03-21-2007, 12:31 AM
otewhat do you mean "they had no choice"? couldn't the government have made a new contract? why was it stopped in the first place? and also the guy in the video also says that normally the ppl at walter reed were supposed to discharged but since they need more ppl in the army they can't do that that's why they put alot of ppl in walter reed
Maybe you should talk to the liberals in Congress that cut their funding in the first place. And this is a VOLUNTEER army. Walter Reed is the best military hospital there is, any soldier will tell you that. What happened was completely political, and completely blown out of proportion.
Maybe you should talk to the liberals in Congress that cut their funding in the first place. And this is a VOLUNTEER army. Walter Reed is the best military hospital there is, any soldier will tell you that. What happened was completely political, and completely blown out of proportion.
just curious,would you come to the same conclusions if this news broke during the clinton administration? would you still say that whatever happened is political?
and also,how can you blame this on the "liberals in congress" when those liberals have only been in power for a couple of months,before there was republican majority.
Heather
03-22-2007, 12:42 AM
Yes, I would, actually. Because my main focus has always been the military, and how they are treated.
BTW...it never would have happened under Clinton, because he had a highly conservative Congress to contend with.
Before the recent elections, liberals still held alot of pull and influence in the US Congress and Senate. It wasnt like Conservatives had a high majority. And unfortunately, far too many of them listened to polls, rather than doing what was right where the military was concerned.
You hate Bush, we get that. But you cant blame him for things he had no power over.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.