Jump to content

Yay -- my first published article


LowerCaseRepublican
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 05:11 PM)
I'm still waiting for Nuke's take on what I wrote.  Thanks for the kind words, everybody.  It is some fun community free lance work and getting paid for what I normally ramble on about here is priceless.  :lol:

 

 

Unfortunately while it was a well written column there are several innaccuracies.

 

-Danger/Hazardous fire pay actually was INCREASED as was family separation pay. Additionally during the Bush years basic military pay has risen faster than at any time since the draft was abolished back in 1973.

 

Donald Rumsfeld initiated a total review of the way military pay was parceled out. With reference to imminent danger/hostile fire pay as it stands now you have soldiers in places like CENTCOM HQ in Qatar, which is no less safe than any stateside base, recieving the same amount as soldiers patrolling in the Sunni Triangle. This is unfair and indeed is wasteful. What Rumsfeld is seeking to do is to make the level of special pay commensurate with the level of danger present. His critics, latched on to that though as wanting to cut special pays and they had his proposals defeated. As a result of this bulls*** criticism soldiers who are being shot at and dodging roadside bombs every day still recieve the same hazardous pay as those who sit in a HQ building in a completely safe area.

 

-With refernce to medical care for war wounds. The care our wounded recieve is without parallel in our history. The facilities we have in the field are state of the art and the hospitals at Landsthul and Walter Reed are 2 of the finest hospitals in the world. Within a few hours after being wounded in an engagement soldiers are stabilized at a unit in the field then airlifted to Landsthul where they recieve treatment for their injuries. The speed at which these guys are being taken care of was totally unheard of in wars past and lives are being saved as a result.

 

-I acknowlege that there have been problems getting equipment to the troops in the field but since the War on Terror began the military has decreased the amount of time that new equipment takes to get from the drawing board to the battlefield by some 75% under its rapid fielding initiative. Despite some logistical problems we're still, by far and away, the best equipped military in history and we have far fewer casualties than we would have had as a result.

 

As a result of the last 2 points I made many many lives have been saved in this war that would have been lost in wars past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 06:57 PM)
Unfortunately while it was a well written column there are several innaccuracies. 

 

-Danger/Hazardous fire pay actually was INCREASED as was family separation pay.  Additionally during the Bush years basic military pay has risen faster than at any time since the draft was abolished back in 1973. 

 

Donald Rumsfeld initiated a total review of the way military pay was parceled out.  With reference to imminent danger/hostile fire pay as it stands now you have soldiers in places like CENTCOM HQ in Qatar, which is no less safe than any stateside base, recieving the same amount as soldiers patrolling in the Sunni Triangle.  This is unfair and indeed is wasteful.  What Rumsfeld is seeking to do is to make the level of special pay commensurate with the level of danger present.  His critics, latched on to that though as wanting to cut special pays and they had his proposals defeated. As a result of this bulls*** criticism soldiers who are being shot at and dodging roadside bombs every day still recieve the same hazardous pay as those who sit in a HQ building in a completely safe area. 

 

-With refernce to medical care for war wounds.  The care our wounded recieve is without parallel in our history.  The facilities we have in the field are state of the art and the hospitals at Landsthul and Walter Reed are 2 of the finest hospitals in the world.  Within a few hours after being wounded in an engagement soldiers are stabilized at a unit in the field then airlifted to Landsthul where they recieve treatment for their injuries.  The speed at which these guys are being taken care of was totally unheard of in wars past and lives are being saved as a result. 

 

-I acknowlege that there have been problems getting equipment to the troops in the field but since the War on Terror began the military has decreased the amount of time that new equipment takes to get from the drawing board to the battlefield by some 75% under its rapid fielding initiative.  Despite some logistical problems we're still, by far and away, the best equipped military in history and we have far fewer casualties than we would have had as a result.

 

As a result of the last 2 points I made many many lives have been saved in this war that would have been lost in wars past.

 

Yes, they didn't actually reduce the imminent danger pay due to an assload of public outcry -- but the Pentagon actually brought up the idea of decreasing these pay amounts as a way to save money.

 

And the discussion of medical care -- just because it is very good doesn't mean that these problems could not be better addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 07:01 PM)
Yes, they didn't actually reduce the imminent danger pay due to an assload of public outcry -- but the Pentagon actually brought up the idea of decreasing these pay amounts as a way to save money.

 

And the discussion of medical care -- just because it is very good doesn't mean that these problems could not be better addressed.

 

 

Again. You're taking the pay issue out of context. Under current rules there are soldiers recieving danger pay who are in no danger whatsoever. Making danger pay commensurate with the level of actual danger is a laudable goal because it would allow those taking all the risks to be rewarded more than those who don't.

 

I dont disagree that there are problems with military medical care but the care these guys get is second to none and when you look at how many soldiers are surviving wounds that would have killed them in wars past and how many are recovering from wounds that would have been permanent in wars past the criticism sounds increasingly petty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 08:08 PM)
I dont disagree that there are problems with military medical care but the care these guys get is second to none and when you look at how many soldiers are surviving wounds that would have killed them in wars past and how many are recovering from wounds that would have been permanent in wars past the criticism sounds increasingly petty.

 

Nuke, do I hear a Republican saying that the government can run a successful, dare I quote "best in the world" medical program?

 

We wouldn't want that for ordinary Americans

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...