Army Returns Soldiers With Missing Limbs to Active Duty

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:17:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Only in America, folks. Like Cookie Jill at Skippy, I'm at a loss for words:

Previously, a soldier who lost a limb almost automatically received a quick discharge, a disability check and an appointment with the Veterans Administration.

But since the start of the Iraq war, the military has begun holding on to amputees, treating them in rehab programs like the one here at Fort Sam Houston and promising to help them return to active duty if that is what they want.

"The mindset of our Army has changed, to the extent that we realize the importance of all our soldiers and what they can contribute to our Army. Someone who loses a limb is still a very valuable asset," said Lt. Col. Kevin Arata, a spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command at the Pentagon.

They aren't just returning to desk jobs.

More...

Other amputees who have returned to combat, ranging from infantry grunts to special forces soldiers, have conducted door-to-door searches, convoy operations and other missions in the field.

Sure, these are soldiers who want to re-enlist, but doesn't the Army have a duty to say no...not until you're as physically fixed as the whole soldier and been tested for PTSD and other mental issues?

Putting a ~~boy~~ soldier in harms way for an unjust war is bad enough, to do it a second time seems simply cruel.

Update: I've changed the "boy" to soldier. I think of them as kids because so many of them are under 21. Response to commenters: I have no problem with their wanting to remain in the army, I just don't think they should be returned to active combat duty. They've already lost enough.

< Tim Griffin Resigns as U.S. Attorney for Arkansas | Making the Promise of Title VII Work >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Army Returns Soldiers With Missing Limbs to Active Duty | 57 comments (57 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Oh Please (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by beefeater on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:10:05 AM EST

Read the article! Nobody is forcing these "boys" to do anything that they don't want or can't do. And calling them "boys" is just plain insulting. Would you rather have them kicked to the curb and made to feel like worthless and crippled gimps with no value? These MEN are being allowed to choose to be what they want to be, without being told that they are unfit for duty like you seem to want to do. Your hatred for the Military is just amazing. If any other entity was to discriminate in the manner you suggest, you would be barking at the moon madder than hell.

: I Agree With Most (none / 0) (#18)
by talex on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:58:49 AM EST

of what you say but...
This does show how desperate our military is for bodies as this war has 'handicapped' recruiting to the point it is almost on life support.
My other comment is this. If I were a soldier in the field of battle I would feel much safer having the guy beside me having all his limbs. This is war and it is tough enough when you are whole. To be missing a limb in such a situation is a handicap for you and for those around you.
I whole heartedly endorse any person to volunteer to return to active duty but the front lines is stretching it. A stateside position or at best a non-combat support position in theater would make more sense for all involved.

: Disabled Veterans (none / 0) (#58)
by 14Karat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:39:10 AM EST

Oh My!!! No they are not forcing the Men to stay in they ar e forcing the women. I am a disabled vet from the Gulf/ Desert Storm entered active duty 1992. I am service connected; however, in April 2000, I had to muster, my obligation ended 9/2000. I have not re enlisted. This unit has extended me 22 times for contingency of a medical board. I had to write a congressional to get this completed. However, the PEB says I am fit for duty with the limited profile that I have because I am admin personnel? My profile not allow me to do any PT tests not even an alternate event. Although, if I were to enlist I would incur a bonus because it would be my 1st enlistment into the Army reserves...now..I cannot re enlist because my profile does not meet the regulations, however I am fit for duty...I am being told because of my job at the VA hospital...I can do admin for the Army, I will not progress in my career in the Reserves...I will at the VA, my profile prevents me from firing the weapon since, standing long periods like a formation...I have not chosen to stay in..the Army is forcing me to do som to prevent from giving me a severance pay, medical retirement, and another percentage??

Discrimination against the disabled? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:59:20 AM EST

If a private corporation automatically terminated any employee who became disabled, there'd be no end to the lawsuits.

We shouldn't ignore the status of the disabled in the military just because the government is largely immune from that type of legal action. This is a good move for the military and it is a good move for our disabled veterans.

Fantastic! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by LibraryLady on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:07:06 AM EST

I am a disabled person who lost my job. I wish I had the support of my employer. No one is making these soldiers (and they are not BOYS!!) stay in the military; they want to.

its about (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Jen M on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:53:41 AM EST

darn time.

missing limbs (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by TKindlon on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:41:37 AM EST

Military service by men missing limbs is not unprecedented, nor is it as weird as it sounds at first blush.

Consider this: An RAF "Flying Officer" named Douglas Bader--who'd lost both legs in a plane crash during the 1930's--served quite successfully during WWII and, piloting a Spitfire, distinguished himself during the Battle of Britain.

A number of different American servicemen missing one limb or another have also served quite successfully in the past. Experience has shown us that determined individuals can always rise above physical problems. I, for one, have always believed that we should be impressed by the determination of such people.

(n.b. PLEASE do not misinterpret this comment as support for George Bush's idiotic war, his failed presidency or his personality disorder. It is still an idiotic war, it is still a failed presidency and history will provide us with a diagnosis, probably from DSM-VIII or so, for whatever it is that ails Mr. Bush)

: I had never heard of Douglas Bader -- Thank you! (none / 0) (#11)
by jerry on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:18:51 AM EST

Wow, interesting story. Thank you!

Why not? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:52:35 AM EST

They can contribute.

Their CinC is mentally disabled, and so far has been able to retain his job.

No Problem (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Strick on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:14:29 AM EST

It was common practice in previous wars, certainly up to WWII.

Of course, perhaps the most famous person returned to war after his amputation was British. Look up Admiral Nelson's wounds some time.

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Slado on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:38:00 AM EST

These men are choosing to return not being forced or required.

Bravo to the military and bravo to these brave men.

Jeralyn is it that they want to return that bothers you?

jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by cpinva on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:06:31 AM EST

what they've begun to realize is that these people are scarce, allocable resources, who cost a lot of money to train. the loss of a limb doesn't equate with the loss of knowledge and experience they can bring to the table, in other capacities.

as noted by others, this isn't unique in the annals of military history. nor, are they being forced to stay in, they are requesting to.

while i oppose the continued action in iraq, i wholeheartedly support the army in this endeavor.

and you know what peaches (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by cpinva on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:21:26 AM EST

that would be fine also. these guys/gals shouldn't be forced back into a combat zone, and according to the article, they aren't. also, they aren't going back in unless they're capable of handling it.

should the military allow them to, after suffering grievous injury? beats me. however, this was common practice in wwII and korea, if they passed their physical. something else you might not be aware of: not being combat effective can harm your career aspirations. ask the women not allowed into combat; it hurts them, because it restricts the military's ability to freely move them around.

i would agree that, in part at least, the army's difficulties in enlisting sufficient bodies is at the heart of this.

Again, what is their other choice? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Dadler on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:15:50 PM EST

Come back home to Walter Reed? To piss poor benefits being cut?

Pretending this is some free choice made with equal options on the other side is absurd.

It's great they're not treated as useless by the military IN THEATER. It's not great, in fact it's a disgrace, they are still treated as useless and not deserving of proper care when they go home.

: Dadler (none / 0) (#51)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:37:57 PM EST

Horse hockey.
If they need to be in a hospital they will be in one. That is not an option.
Is their benefits bad? Yes. I have made that point to my Congress people several times. Have you??

Putting a boy in harms way (none / 0) (#9)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:03:40 AM EST

Why do you characterize these men as children?

American Business (none / 0) (#13)
by aj12754 on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:44:53 AM EST

American buiness talks a good game about supporting the troops -- but how many companies are jumping up to hire these wounded veterans? I remember reading about a job fair for wounded veternas a few months back here in NJ (or maybe it was PA) -- one of the vets commented about the fact that none of the companies reaping big bucks through defense contracts had bothered to show up at the job fair. I think the Army is doing exactly the right thing in making it possible for injured men and women to remain in the service if that is their choice. And I speak as a veteran.

et al (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:14:29 AM EST

Nice to see some support for letting these guys try and get along with their lives doing a job they like and one they are good at. Truly win win.

I updated the post (none / 0) (#15)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:22:09 AM EST

to make my position clearer.

Admiral Nelson lost an arm (none / 0) (#16)
by JSN on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:51:33 AM EST

but returned to duty. There was a Confederate General who traveled by ambulance because of his prior injuries. No doubt there are numerous examples of lower ranking military personnel who returned to duty after the loss of a limb.

I force myself to watch the pictures of those killed in Iraq on the PBS News Hour and many of them are 19 & 20 with an 18 year old on occasion. They look like a lot like high school students to me so I suppose that someone might think they are kids. They may have been kids when they entered the service but they were adults when they died.

How many more years will I have to force myself to look at pictures of our young people who were killed in Iraq? At least I was able to help to replace a phony anti-war Republican with a real anti-war Democrat.

CHOICE? (none / 0) (#17)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:51:43 AM EST

What exactly is their choice. Leave the military and get minimal training for a civilian career and minimal support from the VA.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jeralyn. These soldiers have given and sacrificed enough. They should not be cut loose from the military, and there should be no limit to the support given them to make the transition to civilian life, but combat should be off limits to them.

Trainers of Dogs that fight argue that the Dogs (Pitbulls) live to fight and actually enjoy it. They will fight to the death and love every second of it-even as they suffer from being maimed by the opposing dog. In other words, they choose to fight, so why should society regulate it. Choice is not the question here. We should do what is right. These soldiers deserve to be placed outside of harms way after the sacrifice they have already given.

Peaches (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:15:04 AM EST

Comparing the soldiers to pit bulls is a very, very, very poor choice of words.

Please tell me you regret it.


I am comparing arguments for choice (none / 0) (#23)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:22:17 AM EST

I am not comparing soldiers to Pitbulls, but rest assured, I was under no illusions that someone would make that charge - and I am also not surprised that it was you.

read it again.

My point is that soldier are trained to be soldiers. Their choice is not relevant here. They have not been given other opportunities to choose from and it is obvious that most of them would wish to return to be with their unit. However, the military and society should have higher concerns.


Peaches (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:09:54 PM EST

If you understood that someone would make that charge, then you could have easily not used it.

I mean, why use it at all?


Because (none / 0) (#32)
by squeaky on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:19:15 PM EST

That is one of the ways humans express themselves, through analogy.

Peaches used a very apt analogy as well. For a fighter being compared to a pit bull is normal and quite the compliment. Peaches analogy is further apt, because many of us have more compassion in supporting our dogs than we do of our troops.

You are one of the many that support the troops by throwing them back in the ring. Fodder stuck to flypaper, so that that they can die to keep you comfy, warm and safe.


Squeaky smears (none / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:47:58 PM EST

I had write at 9:14AM:

Squeaky writes at 12:19PM

You are one of the many that support the troops by throwing them back in the ring

You either didn't bother to read, or you just make things up. Now making things up is smearing, and we both know that you consider that an acceptable method of debate.

But doing it so openly indicates that you are slipping badly, or else you have no respect for your audience.


You smear yourself (none / 0) (#48)
by squeaky on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:52:23 PM EST

You write:

Your support for the troops has thus far amounted to arguing for keeping the troops as bait on flypaper so that they can get killed by terrorists in Iraq in order to lessen the chances of your fat a$$ getting blown to bits while you are doing your keyboard kommando routine in luxurious settings.

Now you are all for sending cripples onto the flypaper too.

And your relentless whining that the people who really care about the troops and show it by demanding that they come home, even though they risk increased terror attacks here in the US, are harming the troops moral and providing comfort to the enemy is amongst the most twisted logic you have ever come up with.


squeaky (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:30:51 PM EST

That is disgusting. To call these men "cripples" just demonstrates who you really are.

I wrote:

First. I did not and you know I did not say anything about "sending" anyone any place.

What you wrote is not true, and is just another smear.

And if you think letting someone try and do a job they want to do, even with their wounds, then you know absolutely nothing about human nature.

Shame on you.

As for the snarky comment about me, I would remind you that I served. You have not, and have said you would not. So we can easily see who is concerned about their personal safety.

We all know you squeaky.

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

Troops and Looters (none / 0) (#52)
by squeaky on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:02:17 PM EST

To call these men "cripples" just demonstrates who you really are.

I did not know that it wasn't pc to call amputees cripples.

As for your not wanting to send anyone anywhere that is utter BS. You have been a strong supporter of sending troops to Iraq to serve as fodder so that you can feel safe in your home.

Not only do you not support the troops, who are dying at a higher rate than ever, you are for shooting looters.

Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.

And as far as Rove goes, you are the one who emulates and defends him, because he is your hero as he is for every Republican operative, and that does not include me.


squeaky (none / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:14:06 PM EST

You demonstrate an absolute amazing lack of well, just knowledge.

cripple:

a : sometimes offensive : a lame or partly disabled person or animal b : one that is disabled or deficient in a specified manner (a social cripple)
2 : something flawed or imperfect

Do you find these men offensive? Do you find them flawed and imperfect?

What is it about them?? Is it their willingness to fight for your right to run your mouth 24 7?? Is it the missing limb that reminds you that you would not serve??

Tell us sqeaky. Rant about Rove. Steam about Bush. Emote about Gonzales.

And then tell me you think these men are cripples.

Want to see a cripple???

LOOK IN THE MIRROR.


: haahhahahaha (none / 0) (#57)
by squeaky on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:18:07 PM EST

You are the cripple.

As Squeaky says (none / 0) (#37)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:38:48 PM EST

I liked the analogy. I just happened to have listened to an interview with a police officer for The Animal Humane Society yesterday on the way home from work. It was fresh on my mind.


Forced choices. (none / 0) (#24)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:53:14 AM EST

I think it's a shame that people spend so much time claiming that U.S. soldiers are good for nothing except soldiering. That limits their choices as much as any "minimal training they are given for a civilian career" ever could. And they are, of course, always welcome (and, in fact, encouraged) to complete the same "training" that many other Americans take before entering the work force: university.

These soldiers deserve to be placed outside of harms way after the sacrifice they have already given.

They deserve to have their own desires granted as much as possible. Your imposition of what you think they deserve should not trump their own choices. That is just another way of treating them like children, who cannot make the "right" choices without having them enforced from above.


again, bs, Gabe (none / 0) (#25)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:05:35 AM EST

That is just another way of treating them like children, who cannot make the "right" choices without having them enforced from above.

As neither of us has been a soldier, neither of us really knows much about it. However, I think it is safe to say that your argument is bunk. Soldiers constantly have to take orders from above that disregard their choice. This is not treating them like children, but treating them like soldiers. I think we can, at least, agree on that.

The point is we can choose to implement policies that go against a soldiers individual choice. In fact, we do it all the time. It is a fact of life for soldiers.


And? (none / 0) (#29)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:13:03 PM EST

Yes, soldiers have to take orders and that curtails their choices; that is obvious and irrelevant. As you say, it is a fact of life for soldiers.

The question here is whether it is better policy to prohibit willing and able-bodied, but disabled, soldiers from participating in combat or to allow them to elect to return to combat.

Jeralyn wants to prohibit their participation because they have "lost enough." You say that they have "sacrificed enough" and "combat should be off limits." But why? What reason do you have for saying "that's enough, no fighting for you" except that they've been greviously wounded?

I, on the other hand, support a policy that lets seriously wounded soldiers elect to return to combat duty because (1) they shouldn't be treated differently just because they've lost a limb, and so long as their disability does not represent an undue danger to themselves or others; (2) it sends an important message about the lives of disabled Americans; and (3) it retains an important resource for use by the military.


Right, those are the clear demarcations (none / 0) (#39)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:52:50 PM EST

You say they should be able to choose to go back for the three reasons you listed.

I say, and I think Jeralyn agrees, that they should not be able to go back because they have sacrificed or lost enough in the suffering and injuries they have already sustained. I don't care about their choice, I am not willing to risk anymore further suffering for them.

This should surprise no one who knows my position on war in general. I am just surprised at the argument that this is all about choice and we (or the gov't/military) cannot weigh in on this individual choice as if this is an issue about freedom and rights.


Maybe we're not communicating. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:05:27 PM EST

Peaches, I'm not sure you're hearing me. You have correctly noted that we routinely curtail the choices of enlisted men and women. That is indisputable, but largely irrelevant to the question at hand. We have (at least) four possible policies here:

(1) Discharge soldiers who lose a limb.
(2) Retain soldiers who lose a limb, but prohibit them from returning to combat duty.
(3) Retain soldiers who lose a limb and allow them to elect to return to combat duty or chose to work elsewhere in the military or chose to be discharged.
(4) Retain soldiers who lose a limb and force them to return to combat duty.

I think the general consensus around here is that policies (1) and (4) are bad. Peaches, you and I are arguing over which of policies (2) and (3) are better.

As you identified quickly, choice is a crucial component of policy (3), but it is not the sole justification for that policy. I listed a few other considerations that support a policy of allowing soldiers.

The difference between us is that you think their injuries mean that they have suffered enough never to have to fight again. I think that their injuries mean that they have suffered enough to be given a choice in the matter.


: Another, clear demarcation (none / 0) (#42)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:25:23 PM EST

The difference between us is that you think their injuries mean that they have suffered enough never to have to fight again. I think that their injuries mean that they have suffered enough to be given a choice in the matter.

I would have been fine with this from the beginning. I just didn't like the emphasis upon choice that you and others made, just because it was convenient in this scenario.
You told Jeralyn that it was their choice not hers and titled one of your headings "Forced Choice." My point was, and I think we now both understand, that choice is not relevant and in fact, if there is a consensus that #2 in your list should be the appropriate policy, then soldiers have to live with that policy - like they live with a lot of policies that limit their choices.

Really? (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:12:12 AM EST

Most of these people are considered kids by state laws. Let them do whatever they want? Most of them cannot even legally drink beer.

And is it always honorable to serve one's counrty? I am not so sure.


We owe these guys..... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:01:13 AM EST

a debt we can never repay....whatever they choose to do after being terribly injured, we should do our best to hook them up.

Combat (none / 0) (#20)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:02:13 AM EST

Jeralyn writes:

I have no problem with their wanting to remain in the army, I just don't think they should be returned to active combat duty. They've already lost enough.

So long as they remain physically capable of returning to duty without puting themselves or others in undue danger because of a disability, the choice should be theirs to make. They get to decide when they've "lost enough," not you.

bs, Gabe (none / 0) (#22)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:16:23 AM EST

Government can decide to limit choices under many circumstances. If the military, government, or public outcry against returning an amputee to combat is implemented it is no longer the choice of the soldier.

Soldiers don't get to decide much. They follow orders. Here is what the military should be saying to their request to return to combat to join their comrades.

"Son, I know you want to be with your unit and continue to serve your country. I know you are also a capable military personnel that the army could benefit from in the field of battle. Let me assure you, if you want a career in the military, the US Army will always be there for you. However, you have given and sacrificed enough for your country. We cannot ask you to risk giving anymore. I'm sorry, but we won't assign you to any duty that puts you in harms way. That is our policy and that is the way it is going to be. You can ask for anything else and the Army will meet its obligation to you, but you will not be returning to combat."


Peaches (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:14:53 PM EST

Why the "Son?" I spent 10 years in Naval Aviation and never was called son, or heard anyone else called son.

And why do you argue against the military person's right to have a choice??

Would also argue that a civilian couldn't choose not to serve??


that's a terrible sentence... (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:16:09 PM EST

Would you agree that the government has the right to make everyone serve?


: Jim, (none / 0) (#34)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:31:34 PM EST

In regards to "Son," I suppose I have watched too many Hollywood movies. Take out "Son" and substitute the appropriate Military rank or even a name. I don't think it effects what I am arguing.
As to your second question,
The government has a right to do whatever we tell it to do and we have a right to disobey what the government says, as long as we are aware of the consequences.
So, if our democracy decides that everyone should serve, I have to make a decision to disobey my government and suffer the consequences.
Since when do soldiers get to decide how, when and where they are deployed. I am sure they can state their preferences, but the military is under no obligation honor them. You have made the same argument over soldiers who choose not to go to Iraq. Once your a soldier, you don't have a choice. You have to follow orders.
I am stating my position. I understand others feel differently. But, don't say it is about choice when choice has little place in the military. So, I will repeat, if the military, Gov't or Public outcry against amputees returning to combat is implemented, then soldiers don't have a choice in the matter. The decision has been made for them.
If the military, gov't or public outcry against amputees returning to combat is not great enough to be implemented and leaves it to the choice of individual soldiers, then so be it. I just disagree with the policy and would like to see it changed.

Only in America, folks. (none / 0) (#33)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:31:20 PM EST

Only in America, folks.

...Jeralyn Merrit

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said soldiers who have lost a limb or suffered permanent disability still have much to contribute to the military as well as organizations like the Paralympics. The department is exploring various ways to keep severely wounded soldiers employed, including a review of the universal policy that requires troops be fit and able to deploy to operations anywhere in the world.
[snip]
"We are reviewing that policy in light of the number of casualties that we have had from Afghanistan to make sure that people who have sacrificed their lives for us, and sacrificed maybe parts of their future, that we can look after them and re-integrate them into the military," he said.
[snip]
McCoy is confident she will fill all the physical requirements -- including a 13 km march with a heavy rucksack. And she's not afraid of losing another limb in the war zone.
[snip]
Master Cpl. Jody Mitic, who lost his feet to a land mine four months ago, also sees sport as an aid to rehabilitation.
"My mission since day one since I got hurt was to find a way to stay in uniform," he said.
"Just the fact that I'm a sniper makes me want to stay and do sniper stuff just because I really like it, and I don't see a civilian market for it so I've got to stay in and get that kind of work."

Once, a [British] soldier who had lost a limb in battle would have been pensioned off or transferred to a desk job. Now, though, some are being passed as fit for duty and are being allowed to return to the frontline.

Actually, only in America do some blame America first.

Clarification (none / 0) (#35)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:34:17 PM EST

[Canadian] Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor

Actually, (none / 0) (#36)
by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:35:41 PM EST

only in America do some try to twist others words to imply that they blame America first.


Fair enough (none / 0) (#38)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:48:43 PM EST

However, since she said "only in America," but since it's also the case in Canada and Britain, by the Edger definition, she lied. Right?


Don't tell me (none / 0) (#43)
by Edger on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:29:20 PM EST

you've never heard of sarcasm, sarcastic unnamed one?


: As long as we accept the fact (none / 0) (#44)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:33:49 PM EST

that allowing amputee soldiers to choose to return to active duty is decidedly not "Only in America, folks" it's all good to me.

No John Kerry loathing of the US Military. (none / 0) (#45)
by Fritz on Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:42:48 PM EST

Unlike John Kerry that turned every scratch into a Purple Heart to get out of service, these guys are Soldiers & Marines, proud to be in service of their country. I guess they want to get stuk in Irak. Would Jeralyn quit arguing cases in Court had she lost a limb during a violent action at the courthouse?

Fritz (3.00 / 1) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:33:56 PM EST

I believe that people can change. So I believe that the John Kerry who served with honor in Iraq later changed into the John Kerry that I do not like.

But please, don't go where you are going. You become one of the Left when you do.


I don't usually rate much here (none / 0) (#54)
by Alien Abductee on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:42:35 PM EST

But that was the d*mnedest mix of a comment. Both a 5 and a 1 for you Jim.


: Alien (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 31, 2007 at 09:17:17 PM EST

That's what comes of being an Independent.
Neither side wants you.

Fritz... (none / 0) (#47)
by Peaches on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:28:35 PM EST

Mondale, you are not.

John Kerry served his country and experienced combat in Viet Nam. Like these soldiers, he deserves our respect for that fact alone. Why not leave it at that.

If you don't like his politics - fine.

Your question of Jeralyn is as stupid as your bringing up Kerry in this context. We are talking about war and combat, not random crime occurring at infrequent intervals.


More From the Flypaper (none / 0) (#53)
by squeaky on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:02:42 PM EST

Williams missed six months of his girlfriend's pregnancy when he was given six days' notice to return to Iraq for his second tour. He also missed his baby boy's birth. Three weeks ago, he went home and saw his first child.
"He looks just like me," he said. "I didn't want to come back. . . . We're waiting to get blown up." [...]
Next to him, Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn., thought about what he was going to say.
"We're not making any progress," Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. "It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at. ... It's just more troops, more targets."
In the past two months, the unit has lost two men. In May alone, at least 120 U.S. troops died in Iraq, the bloodiest month in 2007 and the highest number since the battles of Fallujah in 2004.
Spc. Kevin Krasco, 20, of Medford, Mass., and Spc. Kevin Adams, 20, of Moosup, Conn., chimed in with their dismay before turning the conversation to baseball.
"It's like everything else in this war," Adams said, referring to Baghdad. "It hasn't changed."

Think Progress