Quote:
Originally Posted by Skerlnik
I am going to guess that the government sees "used" soldiers as a welfare drain, and given our history of constantly cutting welfare back to the point of near-uselessness....well, you do the math.
Perhaps to properly take care of our used soldiers, it would leave less in the budget for shiny new toys to mothball, and the Pentagon doesn't consider that they'd get any "return" on the "investment"? After all, aren't they rescinding the enlistment bonuses for injured/discharged vets, because the vets haven't fulfilled their contractual obligation?
It's sad and sick, and it's pathetic for a country this rich and powerful, that prides itself on it's military might to be so callous towards post-combat care, but the Pentagon never struck me as the empathic, sentimental type.
|
Of course, there would be less use for the military if we weren't going around interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.
__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.
"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.
"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
|