Classy, very classy.

Why do liberals care? You hate the military!

You hate the military!
#2 | Posted by aclusux

Yeah, dicksux... we hate the military.

You go on believing that.

How impersonal.

ACLU- Do you (conservatives) care?

7000????

Wait, I thought we were around 4400 and now 7000, I guess KIA doesn't count as dead.

Dear Mr./Ms. Doe:

Thank you for the service to country provided by your son/daughter/husband/wife/
cousin/_______(other).

Our sincerest regrets that your son/daughter/husband/wife/
cousin/_______(other) died. We were almost positive Iraq was crawling with WMD.

On another subject, we have enclosed a coupon for a digital-TV converter box. This card expires on March 17, 2009.

Sincerely,

The Gubmint

Wait, I thought we were around 4400 and now 7000, I guess KIA doesn't count as dead.
#6 | Posted by moneywar

7000 family members, MW, not family members of 7000.

7000 family members, MW, not family members of 7000.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-01-08 09:44 AM | Reply

Don't ruin Crappus's moment. He was just about to go back to adamantly claiming that the military hides the actual KIA figure and doesn't include soldiers who died enroute to Germany or died stateside from their wounds.

Don't ruin Crappus's moment.
#9 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Yeah, I thought about that but he shoulda just kept going with that post instead of waiting for someone to nibble on that lure if that was his intention.

That damn Bush can't get anything right.

The truest thing I ever seen you post, Snip.

Yup, its pretty crappy but at least it was an accident. At least the Army is doign better than it did in "65 when they sent cab drivers to drop off letters.

FTA: The letters, which were printed by a contractor, were to have been automatically addressed with the specific names and addresses of survivors, said Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman. Instead, they contained the placeholder greeting "Dear John Doe."

Contractors again! This is what happens when work is done by people who are only in it for the money (free market motivation) and don't have the pride and respect for the service that the military personnel do. It seems obvious that there are some things that need to be done that will never be profitable, and it is a poor society, indeed, that values nothing but profit and property.

If it wasn't for contractors, the Army would be walking home from Iraq. Contractors such as Boeing, Haliburton, General Dynamics, Northrop-Grumman, Rockwell, Raytheon, United Technologies, ect. will always be a part of the military

If it wasn't for contractors, the Army would be walking home from Iraq.
#15 | Posted by timbci

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there?

I heard Bush spent hundreds of hours with the families...that jerk.

The letters, which were printed by a contractor

On the bright side, the weren't addressed to Juan Doelero or Janashap dampura. I'm just surprised the letters weren't falling off the paper.

I'm just surprised the letters weren't falling off the paper.

#18 | Posted by northguy3

that would be the lsd talking, ng3

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there?
#16 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Maybe, but the truth of the matter is that all agencies in the government utilize contractors for a majority of their work, whether it's the Army, HHS, or NASA. Millions upon millions of contractors do good job every single day for less expense than a civil servant; should we rail against a system that has a 95% success rate? (One the other side of the coin, I do think contractors are ill suited for active combat jobs and that Blackwater et al are severely misused).

At least they got a letter. B.O. will send the families a bill for the plane ride home.

Yes, Wisgod, good point. Because Obama hates our military.

Sad thing is, this could have been prevented by 60 seconds with a proofreader. Contractor or government employee, it's pretty damn simple.

At least they got a letter. B.O. will send the families a bill for the plane ride home.

#21 | Posted by wisgod

Is that theory based on the fact that Bush billed soldiers for equipment that got blown off when they got blown up?

" B.O. will send the families a bill for the plane ride home.

#21 | Posted by wisgod "

You let me know when that first bill goes out, bucko.

"Millions upon millions of contractors do good job every single day for less expense than a civil servant;"

That is utter bull shit propaganda and has been disproven plenty of times.
Fact is...it costs more to privatize jobs.
Simple logic would explain why if you could do simple logic.

I work as a defense contractor. There are a lot of good folks, but also a lot of waste. Some of the contractors we worked with when I was in uniform in Iraq were the same; generally a mixed bag. The only place I see them saving the gov much money though is on the retirement side. The contractors in Iraq make a lot more money than the troops for doing a job that is usually less dangerous.

There's a difference between privitazation and using contractors. It all depends on how the contractors are managed and by whom.

For short term projects it may be cheaper to hire contractors rather than to have long term folks on the payroll that are underemployed. It does not work well for core business though.

#15 | Posted by timbci

You are right and you are wrong in this post. You are correct in stating that these contractors will always be a part of the Military as they supply the machinery, electronics and such.

You are wrong (speaking from a Navy perspective) in that they have taken control of the military to ensure their profitability and contracts.

What I mean by that is when I was in the Military we serviced all or own equipment. If something broke, we troubleshot the issue, ordered the part from supply and fixed it. Nowadays, contractors are on board ship and troubleshoot problems while the enlisted are operators. By eliminating the enlisted from fixing equipment, contractors ensure their contracts and profits.

I heard Bush spent hundreds of hours with the families...that jerk.

#17 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2009-01-08 10:37 AM | Reply |

I think you mean MINUTES.

Why do liberals care? You hate the military!
#2 | Posted by aclusux at 2009-01-08 09:27 AM

I'm gay and have been warned that any place I'm stationed will be targeted unfairly by my sexuality and distracted into causing unfortold DEATHS.

I have no intention of killing anything, particularly not muscular, fit and clean cohorts who can rock a uniform.

Again, why does the military really hate gays? Or is it just fear-mongering?

Couldn't we have used those Arabic translators to save more lives than were lost due to their absense?

On topic - this is ugly, but they handled it quickly and with some manner of sensitivity, which is a refreshing change.

Why do liberals care? You hate the military!

#2 | Posted by aclusux

Actually, Liberals, Spud has observed, tend to care more about the people in the military than Conservatives.

Sure, Cons are big on rhetoric on "supporting the troops".

They just really, really suck when it comes down to actually supporting the troops.

In terms of raises, good equipment, medical care and follow up as well as NOT PUTTING THEM IN HARM'S WAY unneccessarily.

The Conartist's default meme when called on their hypocrisy is always "Well, Liberals HATE the military"

Who knows? Maybe they're stupid enuff to believe their own BS.

Spud aint.

Be Well.

Sure, Cons are big on rhetoric on "supporting the troops".

They just really, really suck when it comes down to actually supporting the troops.

#32 | Posted by dethspud

Too true, Spud.

"The 7,000 original letters were sent late last month to inform survivors about private organizations that offer gifts, programs and other assistance to families that have lost soldiers in Iraq or other countries where they are deployed for the war on terrorism."

There is a lot right and nothing wrong with charities or private organizations supporting the war effort. It's when the government uses them as an alternative to providing proper services for the tropps that they sent to war that makes my blood boil.