I can't understand this

[Nagged]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest/12/12/former.pow.discharged.ap/index.html

Family members confirmed that Lynch, snatched from her Iraqi captors on April 1 in a Special Forces rescue, is receiving an 80 percent disability. Johnson, released April 13 with four other American POWs, has been offered 30 percent, Claude Johnson said.

Why not just give both of them 100%? Surely they deserve it...

[Caustic Saint]

For the military to give somebody 100% disability it means they have sustained an injury (or injuries) that may make it impossible for them to ever work again. Military disability payments are for the remainder of one's life.

I've seen nothing that indicates Lynch is the slightest bit disabled. Was she injured in the line of duty? Yes. Lynch is the poster child for the war effort. Her whole rescue is a steaming pile of propoganda to put a pretty face on an unjustified war.

If you want to see what combat-caused disabilities look like, click here. Why aren't any of these soldiers on the news, having hometown parades or having books written about them?

[Big Booger]

That Lynch girl doesn't even deserve the attention she gets..

The Iraqis were taking care of her.. she wasn't in danger. She is just a propoganda tool used by the US to make their efforts look all the more heroic..

Sad.. that the soldiers in the link CS posted don't get any more attention than that.. they are the true heroes.. or casualties of this thing called the "War on Terror"

[Nagged]

CS, I think I've seen that link somewhere before.

These guys definitely deserve whatever compensation they can get. If the government can lash out on billions of dollars fro high-tech weapons, surely they can look after the guys and gals who fight for them.

Not wanting to backtrack here, but I still think that those girls both went through a real hard time and I think the government shouldn't be so stingy.

As for Ms. Lynch, I don't think it's not her fault for the propaganda issue so much as the people who push the crap in the first place. Her captors might have been taking care of her, that was very fortunate. She still might have been shot at any time. It just takes one bullet from someone with an attitude and you're dead forever.

I'm not one to judge who gets what, but I think these people deserve the best.

[Caustic Saint]

These guys definitely deserve whatever compensation they can get. If the government can lash out on billions of dollars fro high-tech weapons, surely they can look after the guys and gals who fight for them.

They deserve what the rules and regulations say they're entitled to. The military has policies and guidelines that spell out what % disability payment specific conditions entitle a discharged servicemember to receive.

That said, Lynch is getting a payoff for putting a pretty (and not even that) face on the war. She is in no way "80% disabled." I know people who have received medical discharges who got less than 50% disability for injuries worse than anything she sustained.

As for Ms. Lynch, I don't think it's not her fault for the propaganda issue so much as the people who push the crap in the first place. Her captors might have been taking care of her, that was very fortunate. She still might have been shot at any time. It just takes one bullet from someone with an attitude and you're dead forever.

I'm not one to judge who gets what, but I think these people deserve the best.

In part, it is her fault. She is a willing participant in the "crap pushing." She's allowing herself to be used and is profiting from it.

As for everybody else, too bad. It's an occupational hazard. Join the military and you may go to war. It's as simple as that. It's a calculated risk everybody who signs the contract takes. I lucked out. I spent 6 years in the army and never saw combat of any kind.

Yeah, it sucks to get anally raped (as Ms. Lynch claims happened to her), lose a limb or never be able to walk again. But they all knew the risks and gambled anyway. Some people come out ahead, some don't.

[Nagged]

Okay, I got the wrong idea about the 'percentage'. My mistake pure and simple, thanks for clearing that up. Now I understand that it is based on physical disability. I thought it was judged on 'circumstances'. (What they went through to be entitled to benefits in the first place)

As you say, it does suck for some and I definitely agree with you in saying that people should be perfectly aware of what they may be in for when they sign up.

In the case of Ms. Lynch then, if she is receving more than she is due judged on her physical disabilities and she is aware of this, then she is betraying everyone else on a disability pension.

Even so, I keep hearing stories how the administration wants to cut down on benefits, and to be honest that sounds pretty ungrateful to me.