At least one is fighting for us!

[jimnyc]

Muslim Defends U.S., Land He Loves

It took 14 surgeries, one of them lasting 11 hours, to repair the damage done to Sgt. Wasim Khan's right leg when a rocket-propelled grenade tore into his ammunition truck during a June battle in Iraq.

Then there were two more surgeries to repair an eye. Khan, 27, still has marks on his arms and other parts of his body hit by shrapnel.

But the worst damage was to his leg, where, Khan says, "It looked as though someone had spooned out a big chunk of it."

That was repaired by doctors who took a muscle from his thigh, implanted it in the open wound and then covered it with a skin graft. Two skin grafts failed to work, but a third was successful.

Khan's ordeal isn't over. He is set to report back to the hospital in December for physical rehabilitation.

Yesterday, Khan, who is a practicing Muslim and who prays five times a day on a small rug in the Richmond Hill apartment he shares with his cousin, Mohammed Nasim, stretched out on a couch, his wounded leg propped on a plump pillow.

http://www.newsday.com/news/yahoo/ny-nyduggvr3536784nov11,0,7618297.column?coll=ny-newsaol-headlines

 

[janeeng]

Goes to show that there are some Muslims that stand behind the United States! I suppose the terrorists who gave out the "calling on all Muslims" deal, can forget about this Muslim joining in!!! Good for him.

 

[SLClemens]

Now I wonder what kind of help we, the taxpayers, are going to give him after he leaves the military if he still needs medical treatment?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Now I wonder what kind of help we, the taxpayers, are going to give him after he leaves the military if he still needs medical treatment?

And what makes you think he would receive anything less than any other soldier under similar circumstances? Are you inferring that he may receive less based on his religion? Do you have anything to show that this type of treatment exists?

 

[janeeng]

He should get the same as any other Military person that leaves, nothing less, nothing more! what are you trying to say?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And what makes you think he would receive anything less than any other soldier under similar circumstances? Are you inferring that he may receive less based on his religion? Do you have anything to show that this type of treatment exists?

no, that's the problem - I fear he'll receive just as little as others after Bush's planned cuts in veterens' benefits, and have to scrape and beg for any compensation, especially if his major injuries turn out to be psychological.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by SLClemens
no, that's the problem - I fear he'll receive just as little as others after Bush's planned cuts in veterens' benefits, and have to scrape and beg for any compensation, especially if his major injuries turn out to be psychological.

Where exactly is Bush cutting veteran's beneifts? All I have heard him propose is to establish a six-month waiting period to receive benefits after discharge. If you have a copy of the proposed legislation, or a draft of the plan, I'd like to see it.

 

[jimnyc]

Congratulations, Jeff, you just made the boards 10,000th post!

 

[NightTrain]

I haven't heard anything about Veteran benefits being decreased.

However, today on the radio I heard that the military is getting a pay raise.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by NightTrain
I haven't heard anything about Veteran benefits being decreased.

However, today on the radio I heard that the military is getting a pay raise.

Good ... God ... how can some of you people be so ignorant? At around the SAME TIME as Bush was making his carrier landing Washington was slashing $14.6 billion in future veterans' healthcare and education.

REally, sometimes I'm just astounded by how some of the greatest cheerleaders of war demonstrate how they don't really give a flying %*&# about looking into the long-term well being and the huge human costs on those sent out do to the fighting, and what we're doing and going to do about it. But then what can you expect if they're relying on mainstream media sources to teach them?

I have to admit to having some facts wrong myself, however - I attributed this to Bush whereas the $14.6bn cut to veterans medical and education benefits apparently originated with House Republicans - the extent to which the Bush administration was involved I don't know.

http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=58

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=70

http://www.house.gov/larson/pr_030523.htm

http://webtest.dccc.org/press/newsreleases//2003-04-01.1718.html

http://www.goletavalleyvoice.com/cgi-bin/frontpage/readarticle.cgi?article=500

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0326-10.htm

 

[jimnyc]

Are these cuts currently implemented?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Are these cuts currently implemented?

They were presumably to go into effect for FY 2004. I know that some House Democrats were trying to pass a bill blocking them. Funny how there doesn't seem to be any more media attention about this, isn't it? Perhaps if 'support our troops' meant a little more than 'support our war' there would.

 

[5stringJeff]

Yes, this is for FY2004. I agree, SLClemens, we should fund VA benefits fully. Bush is wrong to include these cuts in his budget. If we need the money, we should cut something like NEA or DOE!

 

[eric]

Or a myriad of other useless ineffective social handouts that are nothing more than a drain on our budgets. Before everyone jumps on this statement, let me state that I am in no way advocating the repealing of all social programs, many of which are necessary, but in contrast the ones they have a proven track record of failure or a marginal success rate.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Yes, this is for FY2004. I agree, SLClemens, we should fund VA benefits fully. Bush is wrong to include these cuts in his budget. If we need the money, we should cut something like NEA or DOE!

Regardless of what the GOP succeeds in cutting, I sure hope that you're able to help convince your beloved party to give veterans what they deserve.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
Or a myriad of other useless ineffective social handouts that are nothing more than a drain on our budgets. Before everyone jumps on this statement, let me state that I am in no way advocating the repealing of all social programs, many of which are necessary, but in contrast the ones they have a proven track record of failure or a marginal success rate.

If you want to talk about systematic failures take a look at how many Vietnam vets ended up in prison or dealing with substance abuse, or lack adequate health care for their physical and mental injuries. We must be able to give them and other veterans better tahn what they've received.

 

[eric]

to give veterans what they deserve.

I think we are in complete agreement on this subject !

 

[eric]

If you want to talk about systematic failures take a look at how many Vietnam vets ended up in prison or dealing with substance abuse, or lack adequate health care for their physical and mental injuries. We must be able to give them and other veterans better tahn what they've received.

I think you misunderstood or I did not properly convey my thoughts. I was not in any referring to Veterans Programs and Services.

 

[hacksaw]

I am a 26 year old Cat 1 disabled vet rated at 100% disabled

Before you post somthing that you have absolutely no clue about you may want to do some research. Yes the vetrans who would be effected in the budget cuts did serve. They however did not get injured. They have no service connected disabilities and are self sufficient and able to afford health insurance. This leaves the money- aproximately 14 billion to take care of service connected disabled veterans of category 1 , 2 and 3. This is the reason that the VA nor any real veterans would oppose this cut as it is not a cut but a re-allocation of funds to where they are needed.

The cuts that will take place are for category 7 and 8 vets as follows.


Priority Group 7

Veterans who agree to pay specified copayments with income and/or net worth above the VA Means Test threshold and income below the HUD geographic index

· Subpriority a: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans who were enrolled in the VA Health Care System on a specified date and who have remained enrolled since that date

· Subpriority c: Nonservice-connected veterans who were enrolled in the VA Health Care System on a specified date and who have remained enrolled since that date

· Subpriority e: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans not included in Subpriority a above

· Subpriority g: Nonservice-connected veterans not included in Subpriority c above


Priority Group 8

Veterans who agree to pay specified copayments with income and/or net worth above the VA Means Test threshold and the HUD geographic index

· Subpriority a: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans enrolled as of January 16, 2003 and who have remained enrolled since that date

· Subpriority c: Nonservice-connected veterans enrolled as of January 16, 2003 and who have remained enrolled since that date

· Subpriority e: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans applying for enrollment after January 16, 2003

· Subpriority g: Nonservice-connected veterans applying for enrollment after January 16, 2003


I am a disabled vet and I served in Afganistan

 

[jimnyc]

Welcome to the board, hacksaw.

Thanks for your informative post, and thank you for your service to our country.