digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at usatoday.com

U.S. Deploys More Than 43,000 Troops Unfit for Combat

usatoday.com — More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003 were sent anyway, Pentagon records show.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jaobedoza, on 05/09/2008, -13/+17that's why US troops are dying out there!
    • EBFoxbat, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5No, they're dying because they are ill-equiped and micro-managed by civilian personnel at the DoD and Executive branch of the national government.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/09/2008, -6/+6No, they're dying because everybody was lied to.
        • Tomchei, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2No, it's what he said because of what you said.
      • EBFoxbat, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3I won't argue everyone was lied to, I will argue the fact that everyone knew we were going to war. War kills people. We could have had far fewer casualties had the military leadership run the war. I highly recommend "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story " by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez (Ret.).
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4EBFoxbat is correct and they're also dying because the desk jockeys in the Executive branch are making them fight a "war" with one hand tied behind their backs. The rules of "engagement" are ridiculous!
    • trejrco, on 05/09/2008, -3/+4And here I thought they were dying because Iran was supplying the insurgents. Silly me.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/09/2008, -6/+5Silly you indeed.

        That must be why you invaded Iraq. Saudis attack NYC, you attack afghanistan, then attack Iraq for sponsoring terrorism and having WMD's and the terrorists come from Iran. Makes sense.
      • SpudgeBoy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1You just repeated part of the lie. THe NeoCons just want to attack Iran. They make up a story and yo urepeat it everywhere you can, because you are a right wing tool.
    • skrowl, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Fail based on premise.
      "Unfit for combat" DOES NOT EQUAL "Unfit to be deployed"
      You can deploy someone and then have them serve in a non-combat role. Not everyone in the military is involved in combat.
      • SpudgeBoy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1And that is precisely why we are getting beat. As Gen. Senseki said before Bush blew his load, it would take 600,000 troops to take and hold Iraq. He was fired. Dick Cheney said the same thing in 1994, he made himself Vice President.

        And you make up BS stories to cover for your NeoCon masters.
  • ruptan, on 05/09/2008, -9/+12wow! what a jerk! After putting the felons in the military now this news...I wonder what is next for the military of America? Prostitutes in the military?
    • RubineBoy, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3I guess the prostitution of the military? Who's the pimp?
    • MercedRocks, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Pfft, so felons stop being citizens? After you've served your time don't you deserve to reenter society or are you forced to forever be a second class citizen?

      We already take away their right to vote FOREVER and that's bad enough considering it disenfranchises a huge percentage of the black community.
      • tenchi71, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Not all states take away that right forever. Most states don't allow felons to vote while in prison, some won't allow them to vote while on parole, and some even during probation. Usually, after they've done their time and are all clear, they regain that right. I believe that those states that do take away the right to vote permanently do so unconstitutionally.
        • SpudgeBoy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1That's nice, but most take it away forever.
          • tenchi71, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Huh... From my quick google search, only 10 take away that right forever. Since when is 10 states "most of them"?
    • robbystyle, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1You know... prostitutes in the military could really improve morale. :)
      • brianara3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1not to mention the spread of disease....
        • SpudgeBoy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Like during that other war we should never have fought?
  • wjreynolds, on 05/09/2008, -5/+23So much for "Support the Troops." Hope the next administration has the political will to so more than throw slogans around.
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Why would they? Isn't it easier just to do what you want and consequences be damned - because as the American population has shown clearly - there will be no consequences.

      Now if there are enough American people that suddenly decide they are willing to take a stand maybe that will change, but without some punishment, heavy punishment, levied against those in power now.

      What do you suppose the chances of that is?

      That is why you'll need more than "hope".

      Sorry.
  • Bushlied, on 05/09/2008, -8/+27Sheeps to the Slaughter. So much for logic and reason. There comes a time when good men must revolt.
    • JohnUSeed, on 05/09/2008, -7/+4I think there will be some sort of revolution. I have a story liked about it here: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Seeds_of_Utopia_ ...
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6The current college age crowd is too busy fighting their own battles on Xbox to get engaged in the real world. That's a perfect recipe for a government to do what it wants without fear of repercussion. "Revolution" is laughable.
      • Ursapater, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1A larger number of 'young people' are getting involved in the current campaign than nearly ever before, and not on X-box.
    • MWeather, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"There comes a time when good men must revolt."

      Already happened. We lost.
  • txhammer3408, on 05/09/2008, -11/+16Why do we continue to send troops who are "unfit" into combat? Because we fail to realize that this occupation has seriously hurt enlistment and retention in the military. The only way we will resolve this trend is to institute a true draft of ALL fit males and females age 18 thru 25.
    • Whoopteedoo, on 05/09/2008, -4/+5Can't see this happening without major protests. Maybe even rioting. Even with another false flag attack by our own government against us, even a nuclear false flag attack, I don't see a draft happening.
      • MWeather, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1And that is why I support the draft. It makes war much more difficult politically, as it should be.
      • GoneFishing, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1txhammer, you are right, there "should" be a draft.
        Whoopteedoo, you are right, since it will never happen.

        The US government is assuring the majority of the country is not too displeased with them (think us digg users) while leeching off the lives of fine young men dying out there. Sacrifice the minority, as long as most of the people don't revolt. It's okay.

        Hear that? The sound of American's integrity plunging down the toilet.
    • mikelieman, on 05/09/2008, -6/+3The way the a-holes in Washington think, there will never be another draft as long as the possibility exists of drafting homosexuals and therefore HAVING to let gays in the military -- with honor.

      Nothing worse to Washington A-holes then actually recognizing people as human beings...
    • taradisiac, on 05/09/2008, -3/+8Why is he getting dugg? Do you people WANT a draft?
      • aladrin, on 05/09/2008, -5/+5Because he's right.

        I am vehemently opposed to the draft, even though I'm not of an age that would have to worry about it now. But if they want to up enlistment, there are only 2 ways: Get the HELL out of the middle east, or draft people.

        Drafting people is a great way to ***** our society and get our best and brightest killed in a war that is none of our business.

        If we acted like a responsible nation, we'd have plenty of volunteers to help defend it. Hell, -I'd- have probably volunteered if I'd felt that our military was responsible and doing the right thing.
        • oldgal, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1If it hadn't been for the draft we would still probably be in Viet Nam. We didn't go to war, we sent our troops to war - big difference.
        • michaelb323, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1If I felt Our government was doing the right thing I would have signed up in January when I turned 18.

          I'm not scared about fighting a war, I'm scared about having to follow command and whose command I might be following, even if it means turning on my fellow countrymen.
      • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2If it stops the war? Don't you?
      • Monarch818, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7Hell yeah I want a draft! Then Amerika will get their collective asses up and actually try and make the government get out of the Middle East!
      • oldgal, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1If a war is important enough for us to fight, it should be important enough for us all to participate. I hate the draft, but don't think we should go to war without it.
    • portnoy, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1How do we know those soldiers aren't insisting on going back? From what I've seen conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan are MUCH better than those in the various VA hospitals these days.
    • crowbar77, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Or the US could just leave iraq. You cant fight terrorism with an army, in fact you may have noticed you've actually strengthened it.
      • GoneFishing, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Terrorism is an idea. It is neither government nor military, how the ***** are you suppose to fight something that we don't even truly understand.
        • michaelb323, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Think how anonymous operates, now think how people already charged up for the cause by religion would be able to operate like that...
    • girlpirate, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1If the US institutes a draft for the ***** Iraq "war" then I will open the doors of my house to any American who gets across the border. Shouldn't have started a war that can't be finished.
  • MisterThePlague, on 05/09/2008, -9/+3I think you mean "soldiers" or possibly "troopers". The word "troop" means a group of soldiers...yet you're clearly talking about 43,000 individuals.
    • Anonemousk, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Wouldn't the "troopers" be those inside the "troop"?
    • aladrin, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5You've apparently never spoken english... 'Troops' is an extremely common term, and it's used properly here. There's this thing called a dictionary that might interest you:

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=troops&x= ...
      "4. troops, a body of soldiers, police, etc.: Mounted troops quelled the riot. "
  • Whoopteedoo, on 05/09/2008, -11/+2Headline is misleading. That's 43,000 since 2003. Still deplorable though. Way to support our troops, Bush!
  • madfrogurt, on 05/09/2008, -9/+7We keep hearing from our generals that we aren't stretched too thin and that we're meeting our recruitment goals, but we keep seeing how stop losses get extended, time between tours gets shortened, and the occupation extends into its 5th year. Now on top of the mentally strained troops sent back, we're seeing physically strained troops sent back.

    We can't keep this pace up without depleting our voluntary forces' effectiveness for the next decade. We need to bring our troops home.
    • Dumbledorito, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Not all generals say that; just the toadies that want to keep their jobs.
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Hate to be the one to break it to you - but your Admin, and those controled by it - Lie as a way of life to the population; because - to them - we aren't real people.
  • chicofaraby, on 05/09/2008, -16/+6Yeah, well, even the bottom of the barrel isn't stupid enough to join the US military at this point. Frankly, I don't have any sympathy for people who volunteered to murder Iraqi civilians.
  • LoneRanger85, on 05/09/2008, -18/+17The vast majority of the jobs in the military are not combat jobs. They are support jobs. There are cooks, accountants, lawyers, clerks, mechanics, clergymen, journalists, veterinarians, and on and on and on. The average military base is just a small American city. This is yet another phony issue for liberal cowards to undermine the war effort.
    • Dumbledorito, on 05/09/2008, -6/+14Even if your strawman "liberals" existed, they wouldn't have to undermine the "war effort." The way every aspect of the war has been bungled, including the ever-shifting reasons for going into Iraq in the first place, are doing more to strengthen terrorism and degrade the United States' military and economy than any possible 5th column effort could.

      Look to your own kind for why this whole mess got started, as well as why it's failing.
    • mikelieman, on 05/09/2008, -5/+14"The vast majority of the jobs in the military are not combat jobs. They are support jobs."

      Not anymore. We pay companies to hire in cheap foreign labor.

      "This is yet another phony issue for liberal cowards to undermine the war effort."

      What War? Did Congress declare War? I must have missed that Constitutional Requirement being fulfilled. Do you have a link?

      This isn't a war. This was a financial opportunity.
      • malman4, on 05/09/2008, -9/+3And you're an idiot
      • LoneRanger85, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1First you people say we are WASTING three trillion dollars in Iraq, then you say it is a financial opportunity. Pick a paranoid delusion and stick with it. As I've said before, inconsistency is the sign of an inferior mind.
        • brianara3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0We are spending $3 Trillion in Iraq, paying third parties that money (ie. Haliburton, Blackwater). Just because the govt. spends it doesn't mean that it disappears. It is just being paid to other companies making them rich (and maybe a few politicians getting kick-backs).
        • mikelieman, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"you people"

          We can just dismiss the rest of your rant right there.

          I'm such an "Old School" paleo-con, that Bush looks like a Pinko-Commie.
      • WesleyD, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1"This isn't a war. This was a financial opportunity."
        To our men getting shot at over there, it's a war.
        • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War;"

          They didn't.

          Stop Hatin' on America and RESPECT the Constitution!
    • oldgal, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Then why are we using so many mercenaries who get paid more than the volunteer troops?
  • TexMurphy, on 05/09/2008, -7/+15LoneRanger the army needs you, why not join? In fact the Army is so low on troops that they have to pull troops from Iraq to go to Aganistan (http://www.slate.com/id/2190661/). It does not matter what kind of job you have in the military. If a doctor says you are not capable of performing your duty, you should not go to an active war theater. I think you should stay at the FOXnews forums where people don't care about facts.
    • mikelieman, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10I concur -- if you support the Bush Gang, and are of service age, why aren't you enlisted?
  • Treoinmypocket, on 05/09/2008, -5/+6Best way to toughen those loafers up.
  • JMellissa, on 05/09/2008, -7/+13Here we go again. If the USA continues to do things that Rome did, it will (soon) end up just like Rome.
    Veni Vidi Morti
    • RRJackson, on 05/09/2008, -5/+5You mean we'll dictate the daily lives of a billion people for 1500 years? Sounds about right.
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Too late, there is a TV show called W5 and it did a segment on New Zealand going Bankrupt. It was a warning video for Canada at the time that was struggling with bad national debt. The point of the show was that we seem to think it is only poor countries that go bankrupt - but everyone can. The richer nations just siphoninhave a longer rope to hang themselves from. They can hide it better, for longer, but in the end....

      I think that is what we have been seeing in the States for the last 7 years. The analogy to Rome would be that the Barbarians have already beaten you, now it is just a blood letting.
      • RRJackson, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2The Roman empire is still alive, well and being ruled by an ex-Nazi. Rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated.
    • JorgeGT, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Roman Empire falled due peace. All of their aconomy was based on war and adding new provinces for the Empire. But when they turned to peace, they started to decay, corrupt, and finally they dissappeared at the hands of other people who enjoyed the war. When they were a belligerant empire they were feared and respected all around the known world; "civis romanum sum" [I am a roman citizen] was like a passport in all places.
      But then the "pax romana" came, they developed a very complex society who was tired of fight and die. They started a period of relax, religious development, cults, etc; the military was reduced, the borders were disattended, external provocations which would have resulted in a blood bath at the hands of the roman army were allowed, and rapidly the belligerant tribes of the exterior, who were born in stick huts, were walking over the almost modern cities of the empire.
      Study history!
      • Abram730, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Rome fell and the world was a better place.
        • RRJackson, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Reg: All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what HAVE the Romans ever done for US?
          Xerxes: Brought peace!
  • kirado4, on 05/09/2008, -2/+8doesn't sound plausible.. read the whole story..
  • taradisiac, on 05/09/2008, -8/+5You mean government employees are off to do their job? Fine by me!
    • alanr19, on 05/09/2008, -3/+6Which is fine, but the story is pointing out that they are unfit for combat, which is most definitely newsworthy.

      Or can't you even read?
      • malman4, on 05/09/2008, -4/+4Some probably were, others could obtain treatment there, (dental, as well as many others), why not wait for the full report?
        • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Because by the time that gets out there will be four or more other scandals thanks to the ineptness of this Admin and the lack of critical thinking from their supporters.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5Actually they are "unfit for deployment". And most of them are not "combat" troops. And you do realize that if a trooper requires a molar to be pulled then he is considered unfit for deployment and would be counted in that 43000. Even if he was getting it pulled tomorrow or when he gets to Iraq. You've probably never been to war so let me explain to you how it happens. Any troops that are declared "unfit for deployment" that can be made "fit for employment" before their scheduled deployment date are treated and many of them actually become "fit for deployment" before being deployed. Yet all of these troopers are being counted in this alleged number. BTW, this process is carried out for all units prior to deployment.
        • Julik, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I was "unfit for deployment" when I got to my first base after I joined the military. I had cavities that needed to be filled before I was "fit for deployment". If they had told me your going to Afghanistan they would have scheduled everything I needed before I left, including my filling. I was in the Air Force, not the army or marines so we did not have as many people going over at the start, and most that were not Police were "unfit" when their number was called. But the few weeks before they got deployed they did all their firearms training and whatever else was required. Most of the Air Force members that went out there actually would get deployed to an Army base for a few weeks to train with the Army, then go over from there.
        • jerger23, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3While this may not account for all of the 43,000; it is an accurate portrayal of causation for being non-deployable. It doesn't even have to be a molar problem or a cavity; if you are overdue for an annual dental cleaning/check-up, you are considered medically unfit for deployment.
  • alanr19, on 05/09/2008, -5/+8We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now folks.

    Only a matter of time before the draft is implemented.
    • nycmac247, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2no - empty the jails and give illegals citizenship first...
  • treehugger87, on 05/09/2008, -5/+9Why do I have the growing and continually sinking feeling that all of the combat-trained and militarily capable men and women in this country fit into two categories:
    1. Being sent off to Iraq only to return less than whole, suicidal and unsupported by both their government and their people
    2. Being recruited to work for Blackwater

    At what time does Blackwater, a privately held company that we know far too little about and who operates above the law, become more powerful than our own military? When that day comes, if it hasn't already, what do the men who control this power have planned for America?

    Bury me as alarmist conspiracy theorist, but does this seem less likely than lies and propaganda being spewed by the "conservative" talk show shills?
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5See the picture where there was a traffic accident in Bagdad between blackwater and the US army? I don't want to spoil it for you but it wasn't Blackwater employees that had to lay down their arms....

    • SOS84, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4You get this feeling because it is not too far from the truth. Being a veteran (11B) I have seen it for myself.
    • GoneFishing, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Private mercenaries fighting war is the future?

      Wait, this sounds familiar.... Hedio Kojima told me about it introducing MGS4 years ago. Wow, that dude should run for president.
  • RRJackson, on 05/09/2008, -11/+5Eh, we used to conscript the mentally ill and put them on the front lines. They're very absorbent, apparently. They can hold several times their weight in lead.

    The only reason stories like this get any traction is because the average American these days has the stalwartness of a Girl Scout.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5You realize what you just said about your fellow Americans? I hope you feel the same when the real patriots get a hold of you and your usual suspects.
      • RRJackson, on 05/09/2008, -6/+4Only if your "real patriots" find a way to "get a hold" of me in WoW. Anything more threatening than that and they'll have to retreat to a Starbucks and post harsh commentary about it to their blog.
        • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2LMAO W.O.W! +1 Gotta love it. Good on ya.
          • RRJackson, on 05/09/2008, -5/+2Heh...you know, I didn't end up in San Francisco because of hardline right-wing politics. When I was younger I used to get arrested at protests and I've done my fair share of railing at The Man. I just wonder if it hasn't become way too popular to get offended at everything the government does. Tough ol' world out there. Sometimes reality isn't family-friendly.
    • bsmang, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7Lol, RRJ.. You think you can measure up to a girl scout? It doesn't matter that you're bigger and fatter than they are - they'll still out-think you.
  • SOS84, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10My National Guard brigade in Pennsylvania (56th Stryker) is preparing to deploy as we speak and a full one third of my company are medically unable but are going anyway. For that matter, the whole brigade is unprepared as they are years behind in Stryker transition but are giving the green anyway.
    • Julik, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1National Guard is suppose to stay medically able on their own... They are not full time troops, and are their health is not watched by supervisors constantly. Most of those guys that are medically unable are abusing the benefits without holding up their end of the bargain.
      • SOS84, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Not when they are in the deployment pipeline. Our health is being watched and has been since receiving the warning order.
  • waggdogg, on 05/09/2008, -7/+4"They are repeatedly exposed to high-intensity combat with insufficient time at home to rest and heal before redeploying" Ask A WWII veteran how many time they went home to rest. Ask veterans of the Korean War about high-intensity combat.

    And why are todays troops unfit? Some reasons included a need for eyeglasses, dental work or allergy medicine and a Small number of mental health cases.
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5Does it matter even if that is the case? Need I remind you that this conflict is based on lies to begin with? That those that pushed this war, and supported this war, Lied to the American people(And the world).

      • waggdogg, on 05/09/2008, -5/+3Iran has nuclear reactors. Syria was building a nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea. Iraq their neighbor had nothing. Your head must be buried in the sand read the fact about Iraq nuclear plans.
      • jimbofluffy, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1"The war was based on a lie. Therefore, we can make up or ignore any facts in articles concerning the war."

        Very nice.
        • Waiting2awake, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Not really, more that the reasons to go to war were lies, therefor with a foundation that is rotten, to discuss that the rafters aren't as bad as the media says is pointless and another act of misdirection to keep us talking about anything other than the criminality of those that started this mess.

    • treehugger87, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5A brief time-line for the uninformed:
      December 7, 1941. The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. American troops begin deploying to the British Isles, but it will be nearly a year before they see action against the Axis.
      June 6, 1944. D-Day
      May 7, 1945. VE-Day
      September 2, 1945. VJ-Day

      American involvement in Europe during World War II lasted less than 3 and a half years. The soldiers in Europe were treated like heroes and saviors by the people of allied countries. When they returned home, whole or with serious injuries, they were universally given support and care by the families and communities they returned to. Not to mention the GI bill provided all of these brave men and women the capitol to purchase a home, grant money for an education and a lifetime of medical support. Can you say that the troops being sent to Iraq are being given the same treatment?
    • shermanthetank, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Are you a WW2 vet?
  • ultraJesus, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2I just had the terrible image of a bunch of grunts from Halo fighting in Iraq.
  • trixterIreland, on 05/09/2008, -3/+6The headline is misleading, there is no information either way on how many issues were corrected before deployment, it could be none, it could be all, more likely its somewhere in the middle. It also does not say what the disorders are, medically unfit includes anything from being stressed out because of divorce, or you found your girlfriend cheating on you, to missing limbs.

    The shock factor of the headline and the fact that most media companies know the vast part of their readers wont read more than 1-2 paragraphs leads me to think there is some bias going on here. At the very least its irresponsible reporting in the name of sensationalism.

    FTA:
    The Pentagon records do not list what — or how serious — the health issues are, nor whether they were corrected before deployment, said Michael Kilpatrick, a deputy director for the Pentagon's Force Health Protection and Readiness Programs.

    The two of these things makes me think that there may be some minor wounds (a friend who eventually did get into the airforce long ago was medically unfit because he stepped on a nail and there was a small hole in his foot, it had to heal first even though it didnt impair his walking ability they still classifed him that way, just on temporary basis).
    • atact88, on 05/09/2008, -4/+4The media is nothing but bias. Digg is nothing but bias.
      • trixterIreland, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I wouldnt say nothing but biased, instead I would rather point to specific instances of bias and reveal them for what they are. There may be some merit to this story, however the initial part of it is somewhat misleading from what is said later on. Until the people stand up and say they wont accept this anymore, and point to *all* bias (not just the bias that is against their cause) the media has no incentive to stop, after all it sells papers/tv ads/etc right?

        If you accept bias on one side, but denounce it on the other, you are actually part of the problem. You are just shifting the bias and misinformation that the media is known for these days to something you find less objectionable, when in fact it all should be objectionable.

        How can you make an informed decision when you have nothing but biased information to go on? Further the job of a journalist is to report the facts, not interpret them, not opine on them, not shift them. This is something that is forgotten in the last 40 or so years, where journalists now seek more to influence people, to decide for their readers/listeners/viewers what is good and just and what is wrong and evil. That is the job of talk show hosts (who are more entertainment than journalists) or editors (who have the ability to write editorials, although they too are to blame for biasing some news articles, converting a news article into an editorial).

        I get news from multiple continents, I get news from multiple sources, and I have seen much of it present only one side of the story, leaving out considerable points of view, fortunately I get news from enough sources (hey its almost a full time job!) that I can get the other side of the story, the opposing views, and try to figure out what really happened for myself.

        I think one question that should be asked is why does the media think everyone is so stupid they cant think for themselves and the media companies have to think for them? Another question might be why do so many people let the media think for them instead of thinking for themselves?
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"I think one question that should be asked is why does the media think everyone is so stupid they cant think for themselves and the media companies have to think for them?" --- Because a large viewer block are that stupid. Just look at the quantity of people that only watch MSNBC for their news or the quantity of people that only watch Fox News for their news. Both of these groups of people are seeking to be spoon fed their own opinions and have no real interest in truly being informed.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Anti-US bias on Digg? No way!
    • trixterIreland, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3well I would still prefer to go after specific instances of bias rather than generalizations. I also do not agree with the new definition of journalist where they feel its their job to interpret the news, not report the facts, they feel its their job to show only their side of the story, not the whole story. In part they are to blame for bias in the news, however the people that consume it non-stop are also to blame. If a newspaper/tv/radio couldnt sell anything they would either change format or go away. The mere fact that people all to frequently will completely accept bias when the bias leans towards their beliefs, but will point it out only when it doesnt is another part of the problem.

      If you accept bias when it suits you, but reject it strongly when it doesnt, you are a hypocrite, and really part of the problem. Lets say that every news agency was biased the same way, would that make reporting better or worse? In my opinion it would make it worse, but by accepting some of the bias that is the message that is being sent - that its ok to bias it so long as you bias it this way. As a result articles get more and more biased and the public, even the ones that agree with the bias, becomes less and less informed about what is really going on.

      Call bias anytime you see it, not just when you disagree with the story. Make it clear why you are saying its biased, quote specifics, show contradictions.

      I personally will watch news from multiple continents, and spend an insane amount of time just so that I can get the full story, or as close to it as I can without actually being there. All too often I will see 2 different news agencies report on the same event and have completely opposite stories about it. They only present one side of it, without allowing for countering views. Only by seeing both sides, especially of a controversy, can you understand what its really over, and decide for yourself instead of having some "journalist" decide for you.
    • Julik, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1You are right, everyone I worked with that got deployed was unfit when they got their orders. Everyone... not a single person I worked with was ready to get on the plane the day they got their orders. But every one of them by the time they left was ready.
  • Zippo, on 05/09/2008, -3/+6Wow, yeah, there's a solid plan. Send unfit soldiers into a warzone - what could possibly go wrong?
    • Monk22, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1you could not comprehend the article or have any knowledge of how the military works....that apparently went wrong.
  • mcsenget, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8They also accept criminals now! The standards have to drop lower and lower..
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2In the US, we consider people that have served their time for a crime to be ex-criminals until proven otherwise.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/09/2008, -4/+6If you wear glasses, you have to have two pairs of military issue glasses and one pair of gas mask inserts otherwise you are considered Unfit for Combat. If you didn't have a tooth cleaning within one year, you were also considered Unfit for Combat.
    • Metman, on 05/09/2008, -4/+4SHUT UP! People might hear you! You are giving away the media's/government/special interest groups secrets! These statistics were carefully arranged to make the news ... news-worthy.
  • opticwind, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Before everyone begins their rant, I believe this has something to do with the recent lowering of the "healthy" standards of the US military. I've read the new criteria and to be honest, you still have to be pretty healthy. Also, anyone at certain weights is not allowed to enter combat or be deployed.
    • Julik, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1About a year ago the US Air Force kicked out thousands of people for not being able to pass their physical tests. Basically they have taken the approach that if they cannot deploy you then they don't need you. Which is what should be done, because the military gives you everything you need to be able to stay fit. 3 days a week they give you time during the work day to exercise (most people... cops do not get time out of work because they are stretched pretty thin to begin with).
  • banderwocky, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
    how many are mentally unfit?
    • Monk22, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2apparently only one guy with the handle banderwocky
      • banderwocky, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Uhh, I would have to be an American soldier, which I am not.
  • sndream, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Remember all those story about school not able to keep kids in school, I wonder if the option is stay in school or to the army, will it motivate them enough to jump start the high school graduation rate??
    But either way, it's will get them off the streets, so it's win win.
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Yet we have lost less then 1000 men for every year they have been in combat. Oh nevermind, just leftwingers playing with words again.
  • gazi666, on 05/09/2008, -3/+0America kills its people and other nations' people outside their country.
    • Monk22, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2and a cyclone just killed a couple hundred thousand in burma whats your point.
  • Stevanoski, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Let's see, you don't believe the Pentagon when they say we are winning but you do if it fits your philosophy of America bad and must be destroyed?
  • zog169, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0So here's the thing.. Are all these troops forced? What if these troops are volunteering despite being medically unfit? It could be a mix of both. Perhaps they are made offers to go back as well?
    I really think the article really should have reported this information. I'll admit, I was unhappy when I read through it, but then I asked myself those questions. Now I am not sure what to think except that this was just an attempt to play on reader's emotions.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.