I remarked to my OH the other day that our (British) troops are being treated much the same as American troops when they returned from Vietnam. I want to see opinions from British and American people on here if possible.

This is going to be a bit long, but bear with me.

.........................................................................

I think everyone knows that the decision to go to war in the Middle East was one that the government made, despite what people think the reasons were for.

Now, a great number of British troops have been injured over there and have to return to the UK. Currently, the government DOES NOT fully pay to care for these people when they return to the UK, and a charity has been set up to try and cover the medical expenses of these injured troops. The Government however, made donations after public pressure, but is yet to actually take up the cost of rehabilitating troops injured in war.

Should the government cover all costs of war, including rehabilitation for troops? Should this cost have been factored in when deciding to go to war?

This story is a bit different, but highlights the difficulty soldiers have in obtaining proper care. Unable to afford a swimming pool for therapy, they were allowed to use the local pool but were driven out by locals for 'not paying.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ming-pool.html

Also, the government only pays compensation up to £285,000 for soldiers injured at war. This is to cover them for the rest of their working life NOT to pay medical expenses. For instance, Lance Bombadier Ben Parkinson was awarded £152,150 after losing both his legs, becoming paralysed and he also suffered severe brain injuries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oc...ry.theobserver


Lastly, Gordon Brown has announced plans to have an Armed Force Day as a bank holiday to support British Troops. He also wants to encourage people wearing uniform in public. Currently, troops are discouraged from wearing uniform off bases in case they are attacked or ridiculed. I have seen a man spat on for wearing one. My local careers office has had 3 bomb threats, and be spray painted with 'Burn in hell you fucking warmongers'.


Opinions? Are we that far off how Vietnam Veterans were treated?

I thought I had a clear answer but by the time I reached the bottom I find I haven't. I'm torn. I do think we should take responsibility for our troops when they return injured. I think the state system should be caring for all people as best it can. However, signing up is a choice and should only be done when fully aware of the implications of war. (For this reason I really detest the way the army et al recruit at schools.) People should be treated reasonably whatever their circumstances but I don't think that an unlimited amount of compensation should be paid given the free choice of signing up. I can't speculate as to what level of care should be given to troops, but don't see it should necessarily be more than given to people injured in other professions e.g. police, firefighters, whatever.

That said, I am a pacifist anyway. We should not have gone to war. I don't agree with war in general except under very special circumstances, nor do I agree with our invading other countries.

A fair point, but in recent years the government has closed 8 military hospitals designed specifically to care for troops. This is something that no one serving could have foreseen.

People working in civil government jobs get a maximum payout of £500,000, almost double what serving personnel are entitled to.

I see your point about how you don't support the war and I think that is fair enough. We should all have different opinions on things like that tbh (it's be pretty boring if we all agreed with one another!). However I think that a government who starts and send people to war should pay for the basic medical needs of returning troops.

I agree with that, but what defines basic medical needs? Dunno anything about the hospital closures, dunno whether that means existing hospitals are not equipped to deal with specialist injuries but I can see that might make things more difficult.

I'll always agree that civil servants and their cronies get too much money!!

I do feel that the amount spent on defence is nonsensical and would do better being ploughed into the NHS and education. But this is a different issue!

Headley Court is the last remaining hospital, which is largely paid for by public funding and charities (Help For Heroes was specifically set up to raise funds for injured soldiers). They have things such as specialists who deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a neurological unit for patients of varying levels of dependency following Acquired Brain injury, spinal cord injury, and other neurological diseases, they also provide social care for soldiers families, and even housing for them.

Here's some back reading if you're interested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...p-in-hand.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-wounded.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2603953.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Headley_Court

I don't know enough details to give a really informed response to this. In my oppinion the governments in this world do not take responsibility for their people, didn't then and don't now - but yes, that they should. I know vietnam vets who are still suffering and struggling alone. It seems very little is put into researching the effects of war on soldiers and their families, not only physically and how they adjust to life afterwards esp. if they have an injury, but emotionally and psychologically too.

It makes me sad - especially because I believe they should not have been made to go there in the first place, either vietnam or Iraq. But since they did go, they should be cared for, and not just with token gestures.

I absolutely agree with this. Both in UK and States (the healthcare situation is a shambles)

I think that the government should definitely pay for the costs of rehabing their troops (or former troops?) after war. Yes, a person knows what they're signing up for when they join the military, but that doesn't mean that the government can then let them suffer terrible injuries during times of war and just say, "Oh, well, you knew it was coming," and do little to help them. The cost absolutely needs to be factored in, IMO.

Just a quick side note, too -- is it that hostile over in the UK towards members of the armed forces? If people in uniform are treated differently here, it is usually that they are treated with more respect, not less. There are exceptions, but they aren't that common.

Who was being hostile to members of the armed forces? Do you mean the top bit about the pool and stuff? I don't know that generally people are hostile, at least I can say I've seen nothing of it.

Yes, personnel are still advised by the government not to be seen in public in their uniforms in case of personal attacks, but they are trying to reform public opinions.

My OH has talked about emigrating to the US or Australia to do a reservist post because the attitude is so much better.