View Full Version : Desertion's Are Up.
A new report issued by the United States Deparment of Defense (D.O.D.) states the Desertion rate is up 80% since the failed U.S. military action in Iraq. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DESPERS) stated that the Army is investigating reasons for new number of troops leaving the Army. Among the reasons given in the report were the fifteen (15) tours of duty, coupled with the fact many troops are now on their fourth or even fifth (4th or 5th) tour of duty.
Extended tours of duty have placed increasing stress of home life. Shorten periods of time at home have led to many divorces and spousal infidelity. Reserve and Nation Guard Troops also confront the real possibility of losing their jobs. (This has happened to serveral National Guard Members in California, and court action is pending.)
DESPERS reports that while the U.S. Army did meet recruiting goals for Fiscal year 2007, the number of new recruits seeking a waiver prior to entering the Army are also up. Due to force requirements, the Army is taking men and women with criminal records and in some case, new recruits enter the Army mental or emotional problems.
Yep. Some more of "Good News." that spare was looking for.
Pebbles
11-20-2007, 12:09 PM
Yep..such good news..and just when my husbands nephew had to go back to Iraq with the British troops. Six months of waiting and hoping that nothing happens to him.
Yep..such good news..and just when my husbands nephew had to go back to Iraq with the British troops. Six months of waiting and hoping that nothing happens to him.
Sorry to hear that Pebbles. He and all of your service men are in my prayers.
spare_change
11-20-2007, 02:04 PM
A new report issued by the United States Deparment of Defense (D.O.D.) states the Desertion rate is up 80% since the failed U.S. military action in Iraq. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DESPERS) stated that the Army is investigating reasons for new number of troops leaving the Army. Among the reasons given in the report were the fifteen (15) tours of duty, coupled with the fact many troops are now on their fourth or even fifth (4th or 5th) tour of duty.
Extended tours of duty have placed increasing stress of home life. Shorten periods of time at home have led to many divorces and spousal infidelity. Reserve and Nation Guard Troops also confront the real possibility of losing their jobs. (This has happened to serveral National Guard Members in California, and court action is pending.)
DESPERS reports that while the U.S. Army did meet recruiting goals for Fiscal year 2007, the number of new recruits seeking a waiver prior to entering the Army are also up. Due to force requirements, the Army is taking men and women with criminal records and in some case, new recruits enter the Army mental or emotional problems.
Yep. Some more of "Good News." that spare was looking for.
Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
In 1993, there were 1,284 desertions.
In 2001, there were 4,795 desertions.
In 2005, there were 2,543 desertions.
In 2006, there were 3,196 desertions.
That means that - before 9/11 -- before the "failed US military action in Iraq -- before the ramp-up in personnel --- there were 51% more desertions (in peacetime) than during the worst period of the "failed US military action".
Unquestionably, multiple deployments and longer tours have an adverse effect on morale (primarily at home).
But, the even MORE significant impact on troop morale is the steady drumbeat of unfounded defeatism and negativity from those with vested political interests in the US.
An example? This post -- "failed US military action in Iraq" -- clearly, a defeatist and negative observation, unfounded in truth, especially given the recent reports in newspapers and on tv, and even begrudgingly admitted by the leaders of the Democratic party and the left. The drumbeat goes on .....
WandaRing
11-20-2007, 02:56 PM
We do not have to enlist when we turn 18 here in Canada; it is a choice if we want to serve our country. This makes it difficult at times to find people; unfortunately, the soldiers have to return to duty repeatedly, it is not unusual for them to have at least 3 tours within 1- 4 yrs and the average age of a soldier is 22-23 years old.
Last week our Supreme Court turned down two USA soldiers who wanted to be able to stay in Canada so that the US would not arrest them for deserting their duty (sorry forget the legal wording for all this), the court refused them and turned them over to the USA.
The question is becoming do we pull out now like the other countries? If we do what happens in the next ten years? What wars do we fight, what countries do we fight for? And of course the big one…is this war really about the control over oil?
I do wish all the soldiers a safe time and to get back to their families safely...and a big thank you...:wa:
“It’s A Sad World We Live In, Master Jack”
flamengo130
11-20-2007, 03:14 PM
"desertion"...what an ugly word! ...."to leave or run away from..with the intention of never returning" I disagree with the statement "failed US military action in Iraq"...I feel it is the politicians and media that have failed all Americans.
I've read traveler52's post several times, and still do not understand "fifteen (15) tours of duty" (?????)
spare_change
11-20-2007, 03:22 PM
"desertion"...what an ugly word! ...."to leave or run away from..with the intention of never returning" I disagree with the statement "failed US military action in Iraq"...I feel it is the politicians and media that have failed all Americans.
I've read traveler52's post several times, and still do not understand "fifteen (15) tours of duty" (?????)
I presume it is in reference to the 15 months PER tour requirement.
Of course, since Traveler is a "am vet", he is aware that the length of tour has little or no effect on the soldier in the field, since his focus is a single day at a time, just doing today's job and worrying about tomorrow's tomorrow, where staying alive UNTIL tomorrow is priority no. 1.
The impact is really felt at home - where the husband, wife, or children are left to count down the days, with little to break up the constant pressure and upheaval. I've always said it's a lot harder to sit and wait, than it is to go and fight.
I had a comment or 2 here. But it was a bit out of anger.
What I will say is that I don't think Traveler52 is saying that the troops have failed. Thats just the spin that supporters of this war use when they can't say anything else. If you don't support this war your " anti troop, anti American, anti Christian, and a terrorist supporter " according to the spin used by those who use fear, character assassination and intimidation to make there point. Kind of like Hitlers SS squads in the 30's.
Those of us who do not support this war do not because of the leadership that lied us into it. In the beginning there were more supporters than non-supporters because most believed the president and Colin Powell who both have recanted since. Since then the " MISSION " has changed more than baseball managers change pitchers in a tied 11 inning game. We don't trust this administration and I frankly do not trust either party to get us out of this mess.
The surge as I have said before was never in doubt to work because we threw enough body's into it. We're not fighting a country, We're fighting propaganda and the prize is the hearts and minds of the rest of the world.
The surge was never at issue as the Democrats have pointed out. It is the Iraqi government that is failing which pretty much means everything else is failing. The Government is the focal point. It is the glue, the main support that is keeping our kids over there. The problem with the Democrats is that the Republicans make them piss on themselves.
If the Democrats would ever grow some balls, they could stop this war today. The other reason we're still in Iraq is because Iraq is a cash cow for the weapons producers, oil Moguls, and security companies which is an up and coming entrepreneurial business.
Spare, the 15 Month Tour is pure fact, from the Secretary of Defense himself. The number of desertions and the effect of those desertions is from the UNITED STATES ARMY.
Most troops are now on their FIFTH TOUR. This effects morale, but maybe you do not see that.
What is an "AM VET."? Never heard of one.
Yep..such good news..and just when my husbands nephew had to go back to Iraq with the British troops. Six months of waiting and hoping that nothing happens to him.
I wish your nephew a safe return. Please express to your husband and your nephew's family my honest wish for his safety. As I sit down to my Thanksgiving Dinner on Thursday, I will offer a wish for him.
An example? This post -- "failed US military action in Iraq" -- clearly, a defeatist and negative observation, unfounded in truth, especially given the recent reports in newspapers and on tv, and even begrudgingly admitted by the leaders of the Democratic party and the left. The drumbeat goes on .....
Why does the truth bother you so much spare? It is that people are finally waking up to an invasion based on lies, or that knowing you were lied to, you continue to support the man who told the lies.
2007 was the worst year for U.S. forces Killed In Action (K.I.A.) since the FAILED INVASION started. There has been no real meaningful political reform. Iraqi Civilians are being killed U.S. Contract Thugs. The cost of the war is expected to pass Two Trillion Dollars. ($2,000,000,000,000,000,000.00), with no end in site.
If I had a choice between believing you or the Deputy Chief of Staff (U.S. Army) for Personnel (DesPers.), you lose. Even the Army is admitting these numbers reflect a grown concern with the man power requirements of the U.S. Army.
No I am not defeatist, I'm honest. You choose to believe the lies, I don't. You like the lies, I know better than to listen to the lies.
That says everything there is to know about you. You believe the lies, you believe a liar. What does that make you?
"desertion"...what an ugly word! ...."to leave or run away from..with the intention of never returning" I disagree with the statement "failed US military action in Iraq"...I feel it is the politicians and media that have failed all Americans.
I've read traveler52's post several times, and still do not understand "fifteen (15) tours of duty" (?????)
Secretary of Defense Gate instituted a standard Fifteen Month (15) Tour of Duty for troops going to Iraq. Since the FAILED INVASION began, the standard length of one (01) tour of duty in Iraq has changed many times. Due to the lack of persnnel some troops have been extended for as much as Eighteen (18) Months.
The Failure is best explained with the fact that Iraq is now in a Civil War. U.S. troops are not viewed as liberators, but as occupyers. The continued torture of Iraqi Civilians does not help either. A person tortured by the U.S. does not come out of experience loving the Americans, nor would their family. All that does is create more enemies.
But spare continues to believe in torture, as long as it is not called torture.
spare_change
11-20-2007, 11:54 PM
Secretary of Defense Gate instituted a standard Fifteen Month (15) Tour of Duty for troops going to Iraq. Since the FAILED INVASION began, the standard length of one (01) tour of duty in Iraq has changed many times. Due to the lack of persnnel some troops have been extended for as much as Eighteen (18) Months.
The Failure is best explained with the fact that Iraq is now in a Civil War. U.S. troops are not viewed as liberators, but as occupyers. The continued torture of Iraqi Civilians does not help either. A person tortured by the U.S. does not come out of experience loving the Americans, nor would their family. All that does is create more enemies.
But spare continues to believe in torture, as long as it is not called torture.
Traveler -- let me makes this as plain as I can.
If you wish to discuss the war, let's discuss the facts.
If you wish to discuss why we are in the war, let's discuss the facts.
If you wish to discuss the current administration, let's discuss the facts.
If you wish to discuss conspiracies, let's discuss the facts.
If you wish to discuss me or my motives, find a new subject.
mrdiscreet
11-21-2007, 12:47 AM
Of course, since Traveler is a "am vet", he is aware that the length of tour has little or no effect on the soldier in the field, since his focus is a single day at a time, just doing today's job and worrying about tomorrow's tomorrow, where staying alive UNTIL tomorrow is priority no. 1.
I don't recall the source, but I have read that the War Dept. (now DOD) take-away from WWII was that troops became shell-shocked after 6 mos. and that US military policy since has been 6 mos. in-country on 12 mos. tours; this policy lasting until we ran out of troops in Iraq.
I could well be wrong on the above; but wonder if these extended tours tie to the high suicide rates we are seeing now. Grim subject.
Added: excerpt from In These Times:
But the failure to redress troops’ mental health concerns hasn’t been solely the fault of politicians. After finding that only 5 percent of soldiers in Iraq take any rest and relaxation, the Army’s May MHAT study recommended that troops in high intensity combat receive one month of in-theater R&R for every three months of combat. The report says it has “long been recognized that mental health breakdowns occur after prolonged combat exposure,” and that the conditions under which today’s soldiers are fighting constitute an undue burden. “A considerable number of soldiers and Marines are conducting combat operations every day of the week, 10-12 hours per day, for months on end.” Shortly after the MHAT study’s release, however, Pentagon officials quickly rejected its recommendations as unworkable.
UltimateNaneki
11-21-2007, 01:01 AM
You know...I feel real bad for the kids. Parents are gone to war and they don't know if they will return at all. What a shame....these children did have parents at one point, but a war took their parents away. Just thinking about it makes me real sad. :(
mrdiscreet
11-21-2007, 01:48 AM
You know...I feel real bad for the kids. Parents are gone to war and they don't know if they will return at all. What a shame....these children did have parents at one point, but a war took their parents away. Just thinking about it makes me real sad. :(
I have an 18 year old, and he is definitely still a kid, still sorting himself out. We are asking an aweful lot from these young men and women.
mrdiscreet
11-21-2007, 01:59 AM
Holy sh*t: came across this as I was looking up tours of duty stuff:
Pentagon Demands Wounded Soldier Return Re-enlistment Bonus
By Spencer Ackerman - November 20, 2007, 4:42PM
Just in time for the holidays, there's a special place in Hell just waiting to be filled by some as-yet-unknown Pentagon bureaucrat. Apparently, thousands of wounded soldiers who served in Iraq are being asked to return part of their enlistment bonuses -- because their injuries prevented them from completing their tours. From Pittsburgh's KDKA:
One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.
He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.
Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.
A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.
"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.
Perversely, President Bush phoned Fox's mother to ask after Fox in May. Now his administration is taking money out of the pockets of wounded veterans like him.
Kissie
11-21-2007, 08:18 AM
I presume it is in reference to the 15 months PER tour requirement.
Of course, since Traveler is a "am vet", he is aware that the length of tour has little or no effect on the soldier in the field, since his focus is a single day at a time, just doing today's job and worrying about tomorrow's tomorrow, where staying alive UNTIL tomorrow is priority no. 1.
The impact is really felt at home - where the husband, wife, or children are left to count down the days, with little to break up the constant pressure and upheaval. I've always said it's a lot harder to sit and wait, than it is to go and fight.
I usually dont get involved in these conversations...but...let me put just a bit of my 2 cents in here...I agree with you to an extent here Spare...it is harder on us spouses sitting at home waiting for our soilders to come home...but talking with my SGT...I have seen his moral SUFFER ALOT...he has done two 1 year tours and has done ok...but this 15 month tour is just fucking with his head!!!! I have NEVER heard him so home sick in my 27 years with him!!!! But thanks the Lord above that in about 85 days he will be home for 18 wonderful days!!!!! Then it will be back for about 7 more months!!!!
Ok enough rambling!!!
mrdiscreet
11-21-2007, 08:45 AM
I usually dont get involved in these conversations...but...let me put just a bit of my 2 cents in here...I agree with you to an extent here Spare...it is harder on us spouses sitting at home waiting for our soilders to come home...but talking with my SGT...I have seen his moral SUFFER ALOT...he has done two 1 year tours and has done ok...but this 15 month tour is just fucking with his head!!!! I have NEVER heard him so home sick in my 27 years with him!!!! But thanks the Lord above that in about 85 days he will be home for 18 wonderful days!!!!! Then it will be back for about 7 more months!!!!
Ok enough rambling!!!
God bless, Kissie.
I think we are asking far too much of these troops; if there are not enough willing to enlist to spread the burden fairly, we need to go back to the draft. That might make us more careful about what wars are worth fighting as well.
Spare, what part of "The United States Army agrees, Desertions are up." Don't you understand?
You can post every stat in the world, but when the rubber hits the road, the United States Department of Army (D.O.A.), the United States Department of Defense (D.O.D.) and the U.S. Army, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DesPers), each and every one (01) of them agree, the desertion rate is UP Eighty Percent (80%). The U.S. Army admitts desertions are up 80%. The Department of Defense admitts Desertions are up 80%. What part of this cannot YOU not admitt is right?
Desertions are up. You can toss out any stats you want. The simple, plain and un-deniable truth is that desertions are up. I know that you have a heavy investment in the FAILED invasion of Iraq.
And in true Republic style, you deny, you lie and you distort. But you cannot change the truth.
Holy sh*t: came across this as I was looking up tours of duty stuff:
Pentagon Demands Wounded Soldier Return Re-enlistment Bonus
By Spencer Ackerman - November 20, 2007, 4:42PM
Just in time for the holidays, there's a special place in Hell just waiting to be filled by some as-yet-unknown Pentagon bureaucrat. Apparently, thousands of wounded soldiers who served in Iraq are being asked to return part of their enlistment bonuses -- because their injuries prevented them from completing their tours. From Pittsburgh's KDKA:
One of them is Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills.
He finds solace in the hundreds of boxes he loads onto a truck in Carnegie. In each box is a care package that will be sent to a man or woman serving in Iraq. It was in his name Operation Pittsburgh Pride was started.
Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.
A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.
"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.
Perversely, President Bush phoned Fox's mother to ask after Fox in May. Now his administration is taking money out of the pockets of wounded veterans like him.
I'm sure spare will post that the ARMY has a right to demand a refund. How this soldier get wounded while serving in Iraq.
Traveler -- let me makes this as plain as I can.
If you wish to discuss the war, let's discuss the facts.
If you wish to discuss why we are in the war, let's discuss the facts.
If you wish to discuss the current administration, let's discuss the facts.
If you wish to discuss conspiracies, let's discuss the facts.
If you wish to discuss me or my motives, find a new subject.
Fact One:
There were no weapons mass destruction. NONE (Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nada and None). A Lie.
Fact Two:
There was active no (None, Zip, Zero, Nada and Nothing) Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program. Nor was there an attempt to purchase "Yellow Cake Uranium" NONE. A lie
Fact Three:
There was no "Al_Queda Connection." A Lie.
Fact Four:
There were no "Un-Manned Aerial Vehicles." None (Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nada and Nothing). A Lie
Each of these lies (LIES) were used as foundation for the FAILED invasion of Iraq.
You cannot argue in support of a war based on lies. Each lie, piled upon each lie does not change the fact that YOU support a war based on those lies.
I for am amazed that you continue to pay lip service to a man who allowed U.S. troops to go into combat lacking proper body armor. I am amazed that you support a man who allowed troops to go into combat with vehicles that lacked proper armor plating. Those facts speak for themselves, and cannot be denied.
I am also amazed that after the revelations about U.S. troops who had lost arms and legs Iraq were quartered in rooms that walls black with mold and invested with vermin that YOU would still support Bush. Those facts speak for themselves and cannot be denied.
The war remains based on lies. You support those lies. The troops injured in the war were cast aside and put away from sight, maimed and living in filth, YOU support the man who did this. What does that say about you?
A war based lies cannot be and should be supported.
You cannot base any argument for support of that war, because of lies used as an excuse for that war. Everything YOU support is based on lies. Those are the facts and you cannot deny those facts.
You are the one who believes what he told, I think for myself. What does it say about you that you would continue to support a man who lies to you, allows troops to live in filth, sent them into combat without proper equipment? Each of those facts cannot be denied.
You support a liar. I do not.
spare_change
11-21-2007, 11:56 AM
Spare, what part of "The United States Army agrees, Desertions are up." Don't you understand?
You can post every stat in the world, but when the rubber hits the road, the United States Department of Army (D.O.A.), the United States Department of Defense (D.O.D.) and the U.S. Army, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DesPers), each and every one (01) of them agree, the desertion rate is UP Eighty Percent (80%). The U.S. Army admitts desertions are up 80%. The Department of Defense admitts Desertions are up 80%. What part of this cannot YOU not admitt is right?
Desertions are up. You can toss out any stats you want. The simple, plain and un-deniable truth is that desertions are up. I know that you have a heavy investment in the FAILED invasion of Iraq.
And in true Republic style, you deny, you lie and you distort. But you cannot change the truth.
I think, if you look, you will find that I did not deny any of the allegations you make. But, as usual, when you make a point, you take comments out of context, leave out pertinent facts, generally fail to present the total picture, and twist it to suit your purpose.
Yes - desertions are up -- but, up from what? They are up from the previous year, but they are lower than they were during PEACETIME!!!! We put more troops on the ground; it is reasonable to expect that the number of desertions would go up.
Tell the whole story -- or shut up.
I usually dont get involved in these conversations...but...let me put just a bit of my 2 cents in here...I agree with you to an extent here Spare...it is harder on us spouses sitting at home waiting for our soilders to come home...but talking with my SGT...I have seen his moral SUFFER ALOT...he has done two 1 year tours and has done ok...but this 15 month tour is just fucking with his head!!!! I have NEVER heard him so home sick in my 27 years with him!!!! But thanks the Lord above that in about 85 days he will be home for 18 wonderful days!!!!! Then it will be back for about 7 more months!!!!
Ok enough rambling!!!
Well according the the Secretary of Defense, your husband should be allowed to remain home for One Full Year.
I wish him a safe home, and I will keep a wish for you and yours tomorrow. May all the troops come home soon!!
spare_change
11-21-2007, 12:11 PM
God bless, Kissie.
I think we are asking far too much of these troops; if there are not enough willing to enlist to spread the burden fairly, we need to go back to the draft. That might make us more careful about what wars are worth fighting as well.
Reinstate the draft? You surprised me --- I'm almost speechless -- almost. LOL
I think, if you look, you will find that I did not deny any of the allegations you make. But, as usual, when you make a point, you take comments out of context, leave out pertinent facts, generally fail to present the total picture, and twist it to suit your purpose.
Yes - desertions are up -- but, up from what? They are up from the previous year, but they are lower than they were during PEACETIME!!!! We put more troops on the ground; it is reasonable to expect that the number of desertions would go up.
Tell the whole story -- or shut up.
No I will NOT SHUT UP. Free Speech is a bitch ain't it? As for context. Find yours first. Desertions are up. Your the one with the problem, not me.
Desertions are UP 80% since the begining of the failed military invasion in 2003. No We Are Not At War. Only the Congress Can Declare War, and War Has Not Been Declared Since December 1941.
Again was is an "AM VET?" Never met one.
I usually dont get involved in these conversations...but...let me put just a bit of my 2 cents in here...I agree with you to an extent here Spare...it is harder on us spouses sitting at home waiting for our soilders to come home...but talking with my SGT...I have seen his moral SUFFER ALOT...he has done two 1 year tours and has done ok...but this 15 month tour is just fucking with his head!!!! I have NEVER heard him so home sick in my 27 years with him!!!! But thanks the Lord above that in about 85 days he will be home for 18 wonderful days!!!!! Then it will be back for about 7 more months!!!!
Ok enough rambling!!!
I pray he makes it back for a longer stay than that Kissie. It is for your soldier that I debate so strongly against this war.
You know...I feel real bad for the kids. Parents are gone to war and they don't know if they will return at all. What a shame....these children did have parents at one point, but a war took their parents away. Just thinking about it makes me real sad. :(
You know Ultimate, they say that every time we kill a terrorist, we create a martyr. But when a soldier dies who has children, what is being created in them? And do we really want to know?
Kissie
11-21-2007, 01:59 PM
Well according the the Secretary of Defense, your husband should be allowed to remain home for One Full Year.
I wish him a safe home, and I will keep a wish for you and yours tomorrow. May all the troops come home soon!!
Well he is only coming home for his R&R trip this time!!!!
mrdiscreet
11-21-2007, 06:18 PM
Reinstate the draft? You surprised me --- I'm almost speechless -- almost. LOL
Perhaps I'll surprise you again: I think war expenses should be added to our tax rates instead of added to the deficit.
We now live in a society where 99% of us simply don't have to care much about war: voluntary enlisted troops "got what they bargained for" and we don't even have to pay the bills, kicking them down the road to the next generation (actually inflation 5-10 years ahead).
And just so I'm not hiding the ball: I think we would have been much slower getting into Iraq, or at least much quicker getting out, if we were all sharing the sacrifices we now simply dump on our troops.
cherokeered
11-21-2007, 11:51 PM
Desertions are up.....and what does that mean....you do realize that for every deserter it means someone else has to take his/her place....
As for reinstating the draft...welcome to the draft-dodging era again....
do we really need cowards in the military?...I personally would not want to place my life in ones hands....
I do think the time has got to be cut down...and to make these brave people spend so much time over there and extend it and call them back is ridiculous....but of course, there is no one to take their place is there????
spare_change
11-22-2007, 02:03 AM
Desertions are up.....and what does that mean....you do realize that for every deserter it means someone else has to take his/her place....
As for reinstating the draft...welcome to the draft-dodging era again....
do we really need cowards in the military?...I personally would not want to place my life in ones hands....
I do think the time has got to be cut down...and to make these brave people spend so much time over there and extend it and call them back is ridiculous....but of course, there is no one to take their place is there????
Bingo.
Iwantutowantme
11-22-2007, 03:15 AM
Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
In 1993, there were 1,284 desertions.
In 2001, there were 4,795 desertions.
In 2005, there were 2,543 desertions.
In 2006, there were 3,196 desertions.
That means that - before 9/11 -- before the "failed US military action in Iraq -- before the ramp-up in personnel --- there were 51% more desertions (in peacetime) than during the worst period of the "failed US military action".
Unquestionably, multiple deployments and longer tours have an adverse effect on morale (primarily at home).
But, the even MORE significant impact on troop morale is the steady drumbeat of unfounded defeatism and negativity from those with vested political interests in the US.
An example? This post -- "failed US military action in Iraq" -- clearly, a defeatist and negative observation, unfounded in truth, especially given the recent reports in newspapers and on tv, and even begrudgingly admitted by the leaders of the Democratic party and the left. The drumbeat goes on .....
********
We need to 'really' understand what the 'failed US military action in Iraq' really means.........THEY have not failed at all, they (global corporate elite) have accomplished what they have set out to do.... For the record. The mission in Iraq was not to win the so called war on terrorism, or promote a democratic government in Iraq, but it was to build alot of permanent bases in Iraq,..max out our credit cards for the US taxpayers, and control the flow of the oil in Iraq while boosting the price of a barrel of oil to over 100 dollars per ( they are getting an A+ by the corporate elite).......Therefore, the Mission in Iraq was not to kill a few terroist or promote democracy. Especially since the present administration is trampling upon the constitution and doesnt really care about the laws.....they only care about their agenda......kripto..
Desertions are up.....and what does that mean....you do realize that for every deserter it means someone else has to take his/her place....Anyone care to know why these men/women are deserting? Or does that matter? If desertions are up, maybe there's a reason like the extended stays. Do we want to know why they desert, or do we just want them to serve and die so we can place reaves over there graves and speak good of there heroism so we can have happy happy thoughts?
As for reinstating the draft...welcome to the draft-dodging era again....
do we really need cowards in the military?...I personally would not want to place my life in ones hands....
I never served one day in the military during the Vietnam conflict and was never drafted. Does that make me a draft dogger? Because I did not enlist makes me a coward?
Sometimes it takes more courage to stand by your convictions than it does to join something you don't believe in for fear of being called " A Coward ".
I do think the time has got to be cut down...and to make these brave people spend so much time over there and extend it and call them back is ridiculous....but of course, there is no one to take their place is there???? Now you get a Bingo from me on that point. At some point we will run out of bodies to throw in front of this mess.
Just my opinion.
Kissie
11-23-2007, 04:25 PM
You know I have been thinking about this thread alot...I am not to sure about the facts about desertions being up...but I know reading between the lines talking to SGT the suicides are up!!!!
mrdiscreet
11-23-2007, 05:44 PM
You know I have been thinking about this thread alot...I am not to sure about the facts about desertions being up...but I know reading between the lines talking to SGT the suicides are up!!!!
Which leaves me heart-broken over how hard we are driving our troops ...
and enraged that our military leadership is not stepping up to the plate and saying they must have more troops or cut back the missions ...
and further enraged that our military leadership is choosing not to know how many troops are being cast aside and left to suicide and severe illness.
If the draft is not the answer fine; but extneding tours to 15 mos and repeated tours isn't either. When we run out of troops within any standard of bring them home healthy, then its time to get the hell out of another country's chaos. We may have caused the chaos, but we really aren't helping end it by staying there. And even if we were, it is not worth what we are doing to these troops. Only to bring them back and have the VA deny treatment, and demand refunds on upfront bonuses.
But, as long as we keep the yellow ribbons on our cars, and watch a military couple get to reunite on morning talk shows, its all (feel) good.
PunkyBob
11-23-2007, 06:13 PM
First of all, I want to say that I hope all of our friends and loved ones brave and noble enough to serve their country and are now serving in Iraq come home whole, healthy and sound. We owe them a great debt.
Next...yes, desertions are up...the numbers are there saying so...and as Discreet stated earlier...why? Are they ALL cowards? How could they be? How many of our soldiers will come home mentally wounded, a somewhat unquantifiable, but nevertheless real dilemma? For many of us who look at it, this war has been run criminally wrong...extended tours...call-backs, underequipped soldiers, etc. Plus no clear objective...just a nebulous goal. We were shown in Viet Nam how impossible it is to fight an enemy that we can't see until it's too late, that we have no reliable information on, their numbers, locations, etc. How can our soldiers operate effectually when there is no solid, real game plan? This is a war of attrition, and our numbers are limited. I'm not surprised desertions are up.
We need to bring our troops home, give them the intensive care and benefits they will need and have earned. Anyone who's dealt with the VA will know what kind of care the soldiers will get...just look at the facts and figures from Agent Orange/dioxin poisoning from Viet Nam...the VA still denies that AO was as widespread and cancer-causing as it was. Yet how many vets came home to find they became terminally ill soon after, and their children born with birth defects? If this denial of culpability by the government is what our soldiers now are facing, then radical change is way past called for. We need to restructure the VA ensure that our fighting forces are given the care and benefits they deserve.
spare_change
11-23-2007, 07:17 PM
Which leaves me heart-broken over how hard we are driving our troops ...
and enraged that our military leadership is not stepping up to the plate and saying they must have more troops or cut back the missions ...
and further enraged that our military leadership is choosing not to know how many troops are being cast aside and left to suicide and severe illness.
If the draft is not the answer fine; but extneding tours to 15 mos and repeated tours isn't either. When we run out of troops within any standard of bring them home healthy, then its time to get the hell out of another country's chaos. We may have caused the chaos, but we really aren't helping end it by staying there. And even if we were, it is not worth what we are doing to these troops. Only to bring them back and have the VA deny treatment, and demand refunds on upfront bonuses.
But, as long as we keep the yellow ribbons on our cars, and watch a military couple get to reunite on morning talk shows, its all (feel) good.
1) The military has consistently asked for more troops -- it has been ignored, and funding has been continually blocked by the Democratic Congress.
2) Once again, the suicide and desertion rates are lower than they were during peacetime, and are within the statistical norm. (By the way, if you check, the suicide rate at colleges is higher than it is in the military!!)
3) The military has been given a mission -- its job is to execute that mission. They WILL execute that mission - whatever the cost.
4) You are climbing on the backs of the soldiers to create a false impression, using them as pawns to support a fallacious argument, selectively citing information that, by not portraying the whole picture, tell the wrong story.
I suggest you come to Colorado Springs - I'll buy the first beer -- and talk to the troops who live here -- 2nd BCT, 3rd BCT, 43rd Area Support Group, 759th Military Police Batallion, 68th Corps Support Battalion, Air Force Space Command, US Space Command, and all the other troops who have been, and will be, deployed over there. When you talk to them, your position holds no water. They recognize the significance of their work, even if you don't.
mrdiscreet
11-24-2007, 12:16 AM
1) The military has consistently asked for more troops -- it has been ignored, and funding has been continually blocked by the Democratic Congress.
2) Once again, the suicide and desertion rates are lower than they were during peacetime, and are within the statistical norm. (By the way, if you check, the suicide rate at colleges is higher than it is in the military!!)
3) The military has been given a mission -- its job is to execute that mission. They WILL execute that mission - whatever the cost.
4) You are climbing on the backs of the soldiers to create a false impression, using them as pawns to support a fallacious argument, selectively citing information that, by not portraying the whole picture, tell the wrong story.
I suggest you come to Colorado Springs - I'll buy the first beer -- and talk to the troops who live here -- 2nd BCT, 3rd BCT, 43rd Area Support Group, 759th Military Police Batallion, 68th Corps Support Battalion, Air Force Space Command, US Space Command, and all the other troops who have been, and will be, deployed over there. When you talk to them, your position holds no water. They recognize the significance of their work, even if you don't.
You really need to knock off the personal attacks. I'm just as qualified to comment on military issues as military brass, especially since we are devolving back to the Vietnam days of liars in the Pentagon. Interesting how honest generals get, but only after they are safely retired. Pawns? Someone surely is using troops as pawns, but it is not me.
(1) The Dems have approved every dollar requested until now, and will undoubtedly cave again. We do not lack troops for dollars, we lack troops because they are not willing to enlist anymore. Because Americans don't believe in this war anymore. Enlistment rates were fine when Americans did believe we needed to be in Iraq.
(2) Can't comment on desertion. But if 17+/100,000 is the peacetime military suicide rate, God help us all. I think your facts are just wrong on this. I know they are wrong on comparing college suicide rates, by a huge factor.
(3) The military has an obligation to state what it takes to sustain a mission, and respect its troops by speaking truth to power. If Bush and Co. are abusing the troop strength, SAY SO TO CONGRESS, instead of selling out the troops.
(4) Your right, I should care less about our troops, my apologies.
mrdiscreet
11-24-2007, 12:20 AM
Shinseki called it like it was, and got mothballed. Zinni told it like it was and got shoved aside. But after that, there were plenty who wanted the shiny medals for their uniforms.
mrdiscreet
11-24-2007, 12:41 AM
20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed in Pentagon tally
By Gregg Zoroya (http://www.usatoday.com/community/tags/reporter.aspx?id=233), USA TODAY
At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.
The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.
HIDDEN WOUNDS: Marine didn't recognize signs of brain injury (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-11-22-tbiinsinide_N.htm)
The number of brain-injury cases were tabulated from records kept by the VA and four military bases that house units that have served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One base released its count of brain injuries at a medical conference. The others provided their records at the request of USA TODAY, in some cases only after a Freedom of Information Act filing was submitted.
USA TODAY ARCHIVES: Brain injuries from war worse than thought (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-23-traumatic-brain-injuries_N.htm)
The data came from:
• Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center in Germany, where troops evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injury, illness or wounds are brought before going home. Since May 2006, more than 2,300 soldiers screened positive for brain injury, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw says.
• Fort Hood, Texas, home of the 4th Infantry Division, which returned from a second Iraq combat tour late last year. At least 2,700 soldiers suffered a combat brain injury, Lt. Col. Steve Stover says.
• Fort Carson, Colo., where more than 2,100 soldiers screened were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to remarks by Army Col. Heidi Terrio before a brain injury association seminar.
• Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, where 1,737 Marines were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to Navy Cmdr. Martin Holland, a neurosurgeon with the Naval Medical Center San Diego.
• VA hospitals, where Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been screened for combat brain injuries since April. The VA found about 20% of 61,285 surveyed — or 11,804 veterans — with signs of brain injury, spokeswoman Alison Aikele says. VA doctors say more evaluation is necessary before a true diagnosis of brain injury can be confirmed in all these cases, Aikele says.
Soldiers and Marines whose wounds were discovered after they left Iraq are not added to the official casualty list, says Army Col. Robert Labutta, a neurologist and brain injury consultant for the Pentagon.
"We are working to do a better job of reflecting accurate data in the official casualty table," Labutta says.
Most of the new cases involve mild or moderate brain injuries, commonly from exposure to blasts.
More than 150,000 troops may have suffered head injuries in combat, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force.
"I am wary that the number of brain-injured troops far exceeds the total number reported injured," he says.
About 1.5 million troops have served in Iraq, where traumatic brain injury can occur despite heavy body armor worn by troops.
Desertion is a choice of the individual and cannot be blamed on anything more than the individual's unwillingness to carry out the contract that they signed to do a job for a certain amount of time for a certain amount of pay. I am on my third deployment and have no desire to desert.
Is this the most fun job I have ever had, no.
Is this job easy on my family, no.
Are there other jobs out there for me, yes.
Why do I do this then? It is because I take great pride in our country and I get to show that pride each and every day when I put on my uniform and I see that pride each time that I look into a mirror. Hell, seven years ago the army pay system had a glitch and didn't pay me for three straight months. You know what I did? I reenlisted anyways and on the fourth month it got fixed. Me, as an individual, agreed to a contract and will continue to carry out the terms outlined in that contract. Yes, soldiers have a number of issues back home while they are deployed but the armed forces provide a number of family and financial services to help out with those issues. The problem is that the soldiers don't want to take advantage of those programs offered. Yes, they know about them. There are medical screenings that take place prior and upon redeployment. How do we miss so many PTSD cases and such? Because soldiers lie on their screenings because they don't want to seem weak or they don't want to bother getting help. If a soldier does not want to help themself then we cannot expect the government to do it for them.
I don't agree with a lot of the polotics that have been part of this war but I know that I have a job to do and I am going to do it. If the American people would rally behind their troops instead of calling them names and thinking that we are not doing any good then that might help rebuild the pride that most soldiers once had. As for these soldiers that are deserting in the age range of 24 and younger. Guess what; they joined post 9/11 and knew damn well what they were getting into. Perhaps they should have thought a little more before signing on the line but they didn't. Is that then the government's fault?
The armed forces are not dropping recruiting standards to such a point that hardened criminals are being allowed to join. Are they allowing small infractions to have happened yes but lets not pretend that it is any different then many jobs out there in America. Does every construction crew out there only hire squeaky clean record type people or do they forgive many sins of the past and hire based on needs of the job and ability to do the job? The armed forces are a job like many others.
Soldiers need to start owning up to what they have agreed to do and stop whining about not knowing it would be like this. If this job were easy then more people would do it but it is not. I only pray that my family continues to stay as strong as they are and they together they and I will get through these next ten years and onto the next stages in our lives.
spare_change
11-24-2007, 01:31 AM
You really need to knock off the personal attacks. I'm just as qualified to comment on military issues as military brass, especially since we are devolving back to the Vietnam days of liars in the Pentagon. Interesting how honest generals get, but only after they are safely retired. Pawns? Someone surely is using troops as pawns, but it is not me.
There was no personal attack -- I respect your intelligence. I was commenting on your position, and what I believe is a lack of understanding of the realities of the situation.
(1) The Dems have approved every dollar requested until now, and will undoubtedly cave again. We do not lack troops for dollars, we lack troops because they are not willing to enlist anymore. Because Americans don't believe in this war anymore. Enlistment rates were fine when Americans did believe we needed to be in Iraq.
You are confusing operational funding with manpower funding -- Congress has approved emergency appropriations for conduct of the war, but has refused to expand the budget for the military commensurate with the needs, as expressed by the Pentagon. Thus, they can't bring in extra troops and train them, so that they can relieve the ones in the field. They are forced to continue to make do with a relatively static number of troops.
We had soldiers who served in WWII and Korea for years at a time -constant combat with minimal breaks. Our troops are capable of performing under the current regimen -- they are no less qualified, no less prepared, and no less brave than their predecessors. The anti-war crowd, however, chooses to use their supposed "weakness" as an excuse to stop the war. Maybe you should ask them .....
As for enlistment rates, last time I checked, they have continued to meet their enlistment goals, but I must admit I hadn't looked lately. However, it comes as no surprise that the number of enlistees would go down considering the negative publicity and distortion of information present today.
(2) Can't comment on desertion. But if 17+/100,000 is the peacetime military suicide rate, God help us all. I think your facts are just wrong on this. I know they are wrong on comparing college suicide rates, by a huge factor.
As for the suicide rates, the British Journal of Psychiatry stated that the suicide rate for college students from 1990 - 2005 was 14.5 per 100,000. According to Community College Week, dtd July 31, 2006, "while suicides account for 1.3 percent of American deaths each year, they are to blame for almost 12 percent of deaths among 15 to 24 year olds, ... for college students, the rate rises to 17.4%." Again, you try to use the purported plight of the military member as a weapon for anti-war rhetoric, but the facts just don't back you up.
(3) The military has an obligation to state what it takes to sustain a mission, and respect its troops by speaking truth to power. If Bush and Co. are abusing the troop strength, SAY SO TO CONGRESS, instead of selling out the troops.
I realize you aren't familiar with the budget request process. What you see in the paper, or hear on TV, is for emergency operational funding. It is not the normal funding process. The military has asked for a troop increase for the past 20 years (my estimate) and have been singularly unsuccessful. If you recall, the Clinton era cut our military staffing by almost 50%, and forced the Pentagon to redefine its mission. (The old mission was to "sustain two areas of conflict simultaneously through projection of military force" - think Germany and Japan. When Clinton got done, the mission was to "sustain one area of conflict through projection of military force while sustaining a holding action in two others." - think Iraq and Afghanistan). The cold, hard truth is we don't have enough resources to fight both wars and win them - we are forced to fight a holding action in one while trying to win the other. Many will argue that we should focus everything in Afghanistan and ignore Iraq. In reality, though, the Afghanistan effort is a "hunt em and finish em off" mission -- they have been severely crippled and do not represent a viable threat, and aren't even a viable political entity. Obviously, it is much easier to fight a holding action against a crippled enemy than in Iraq. So, based on the Clinton doctrine, Iraq gets first priority.
Iwantutowantme
11-24-2007, 03:07 AM
Reinstate the draft? You surprised me --- I'm almost speechless -- almost. LOL
If a draft is imposed,,,the number of deserters would probably increase substantially. Then perhaps Americans would start being illegal immigrants going to Mexico and Canada. I wonder if we could get free health care? :)
spare_change
11-24-2007, 05:01 AM
The Greatest Story Never Told
Military progress in Iraq goes unnoticed by the press.
by Dean Barnett
10/23/2007 12:00:00 AM
MOST PEOPLE DON'T know about the website Icasualties.org. Icasualties.org is run by a bunch of lefties who have dedicated themselves to aggregating all the bad news out of Iraq over the past few years. Each day for the past thirty-four months, Icasualties.org has documented every Coalition military death as well as every violent civilian death in Iraq.
The people who run Icasualties.org obviously have little fondness for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Among their many tendentious metrics is a tally of all the deaths since President Bush announced "Bring them on." Yet, in spite of a clear political agenda, Icaualties.org plays it straight--they just report the numbers. It's important to note that all the discussion regarding how David Petraeus classifies deaths has nothing to do with Icasualties.org's figures. If six bodies are found in Baghdad, they get added to Icasualties.org's butcher's bill. David Petraeus doesn't get a vote.
Since Icasualties.org is an ideological fellow traveler of most mainstream media outlets, you'd figure the site's reporting would occasionally get noticed. In the past, Icasualties.org's numbers and mainstream media reports have sometimes marched in lockstep. Who can forget all the "grim milestones" that the media purportedly mourned during the past four years?
IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, the story in Iraq has changed dramatically. The numbers on Icasualties.org have reflected that change. The metric that most animates the mainstream media and the American public is the count of American casualties. In the spring, with "the surge" just being rolled out, over 100 American soldiers
a month died between April and June. Even though the surge was just beginning, it was about that time that Harry Reid asserted, "As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results." As an analysis of our military prospects, Reid's comments were risible. Of course, Reid didn't intend to provide a serious military analysis. Rather, he tried to cynically capitalize on American deaths for political gain.
Since Reid's ill-timed comment, the situation for American soldiers in Iraq has taken a sharp turn for the better. The accompanying graph clearly shows the trend, but the situation can perhaps be best summed up by looking at the numbers in May compared to the numbers so far from October. In May, 120 American soldiers died in combat, and six more died from non-hostile causes. With October three-fourths complete, 20 American soldiers have died in combat while eight others have died non-hostilities related deaths.
It would be one thing if this improvement transpired because American commanders, spooked by the relatively high death tolls in the spring, decided to focus their mission on force protection. But that hasn't been the case. American troops have been engaging the enemy more actively over the past several months than at any time during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and they've done so to spectacular effect.
The results of the surge, or "the escalation" as Harry Reid derisively called it, have been obvious in the Icasualties.org numbers. Before the surge, a bad month would claim the lives of roughly 3,000 Iraqi civilians and security force members. In February '07, the exact number was 3,014 Iraqi casualties. In March, the figure was 2,977. As the surge began to have its effects, that number dropped to 1674 in August. In September, with the surge taking full effect, the numbers showed a profound change--the Iraqi death toll plunged to 848.
Happily, September's figures don't appear to be an aberration. October has seen 502 Iraqi casualties so far. If the trend continues though the end of October, the final number should be around 650 for the entire month. That represents better than an 80 percent improvement from the war's nadir.
YOU'D THINK THIS would be a big story. After all, the mainstream media makes such a show of "supporting the troops" at every turn, you'd think it would rush to report the amazing story of our soldiers accomplishing what many observers declared "impossible" and "unwinnable" not so long ago.
It hasn't worked out that way. When General Ricardo Sanchez (ret.) addressed the situation in Iraq on October 11, he proclaimed that America was "living a nightmare with no end in sight." Naturally, the "nightmare" quote wound up in the first paragraph of the New York Times report on Sanchez's comments. What didn't find its way into the Times' report was any context of what's going on in Iraq. The "nightmare" assessment would have been a whole lot more fitting when Sanchez was helping run the show in Iraq in 2004 than it is today.
Some people are trying to explain to the American public what's happening in Iraq. Pete Hegseth is a 27 year-old Princeton grad who spent a year leading a combat platoon in Iraq and now heads Vets for Freedom, an organization that supports victory in Iraq. In yesterday's New York Post, Hegseth wrote an important op-ed piece
that explains our counter-insurgency strategy in some depth.
"The term 'surge' is far too simplistic", Hegseth writes, "as it implies simply throwing more forces at the problem, when Petraeus' changes in tactics are even more important. The new counterinsurgency approach--namely, to take territory from al Qaeda, hold it, secure it and empower tribal sheiks to work together and rebuild their communities--finally provides an effective 'counteroffensive' to the chief tactics of al Qaeda militants and Shiite death squads."
And then there's the intrepid Michael Yon. Yon has spent more time on the frontlines than any other American reporters. He reported anecdotal evidence of a sea-change in Iraq that preceded the change in the hard numbers by several months.
The mainstream media's failure to report what's been happening in Iraq frustrates Yon perhaps more than anyone. He has risked his life to tell that story, and the American media has yawned, apparently preferring the anachronistic pronouncements of a former general who hasn't been in the theatre since the surge began. Earlier this week, Yon offered his dispatches free of charge to any paper willing to publish them. It will be interesting to see if he has any takers.
WHAT'S MOST FRUSTRATING about the press's reporting about Iraq is that you just know the next time something goes wrong, be it a car bomb slipping through or a mishap involving American soldiers, that story will get above-the-fold treatment in America's major dailies. The same old voices will begin shrieking "quagmire," and an American pop-singer will probably re-shape John Kerry's tired "Who will be the last to die for a mistake?" query into a lame rock song. (Wait, Bruce Springsteen has already done that.)
The cries of defeat and retreat will intensify.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with the media reporting the bad news out of Iraq. Indeed, it's their duty. But there is something profoundly wrong with the media reporting the bad news while disingenuously ignoring the progress we've made, progress that's only been made because of the sacrifices of 160,000 American soldiers.
Kissie
11-24-2007, 09:30 AM
1) The military has consistently asked for more troops -- it has been ignored, and funding has been continually blocked by the Democratic Congress.
2) Once again, the suicide and desertion rates are lower than they were during peacetime, and are within the statistical norm. (By the way, if you check, the suicide rate at colleges is higher than it is in the military!!)
3) The military has been given a mission -- its job is to execute that mission. They WILL execute that mission - whatever the cost.
4) You are climbing on the backs of the soldiers to create a false impression, using them as pawns to support a fallacious argument, selectively citing information that, by not portraying the whole picture, tell the wrong story.
I suggest you come to Colorado Springs - I'll buy the first beer -- and talk to the troops who live here -- 2nd BCT, 3rd BCT, 43rd Area Support Group, 759th Military Police Batallion, 68th Corps Support Battalion, Air Force Space Command, US Space Command, and all the other troops who have been, and will be, deployed over there. When you talk to them, your position holds no water. They recognize the significance of their work, even if you don't.
How do you know the suicide rates are down they are listed as deaths in a non combat related accident.......they are never told to be a suicide to the public!!!!!
oldandnaked
11-24-2007, 11:05 AM
Originally Posted by Spare Change:2) Once again, the suicide and desertion rates are lower than they were during peacetime, and are within the statistical norm. (By the way, if you check, the suicide rate at colleges is higher than it is in the military!!)
Where did you get this statistic? Does it include only military personnel on active duty or in combat situations? Everything I've read and heard paints an entirely different picture. CBS recently did a series on this subject and although I don't recall the exact figures but I do recall the suicide rate among the Iraq war veterans was highly disproportionate to the general population in the same age group.
Kissie
11-24-2007, 11:48 AM
2) Once again, the suicide and desertion rates are lower than they were during peacetime, and are within the statistical norm. (By the way, if you check, the suicide rate at colleges is higher than it is in the military!!)
Where did you get this statistic? Does it include only military personnel on active duty or in combat situations? Everything I've read and heard paints an entirely different picture. CBS recently did a series on this subject and although I don't recall the exact figures but I do recall the suicide rate among the Iraq war veterans was highly disproportionate to the general population in the same age group.
Does that count the ones committing suicide over there while in the war zone?????
mrdiscreet
11-24-2007, 11:49 AM
2) Once again, the suicide and desertion rates are lower than they were during peacetime, and are within the statistical norm. (By the way, if you check, the suicide rate at colleges is higher than it is in the military!!)
Where did you get this statistic? Does it include only military personnel on active duty or in combat situations? Everything I've read and heard paints an entirely different picture. CBS recently did a series on this subject and although I don't recall the exact figures but I do recall the suicide rate among the Iraq war veterans was highly disproportionate to the general population in the same age group.
I'll pile on on the comparison to college suidicde rates, which I know to be wrong. Note that the article cites support services as a factor in low college suicides. Part of the problem, I think, (and we can see this implied in Spare's position) iis that the military doesn't want to confront that the problem is serious and troops feel reuctant to seek help, instead of help being encouraged in college settings.
College students are far less likely to kill themselves than are nonstudent peers, according to a 10-year research study examining suicide rates at 12 Midwestern campuses.
The Big Ten Student Suicide Study (Silverman et al., 1997) found an overall student suicide rate of 7.5 per 100,000, compared to the national average of 15 per 100,000 in a sample matched for age, race and gender. Forty-six percent of student suicides occurred in the 20-year-old to 24-year-old age group. Graduate students were found to be at greatest risk, comprising 32% of campus suicides.
"The finding that the suicide rate on campus is lower than in the general population didn't surprise me," said Morton Silverman, M.D., study co-author and director of the Student Counseling and Resource Service at University of Chicago. "The whole infrastructure of a campus is geared toward providing support, feedback, caring and assistance toward self-actualization, growth and maturation. As a result, students who are struggling get attention faster, get treated faster and, as a result, function better."
Campus prohibitions against firearm possession also are credited for the lower observed rate, Silverman told Psychiatric Times. According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, undated), 57% of suicides in 1998 were carried out with a gun. Students who commit suicide are more likely to hang themselves, jump from unprotected buildings or ingest lethal chemicals commonly found in campus labs, said Silverman, adding that these findings offer campus administrators important and practical help with prevention efforts.
(Psychiatric Times article)
spare_change
11-24-2007, 12:57 PM
How do you know the suicide rates are down they are listed as deaths in a non combat related accident.......they are never told to be a suicide to the public!!!!!
Every unit commander is required to submit a Monthly Unit Status Report. One of the things reported is changes in personnel. You must list all deaths, and provide a reason. The Pentagon collects this data, correlates it all together, and publishes it.
spare_change
11-24-2007, 01:00 PM
Apparently, given the divergent numbers from apparently reputable sources, we have a much better handle on military suicides than we do on college suicides.
Agree to disagree?
Desertion is a choice of the individual and cannot be blamed on anything more than the individual's unwillingness to carry out the contract that they signed to do a job for a certain amount of time for a certain amount of pay. I am on my third deployment and have no desire to desert.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I don't believe you can lump everyone into one neat package with your comment. General Patton slapped a soldier who had been diagnose with battle fatigue by army doctors during WWII. Later in the Vietnam conflict it was called the " Thousand yard stare ". There are medical reasons why soldiers can't or wont continue there contract as you call it. And there are other concerns from not seeing there wives to just plan loneliness. The army claims to build men not automatons ( Robots ). I hope that your third deployment will be your last and that you will be coming home soon to stay and be with your family. That I do pray everyday for all of you there.
Is this the most fun job I have ever had, no.
Is this job easy on my family, no.
Are there other jobs out there for me, yes.
Why do I do this then? It is because I take great pride in our country and I get to show that pride each and every day when I put on my uniform and I see that pride each time that I look into a mirror. Hell, seven years ago the army pay system had a glitch and didn't pay me for three straight months. You know what I did? I reenlisted anyways and on the fourth month it got fixed. Me, as an individual, agreed to a contract and will continue to carry out the terms outlined in that contract. Yes, soldiers have a number of issues back home while they are deployed but the armed forces provide a number of family and financial services to help out with those issues. The problem is that the soldiers don't want to take advantage of those programs offered. Yes, they know about them. There are medical screenings that take place prior and upon redeployment. How do we miss so many PTSD cases and such? Because soldiers lie on their screenings because they don't want to seem weak or they don't want to bother getting help. If a soldier does not want to help themself then we cannot expect the government to do it for them.
Thats great that you have found your place in life, many of us don't. But I don't think some of us need a uniform to have pride in what we do. I have always had pride in everything I do. My parents instilled that in me as a child. There's nothing wrong with having loyalty to the job you commit to. I have a job that I am committed to that I do everyday. But if I come to a point where that job does not fulfill me on way or another, I have no problem walking away from it. But commitment works both ways the VA has dropped the ball of late and not all the fault of the enlistee's using there services.
Now I will admit that I have no knowledge of how the army suppose to work. What I do know is that my nephew got help only because of the intervention of my aunts stepdaughter who is career army. Every other avenue had been tried before hand.
The government is your employer, you should expect the government to do everything including reading your minds to make sure you get the best for offering your lives to protect it.
I don't agree with a lot of the polotics that have been part of this war but I know that I have a job to do and I am going to do it. If the American people would rally behind their troops instead of calling them names and thinking that we are not doing any good then that might help rebuild the pride that most soldiers once had. As for these soldiers that are deserting in the age range of 24 and younger. Guess what; they joined post 9/11 and knew damn well what they were getting into. Perhaps they should have thought a little more before signing on the line but they didn't. Is that then the government's fault?
The only Americans that I hear calling soldiers names are those crazy people from that church that protest at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. None of my post have been critical of any soldier serving in Iraq. And I have read none here that do. I have heard political rhetoric that suggest that those of us who are anti war are anti troop. I think those who believe as I do are more supportive because we want you to succeed as soon as possible so you can come home the sooner. I personally believe that you all have done your job and should be home already. It's the politicians of Iraq that are dragging there feet.
These kids may have the best intentions when they sign up, and I agree they should have given it a bit more thought. Video games is a far cry from the real thing. But then the army should share some of the blame as well. Offering 18 year olds more money than some there parents have probably never seen in life is a huge enticement.
The armed forces are not dropping recruiting standards to such a point that hardened criminals are being allowed to join. Are they allowing small infractions to have happened yes but lets not pretend that it is any different then many jobs out there in America. Does every construction crew out there only hire squeaky clean record type people or do they forgive many sins of the past and hire based on needs of the job and ability to do the job? The armed forces are a job like many others.
OK so that means that there not recruiting murderers but maybe a kid who's done domestic battery? What exactly does that mean? Skin heads without a record? I'm not poking fun or suggesting that the military is desperate to these ends. But that statement is very vague. I also disagree about your premise that civilian jobs are that porous. People do get fired for lying on there applications about any criminal background that's omitted under penalty or termination and or imprisonment. And many Americans would like to believe that there men/women in uniform are squeaky clean because the bad guys are not. All those commercials the pentagon pays for try to make this point.
Soldiers need to start owning up to what they have agreed to do and stop whining about not knowing it would be like this. If this job were easy then more people would do it but it is not. I only pray that my family continues to stay as strong as they are and they together they and I will get through these next ten years and onto the next stages in our lives.
Well again I am at a loss by what you mean by soldiers whining. Those who have spoke out uncovered a problem with the VA Hospital so that heaven forbid if you where ever wounded and had to go there, at least you would get the care they didn't. Those who spoke out about the lack of armor on the hummvee's, and those who spoke out about the lack of and quality of the bullet proof vest, and those who spoke out about the extended tours and lack of R&R time with there families directly benefit you and others like you.
Again it is not the men and women in uniform that I have a problem with. It is the leadership that sent you guy's there. I do support your efforts for as long as your there putting forth that effort. What pains me is that those voices that make the claim that people who think as I do are anti troop speak the loudest to you guy's. Nothing was ever further from the truth. Supporting someone does not always mean you agree with what they do or why they do it.
Again I do pray for your safe and final return.
mrdiscreet
11-24-2007, 03:57 PM
Apparently, given the divergent numbers from apparently reputable sources, we have a much better handle on military suicides than we do on college suicides.
Agree to disagree?
Well, I was curious about the disparity in the stats, and located the Community College Weekly article. The key quote doesn't exist, and the article in fact refers to the Big Ten study (7.5/100,000) as the hallmark in the field. I also couldn't find the referenced British J. of Psych. study on their site, and don't know why they would have any research on US demographics.
I don't doubt your honesty, just guessing you picked up those (mis)quotes second-hand somewere.
I do see that the different military branches, led by the AF in late 90's, are starting to get more proactive in this area; colleges have been doing so since the mid-90s.
As for military having a better handle, that's just wrong; the DOD can develop whatever stats they choose to track, and it chose not to track these stats. It took CBS News and FOIA requests to bring the issue to light.
spare_change
11-24-2007, 03:59 PM
I am absolutely stunned that you could even begin to equate a nice, comfy 9-5 job with what this man, and others like him, are doing for this country. Maybe you should compare the relative significance of the contributions of each to society. When is the last time you were shot at? When was the last time you had to approach an abandoned car, sitting beside the road, knowing that at any minute, it could blow up in your face? When is the last time that the fate, hopes, and dreams of a whole population rested on every decision you made? When is the last time you knew, in your heart, that you would give your life if it saved one of your co-workers.
You have absolutely trivialized their contributions and their sacrifices. Support the troops, my ass. You have no respect whatsoever for what they do and what they, and their families, sacrifice. To demean their contributions is to demean them.
Then, you have the audacity to demean those who are recruited, claiming some of them to be domestic abusers or skinheads without a record. You question their honor and their integrity, claiming they are "not squeaky clean".
The only Americans you hear calling them names is those religious crazies?? I suggest, sir, that you need to investigate Code Pink, investigate the comments of Cindy Sheehan, investigate the spitting incidents at the airport in San Francisco.
Of course, we all have a right to question the authority, and the decisions, that caused these men and women to be placed in harm's way. But, don't ever, ever, ever question or minimize their contributions or their bravery.
spare_change
11-24-2007, 04:08 PM
Well, I was curious about the disparity in the stats, and located the Community College Weekly article. The key quote doesn't exist, and the article in fact refers to the Big Ten study (7.5/100,000) as the hallmark in the field. I also couldn't find the referenced British J. of Psych. study on their site, and don't know why they would have any research on US demographics.
I don't doubt your honesty, just guessing you picked up those (mis)quotes second-hand somewere.
I do see that the different military branches, led by the AF in late 90's, are starting to get more proactive in this area; colleges have been doing so since the mid-90s.
As for military having a better handle, that's just wrong; the DOD can develop whatever stats they choose to track, and it chose not to track these stats. It took CBS News and FOIA requests to bring the issue to light.
It was, in fact, a second hand reference. If it is incorrect, I stand corrected.
mrdiscreet
11-24-2007, 04:33 PM
Skeilo,
It disturbs me that you might feel anything other than gratitude for your service, particularly when posting here; it is overwhelmingly heartfelt across the country. I have never had a discussion with a single person who does not wish the best for our troops.
I'd like to respond to one part of your post:
If the American people would rally behind their troops instead of calling them names and thinking that we are not doing any good then that might help rebuild the pride that most soldiers once had.
What names are being called? I just haven't had any exposure to this.
I believe I support the troops by (1) wanting them home and (2) wanting funded and available support services for them as needed.
But citizens should not be asked to blindly support military campaigns because our troops need that shot in the arm. It is the duty of our leaders to engage only in wars that the population supports. While soldiers in uniform must follow orders, it is all the more imperative that citizens who can speak freely do so. Protesting the war is not protesting against the troops.
On Spare's comment, I don't know much about Code Pink, but had thought they were anti-war, and pro-VA benefits. I'm sure tht makes them unpopular in military circles. But have they disparaged troops? If so, I condemn them.
I'm also unaware of any spitting incidents; if they have happened, I condemn them as well.
oldandnaked
11-24-2007, 06:14 PM
Having served in the military during another unpopular war and in an environment (in this country) not nearly as supportive of the troops as what I see today, I can sympathize with any member of our armed forces that feels slighted or offended by remarks or actions of some our citizens. I recall once walking past a sign posted in a civilian's yard not far from the Naval Station in Virginia that had written on it, "Dogs and Sailors Keep Off the Grass". I also recall having my fellow citizens, particularly in my age group) shunning me and often verbally assaulting me simply because of the fact that I wore a uniform. Ironically, this was a time when service in the military was not voluntary and my only other options, college not being one of them, was dessertion, defecting or jail. I was relieved when I was sent overseas and was treated more respectfully than in my own country.
Having said that, I think all Americans have the right if not the duty to opine their views, regardless of what they are, on this war and the administration that sent our brave and honorable troops into harms way. I also believe it's possible to reject this war without denigrating the members and families of our armed forces or the outstanding and dangerous job they are carrying out in the service of their country.
spare_change
11-24-2007, 06:28 PM
Having served in the military during another unpopular war and in an environment (in this country) not nearly as supportive of the troops as what I see today, I can sympathize with any member of our armed forces that feels slighted or offended by remarks or actions of some our citizens. I recall once walking past a sign posted in a civilian's yard not far from the Naval Station in Virginia that had written on it, "Dogs and Sailors Keep Off the Grass". I also recall having my fellow citizens, particularly in my age group) shunning me and often verbally assaulting me simply because of the fact that I wore a uniform. Ironically, this was a time when service in the military was not voluntary and my only other options, college not being one of them, was dessertion, defecting or jail. I was relieved when I was sent overseas and was treated more respectfully than in my own country.
Having said that, I think all Americans have the right if not the duty to opine their views, regardless of what they are, on this war and the administration that sent our brave and honorable troops into harms way. I also believe it's possible to reject this war without denigrating the members and families of our armed forces or the outstanding and dangerous job they are carrying out in the service of their country.
Well said -- it is, of course, possible to reject the war without denigrating the armed forces, but those who consider the military to be second class citizens, pawns of the crazed political machine, or killing machines always seem to begin their denigration with "I support the troops, but ....". To demean their sacrifices by comparing it to a 9-5 job, to minimize their contributions, or to castigate their class by defining them as domestic abusers or skinheads who just haven't been caught yet, demeans each and every one of them.
mrdiscreet
11-24-2007, 10:29 PM
...
Kissie
11-24-2007, 11:03 PM
Every unit commander is required to submit a Monthly Unit Status Report. One of the things reported is changes in personnel. You must list all deaths, and provide a reason. The Pentagon collects this data, correlates it all together, and publishes it.
So what your telling me Spare is you know the name and cause of every soilder that has passed away in the Iraqi war...and it has crossed your desk?????
Kissie
11-24-2007, 11:18 PM
The Huffington Post
Welcome | Edit preferences | Logout | November 24, 2007 Log In | Sign Up | November 24, 2007 Home Politics Media Business Entertainment Living All Blogs All News 23/6 Home > The News > Local Paper Uncovers Anot... Site Web
Local Paper Uncovers Another Apparent Soldier Suicide In Iraq
Editor and Publisher | Greg Mitchell | November 24, 2007 06:21 PM
Read More: Iraq Soldier Suicide, Iraq Suicides, Iraq War, Military Suicide, Soldier Suicides In Iraq, Warwire, Breaking News
Hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq have committed suicide since the war began in 2003, though this subject is kept quiet by the military. As E&P has documented in recent months, the deaths are announced as "noncombat" with the only details that they are "under investigation." But local newspapers often find out the true cause from surviving family or friends, and occasionally from nearby military bases.
Some 130 are now officially listed as suicides in Iraq but dozens more being probed, and then there are the suicides in Afghanistan, and hundreds or thousands more back in the U.S., as CBS News recently revealed. Now there is probably one more.
spare_change
11-24-2007, 11:36 PM
So what your telling me Spare is you know the name and cause of every soilder that has passed away in the Iraqi war...and it has crossed your desk?????
The answer is yes -- and no. When I was in the service, I was required to fill out MUSRs, so I am familiar with the reporting process. I did have suicides among my troops -- that ain't a lot of fun -- so I am intimately familiar with how they are handled. When I was at the Pentagon, I saw the consolidated data. The military knows where each and every one of its troops are --- with two exceptions. It doesn't know where its MIAs are, and it doesn't know where the AWOL/desertions are (which isn't always true -- most times they do know, but they don't pursue). If the military has confirmed that the person has died, then yes, they know the name and cause, with attached action report, on the death of each and every soldier that has passed away, whether it be in the Iraq war, or in a car accident in Pennsylvania.
But, no, I don't see MUSR summaries any more. I do, however, have friends who receive them, so if you have a specific question ........
spare_change
11-25-2007, 12:17 AM
The Huffington Post
Welcome | Edit preferences | Logout | November 24, 2007 Log In | Sign Up | November 24, 2007 Home Politics Media Business Entertainment Living All Blogs All News 23/6 Home > The News > Local Paper Uncovers Anot... Site Web
Local Paper Uncovers Another Apparent Soldier Suicide In Iraq
Editor and Publisher | Greg Mitchell | November 24, 2007 06:21 PM
Read More: Iraq Soldier Suicide, Iraq Suicides, Iraq War, Military Suicide, Soldier Suicides In Iraq, Warwire, Breaking News
Hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq have committed suicide since the war began in 2003, though this subject is kept quiet by the military. As E&P has documented in recent months, the deaths are announced as "noncombat" with the only details that they are "under investigation." But local newspapers often find out the true cause from surviving family or friends, and occasionally from nearby military bases.
Some 130 are now officially listed as suicides in Iraq but dozens more being probed, and then there are the suicides in Afghanistan, and hundreds or thousands more back in the U.S., as CBS News recently revealed. Now there is probably one more.
You know, they say that "figures don't lie" but what they don't say is that they don't always represent the total picture. So, let's dissect the numbers --
1) According to posts here, over 6,000 military veterans have committed suicide.
2) According to posts here, the suicide rate among 20-24 yr old soldiers is twice the civilian rate.
3) According to posts here, the suicide rate for civilians is 12 per 100,000.
ergo,
a) That means that the suicide rate among 20-24 yr old soldiers is approximately 24 per 100,000.
b) Given the number of 20-24 yr old soldiers, we can extrapolate that there are 240 suicides per year (that's assuming a corps of 1 million - which i think should be in the ballpark)
thus,
1) If 240 suicides are soldiers 20-24 yrs old, who are the other 5800 suicides? Given the source's biases, it is safe to assume that if all the other age groups of soldiers had been dramatic, they would have been trumpeted as well.
2) Can we presume that the other 5800 are ex-soldiers, veterans of other wars, eligible dependents, etc? It seems logical that it counts the suicides of all VA customers.
3) Misstating the severity of the crisis -- and it is a crisis -- serves no purpose other than to advance political agendas.
spare_change
11-25-2007, 12:24 AM
How do you know the suicide rates are down they are listed as deaths in a non combat related accident.......they are never told to be a suicide to the public!!!!!
There is never a public announcement of the suicide of a soldier by the military. This is done to save the family any embarrassment. If the family chooses to tell how it happened, that is up to them. But, it would be a disservice to the memory of the soldier to do otherwise.
You may, however, rest assured that the military knows - and documents - the real cause of death.
mrdiscreet
11-25-2007, 02:47 AM
I think Spare's numbers raise interesting questions. It is true that suicide rates rocket up in the senior citizen range, so perhaps the CBS numbers are heavily skewed by a demographic group that should be screened out when the focus is Iraq service.
I'd like to see the CBS numbers further vetted.
Regardless of the percentages, it seems clear the military does now recognize it as a problem and is paying attention to improving support.
Added:
A closer look at the CBS numbers details 22.9 to 31.9/100,000 in the 20-24 age group; this would compare to 17/100,000 if you accept a heavily white/hispanic male demographic. So the huge numbers did go across all ages and were sensationalistic.
I'm puzzled why CBS can't nail down the exact rate (22.9 - 31.9) if it investigated actual death records?
But the basic point remains true: support needs to be improved both for active duty, and even more, when troops lose their support structure and are more isolated after leaving the service.
I also think using terms like "double" the rate for stats in this range is meaningless. Even at 3.1, thats 3 per 10,000; less likely than the odds of getting injured mowing the lawn.
FRMale
11-25-2007, 03:23 AM
you are on the right track here... i already feel like a slave at the factory i'm employed at! without pay increases, or a catching a break... i'm stuck with what i do!!!:(
mrdiscreet
11-25-2007, 03:56 AM
Hey, not to change the subject or anything, but what's a 60 year old doing still in the service -- shouldn't you be part of that CBS dead old soldiers demographic by now, or is it really true that old soldiers never die? :D
Pebbles
11-25-2007, 05:35 AM
I usually dont get involved in these conversations...but...let me put just a bit of my 2 cents in here...I agree with you to an extent here Spare...it is harder on us spouses sitting at home waiting for our soilders to come home...but talking with my SGT...I have seen his moral SUFFER ALOT...he has done two 1 year tours and has done ok...but this 15 month tour is just fucking with his head!!!! I have NEVER heard him so home sick in my 27 years with him!!!! But thanks the Lord above that in about 85 days he will be home for 18 wonderful days!!!!! Then it will be back for about 7 more months!!!!
Ok enough rambling!!!
Kissie,know this is very hard on both you and your husband. Know how you feel... my husbands nephew left for his second tour of duty in Iraq ten days ago. He will be there three months..then get three weeks back home and he has to go back to Iraq for three months...then home for good. He is stationed in Germany. They are closing that base..so nephew will get to come to England to live some time in 2008 with his unit.
I am absolutely stunned that you could even begin to equate a nice, comfy 9-5 job with what this man, and others like him, are doing for this country. Maybe you should compare the relative significance of the contributions of each to society. When is the last time you were shot at? When was the last time you had to approach an abandoned car, sitting beside the road, knowing that at any minute, it could blow up in your face? When is the last time that the fate, hopes, and dreams of a whole population rested on every decision you made? When is the last time you knew, in your heart, that you would give your life if it saved one of your co-workers.
You have absolutely trivialized their contributions and their sacrifices. Support the troops, my ass. You have no respect whatsoever for what they do and what they, and their families, sacrifice. To demean their contributions is to demean them.
Then, you have the audacity to demean those who are recruited, claiming some of them to be domestic abusers or skinheads without a record. You question their honor and their integrity, claiming they are "not squeaky clean".
The only Americans you hear calling them names is those religious crazies?? I suggest, sir, that you need to investigate Code Pink, investigate the comments of Cindy Sheehan, investigate the spitting incidents at the airport in San Francisco.
Of course, we all have a right to question the authority, and the decisions, that caused these men and women to be placed in harm's way. But, don't ever, ever, ever question or minimize their contributions or their bravery.
It is unfortunate that you continue to choose to take what I say out of context to satisfy your own agenda. That is really dishonest of you. I'm not going to repeat or explain what I said or meant because it is plain enough. You choose not to understand but to attack and discredit those who disagree or have a point of view different than yours. I have never attacked or call anyone here a name, including you. I have only tried to give my point of view the way I see it. My opinions have been straight forward and above board, and void of any political rhetoric. As far as Cindy Sheehan is concern, I have never heard her say anything bad about the troops. Nor do I want to investigate whether she did or not for the same reason I don't need to listen to those nut jobs that protest at funerals. And I do support the troops regardless of what you think. My nephew served there and I supported him. Other members of my family may have to serve before it's over so it would be assinine to not support your own family members.
I am so fumeing right now at your total disregard for my feelings by insulting me the way you have just done. But thats ok because you only expose yourself for being an unfeeling, dishonest, demagog.
I'm going to step back, take a few breaths and try to regain my composure. I don't need someone like you living rent free in my brain.
oldandnaked
11-25-2007, 10:31 AM
It is unfortunate that you continue to choose to take what I say out of context to satisfy your own agenda. That is really dishonest of you. I'm not going to repeat or explain what I said or meant because it is plain enough. You choose not to understand but to attack and discredit those who disagree or have a point of view different than yours. I have never attacked or call anyone here a name, including you. I have only tried to give my point of view the way I see it. My opinions have been straight forward and above board, and void of any political rhetoric. As far as Cindy Sheehan is concern, I have never heard her say anything bad about the troops. Nor do I want to investigate whether she did or not for the same reason I don't need to listen to those nut jobs that protest at funerals. And I do support the troops regardless of what you think. My nephew served there and I supported him. Other members of my family may have to serve before it's over so it would be assinine to not support your own family members.
I am so fumeing right now at your total disregard for my feelings by insulting me the way you have just done. But thats ok because you only expose yourself for being an unfeeling, dishonest, demagog.
I'm going to step back, take a few breaths and try to regain my composure. I don't need someone like you living rent free in my brain.
In a previous post I stated that I experienced a lack of civilian support while serving in the Navy during the Vietnam war. Having read the post you've come under fire for, I'm hard pressed to find anything you've said that comes close to being as disrespectful or offensive as what I endured. On the contrary, I feel you've been as respectful as you know how to be while still stating your view. I sincerely hope you continue to voice your opinion in the same fashion you have in the past without fear of offending the sensitivities of others. I hope you Sir, have a good and relaxing Sunday.
Kissie
11-25-2007, 11:30 AM
Kissie,know this is very hard on both you and your husband. Know how you feel... my husbands nephew left for his second tour of duty in Iraq ten days ago. He will be there three months..then get three weeks back home and he has to go back to Iraq for three months...then home for good. He is stationed in Germany. They are closing that base..so nephew will get to come to England to live some time in 2008 with his unit.
Yeah but see my husband is there for 285 days then comes home for 18 then goes back for another 7 months before he comes home for a year before he has the chance of going back for another 15 month tour!!!!!
Thank you Hun for your kind words!!!! I greatly apperciate them....I honestly do!!!!! :kk :kk :kk
In a previous post I stated that I experienced a lack of civilian support while serving in the Navy during the Vietnam war. Having read the post you've come under fire for, I'm hard pressed to find anything you've said that comes close to being as disrespectful or offensive as what I endured. On the contrary, I feel you've been as respectful as you know how to be while still stating your view. I sincerely hope you continue to voice your opinion in the same fashion you have in the past without fear of offending the sensitivities of others. I hope you Sir, have a good and relaxing Sunday.
Thank you! I assure you that I do intend to continue contributing to this and other threads. I'm not affraid of voicing my opinion or even giving an unpopular opposing view. I'm fine and You Sir have a great Sunday. And I mean that for all who post here.
spare_change
11-25-2007, 02:04 PM
From the Wall Street Journal
But They Support the Troops!
The day before Thanksgiving, a reader posted a link to the U.S. military's America Supports You site, which we noted Wednesday, on the Fark.com discussion board, with a nice little exhortation:
Send a word of thanks to American troops who won't be home tomorrow because they're defending us in Iraq.
Here's a sampling of the comments it drew:
* "No one who is defending us (or freedom, etc.) is in Iraq. Sorry to burst your bubble."
* "I'd like to thank them for being over there fighting and dying in that senseless clusterfark so I don't have to."
* "Spending $7.5 million dollars per hour, I'll bet they get nicer food than I do."
* "They are not defending us, they are being used by Bush and Co. to bully the world. We shouldn't be thanking these troops, we should be apologizing to them, for not electing politicians that protect the troops interests. We should be working with the INTERNATIONAL community to solve INTERNATIONAL problems. Obviously the world realizes now there is no USA in TEAM. Thanks, George."
* "Remember: while it's illegal to discriminate against ex-servicemembers, it's not illegal to discriminate against people who've recently spent time in Iraq or Afganistan [sic]. So, when you see these people who make Bush and Iraq possible, ask them who they thought was going to invade the continental US when they joined, and if the answer isn't a very intelligent one, perhaps one of the other candidates would spend less time picking their noses?"
mrdiscreet
11-25-2007, 04:24 PM
From the Wall Street Journal
But They Support the Troops!
The day before Thanksgiving, a reader posted a link to the U.S. military's America Supports You site, which we noted Wednesday, on the Fark.com discussion board, with a nice little exhortation:
Send a word of thanks to American troops who won't be home tomorrow because they're defending us in Iraq.
Here's a sampling of the comments it drew:
* "No one who is defending us (or freedom, etc.) is in Iraq. Sorry to burst your bubble."
* "I'd like to thank them for being over there fighting and dying in that senseless clusterfark so I don't have to."
* "Spending $7.5 million dollars per hour, I'll bet they get nicer food than I do."
* "They are not defending us, they are being used by Bush and Co. to bully the world. We shouldn't be thanking these troops, we should be apologizing to them, for not electing politicians that protect the troops interests. We should be working with the INTERNATIONAL community to solve INTERNATIONAL problems. Obviously the world realizes now there is no USA in TEAM. Thanks, George."
* "Remember: while it's illegal to discriminate against ex-servicemembers, it's not illegal to discriminate against people who've recently spent time in Iraq or Afganistan [sic]. So, when you see these people who make Bush and Iraq possible, ask them who they thought was going to invade the continental US when they joined, and if the answer isn't a very intelligent one, perhaps one of the other candidates would spend less time picking their noses?"
How about we tone down the rhetoric and accept that 99.9% of us wish the best for our troops?
And by the way, the "defending us" line to a bulletin board heavily opposed to the Iraq war was pretty clearly designed to start a flame war. Let's not do that on this site, please.
How about we tone down the rhetoric and accept that 99.9% of us wish the best for our troops?
And by the way, the "defending us" line to a bulletin board heavily opposed to the Iraq war was pretty clearly designed to start a flame war. Let's not do that on this site, please.
AMEN!:55
AMEN!:55
Agreed, amen and agreed.
Spare, you want to wave the flag, which is all fine well, right, and good. But you should be just as willing to see what is going on in the name of that flag, and not just continue to wave and demand an un-qualified and un-questioned obedience to the National Leadership of the United States.
Thousands of innocent lives have been taken in the name of war of choice, Iraq was never a threat. Lies were told in the name of that war, lies that killed U.S soldiers and Iraq Civilians. You write about the success, but not about the lies that led to an un-necessary and costly invasion against a country that was of no real military value and most certainly no real military threat to anyone, at anytime.
Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld lied to you, to the American People and to the World, and all you do is continue to post about the great news that is under reported. Why aren't you as willing to post about how you were so willing to believe those lies, knowing you were being lied to and still are willing to support a WAR based on LIES.
A War based on LIES spare, complete and total lies. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.). No Nuclear Weapons Program. No Un-Manned Aerial Vehicles (U.A.V.). None. Each of these lies were used as the excuse(s) for a war that has killed over Three Thousand (3,000) U.S. Military Personnel as well as the lives of tens of thousands innocent Iraqi Civilians; men women and children. Dead because George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condie Rice and Colin Powell LIED. How can there be success in such a war? Why was there such a war?
What about the cost of this war, current reports by the White House Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.) and Congressional Budge Office (C.B.O.) say the cost of war in Iraq will top out at over Two Trillion Dollars ($2,000,000,000,000,000,000.00), where exactly is that money supposed to come from? Does success in Iraq mean bankrupting the United States of America as part of that success?
Where does the net effect of the cost of this war on the U.S. Economy, as well as the U.S. Population as whole begin to count? Or shouldn't such things matter in the long run?
The war in Iraq has broken our military as well, or maybe that is not important either. Troops facing their fourth or fifth tour of duty (15 Month Tour of Duty), are not rushing to re-up. Stress and strain on families has resulted in increased divorce rates, as well desertions and suicide. Unit Commanders have seen what happens to commanding officers who do not tow the line on a "Successful" War in Iraq. Just ask Generals Shinseki and Zinni. To question the war is to insure an end to your military career.
The Government of Iraq has made little if any sucess in meeting "Bench Marks." set by the White House, only three (03) of eighteen (18) have been met (This is according the White House Press Office). No plans for the sharing of Oil Revenue, no real power sharing either. The Kurds in the North are attacking into Turkey, which is no making noise about attacking the Kurds in return.
Much is being Iran supplying insurgents in Iraq, but is Saudi Arabia supplying insurgents as well, but we get their oil and Saudi supplied "I.E.D." (Improvised Explosive Device) get less press notice at U.S. Military Briefings.
U.S. Troops who came home after losing arms and legs in Combat were assigned rooms that had walls covered with mold and were issued mouse traps. Your continued support of an Administration that would allow U.S. Military Personnel wounded in combat, who lost parts of their body to enemy fire to live in such conditions baffels me.
Troops who have been wounded in Iraq, and returned to the United States for recovery are now being asked to "Return" their enlist bonus. The reason for the request that they failed to complete a full tour of duty in Iraq, I guess being wounded in combat doen't count. Your support an Administration that allows this also baffels me.
And all because of LIES. LIES, LIES, AND DAMN LIES.
irishjock
11-25-2007, 06:33 PM
Been there done that… I signed up to be in the Army, part of the deal is war. You know that going in, it’s what the Military is for, like it or not! Now granted at 18 you don’t really understand what war really is (of course I believe if you have not been there you never really understand no matter how old you are) but not knowing is what makes 18 year olds perfect for the military. They have no fear and can be trained to do things they have no comprehension of how their actions will effect others (and themselves). It’s ugly but it’s the truth. I had lots of bad shit happen to me while in the Army, and I don’t mean to sound (or be) such a hard ass but I dealt with it, I signed up for it and I did what I had to do, and my friends all did the same thing. Here is a quote from G.K. Chesterton that I believe is very true and what keeps soldiers sane in battle and from deserting (at least it was true for me)… “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
With all that said, do I hate war? Hell yes!!! Probably more then most. I have baggage locked in a can, locked in a box, locked in a trunk, buried way back in the recesses of my mind that I don’t wish on another human being ever. War sucks, but until humans no longer care about power and influence and money (and that’s the sane ones) we will have it and the young men of the world will have to fight it. Again, ugly but true…
spare_change
11-25-2007, 06:38 PM
How about we tone down the rhetoric and accept that 99.9% of us wish the best for our troops?
And by the way, the "defending us" line to a bulletin board heavily opposed to the Iraq war was pretty clearly designed to start a flame war. Let's not do that on this site, please.
1) This was an article taken from the Wall Street Journal. It was not written by anyone on this site.
2) It was intended to stir discussion.
3) The comments were posted on a website designed to support the troops, rather than posted on a "bulletin board heavily opposed to the Iraq war".
4) It was posted here to serve as an example of just how "99.9% of us support the troops".
5) I wasn't aware that you had been made arbiter of what happens on this site.
spare_change
11-25-2007, 06:42 PM
Been there done that… I signed up to be in the Army, part of the deal is war. You know that going in, it’s what the Military is for, like it or not! Now granted at 18 you don’t really understand what war really is (of course I believe if you have not been there you never really understand no matter how old you are) but not knowing is what makes 18 year olds perfect for the military. They have no fear and can be trained to do things they have no comprehension of how their actions will effect others (and themselves). It’s ugly but it’s the truth. I had lots of bad shit happen to me while in the Army, and I don’t mean to sound (or be) such a hard ass but I dealt with it, I signed up for it and I did what I had to do, and my friends all did the same thing. Here is a quote from G.K. Chesterton that I believe is very true and what keeps soldiers sane in battle and from deserting (at least it was true for me)… “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
With all that said, do I hate war? Hell yes!!! Probably more then most. I have baggage locked in a can, locked in a box, locked in a trunk, buried way back in the recesses of my mind that I don’t wish on another human being ever. War sucks, but until humans no longer care about power and influence and money (and that’s the sane ones) we will have it and the young men of the world will have to fight it. Again, ugly but true…
Thank you, sir. I admire your courage, your sacrifice, and your position. Soldiers are the ones who hate war the most -- they don't do it because they enjoy it (contrary to what some may think). Those of us who have been under fire come out of it with a real clear sense of ideals, and of what's important.
spare_change
11-25-2007, 07:06 PM
Agreed, amen and agreed.
Spare, you want to wave the flag, which is all fine well, right, and good. But you should be just as willing to see what is going on in the name of that flag, and not just continue to wave and demand an un-qualified and un-questioned obedience to the National Leadership of the United States.
Thousands of innocent lives have been taken in the name of war of choice, Iraq was never a threat. Lies were told in the name of that war, lies that killed U.S soldiers and Iraq Civilians. You write about the success, but not about the lies that led to an un-necessary and costly invasion against a country that was of no real military value and most certainly no real military threat to anyone, at anytime.
Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld lied to you, to the American People and to the World, and all you do is continue to post about the great news that is under reported. Why aren't you as willing to post about how you were so willing to believe those lies, knowing you were being lied to and still are willing to support a WAR based on LIES.
A War based on LIES spare, complete and total lies. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.). No Nuclear Weapons Program. No Un-Manned Aerial Vehicles (U.A.V.). None. Each of these lies were used as the excuse(s) for a war that has killed over Three Thousand (3,000) U.S. Military Personnel as well as the lives of tens of thousands innocent Iraqi Civilians; men women and children. Dead because George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condie Rice and Colin Powell LIED. How can there be success in such a war? Why was there such a war?
What about the cost of this war, current reports by the White House Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.) and Congressional Budge Office (C.B.O.) say the cost of war in Iraq will top out at over Two Trillion Dollars ($2,000,000,000,000,000,000.00), where exactly is that money supposed to come from? Does success in Iraq mean bankrupting the United States of America as part of that success?
Where does the net effect of the cost of this war on the U.S. Economy, as well as the U.S. Population as whole begin to count? Or shouldn't such things matter in the long run?
The war in Iraq has broken our military as well, or maybe that is not important either. Troops facing their fourth or fifth tour of duty (15 Month Tour of Duty), are not rushing to re-up. Stress and strain on families has resulted in increased divorce rates, as well desertions and suicide. Unit Commanders have seen what happens to commanding officers who do not tow the line on a "Successful" War in Iraq. Just ask Generals Shinseki and Zinni. To question the war is to insure an end to your military career.
The Government of Iraq has made little if any sucess in meeting "Bench Marks." set by the White House, only three (03) of eighteen (18) have been met (This is according the White House Press Office). No plans for the sharing of Oil Revenue, no real power sharing either. The Kurds in the North are attacking into Turkey, which is no making noise about attacking the Kurds in return.
Much is being Iran supplying insurgents in Iraq, but is Saudi Arabia supplying insurgents as well, but we get their oil and Saudi supplied "I.E.D." (Improvised Explosive Device) get less press notice at U.S. Military Briefings.
U.S. Troops who came home after losing arms and legs in Combat were assigned rooms that had walls covered with mold and were issued mouse traps. Your continued support of an Administration that would allow U.S. Military Personnel wounded in combat, who lost parts of their body to enemy fire to live in such conditions baffels me.
Troops who have been wounded in Iraq, and returned to the United States for recovery are now being asked to "Return" their enlist bonus. The reason for the request that they failed to complete a full tour of duty in Iraq, I guess being wounded in combat doen't count. Your support an Administration that allows this also baffels me.
And all because of LIES. LIES, LIES, AND DAMN LIES.
You know, it really does get tiring listening to the same old diatribe about what was, what was said, what was done by whom to whom and for whom.
I disagree with you on so many points. I don't know how you could have become so misinformed. BUT - for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to just let it go. Instead, I will accept your completely fallacious assertion that it is all based on lies.
1) I have attempted to explain here the military rationale for selecting Iraq as a primary target in the war on terror, rationale that has been ignored, but not refuted.
2) I have listened to absolutely ridiculous claims of conspiracy from some, put forth with great vigor, but with absolutely no presentation of fact, as if shouting it from the rooftops makes it true.
3) I have read as some have constantly presumed that, since they didn't like the rationale for getting into the war, the war must be illegal, when in fact, the leaders of the country made a collective decision to move forward.
4) I have watched some excuse Democratic leadership for their part in this charade because they were gullible and taken in by the Machivellian monster in the White House, who would have had to orchestrate a conspiracy of such epic proportions that it boggles the mind to even conceive somebody would believe it to be remotely possible.
5) I have watched as the ire about the supposed lies have got in the way of rational discussion and serious inspection of the status of the war, presuming that all the information provided by one side MUST be a lie, and all the information from the other side MUST be true, when, in fact, neither is the truth because it is spun to serve their political purposes.
6) I have watched one of our political parties exploit, fabricate, misdirect, and just plain lie about the war, about the troops, and about the progress, and I have watched some follow them blindly without questioning their motives, their sources, or the accuracy of their claims.
7) I watched as leaders of a political party told the world that the only way they were going to get their power back was to discredit the leadership, demean the troops, and sow foment and discontent among the American public, and nobody paid any attention.
8) I read the statement from the enemy that said that all they had to do was to hang on and the Americans would defeat themselves, as they did in Viet Nam.
9) I have watched as people have demeaned the troops, defined them as second class citizens, dismissed their courage and their skill, ignored what they had to say about what is going on, refused to acknowledge their amazing accomplishments, and used them as pawns in a political game of oneupmanship.
10) I have endured the attacks of some who paint me as a lackey for the current administration, who accuse me of lying, who attack me both personally and professionally.
I do not support the administration -- frankly, I don't give a damn about this administration. But, I DO believe in this war at this time against this enemy. I also believe our troops can win it, and that the only thing that will stop that victory is ignorance on the part of the American people, and the disingenuousness of politicians who, frankly, don't care a damn about this country, but only are concerned about grabbing power, and who have a vested interest in us losing.
Now, if you wish -- we can go back to discussing each of the points in your argument that I disagree with. Or, we can agree to disagree.
Kissie
11-25-2007, 07:45 PM
You know, it really does get tiring listening to the same old diatribe about what was, what was said, what was done by whom to whom and for whom.
I disagree with you on so many points. I don't know how you could have become so misinformed. BUT - for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to just let it go. Instead, I will accept your completely fallacious assertion that it is all based on lies.
1) I have attempted to explain here the military rationale for selecting Iraq as a primary target in the war on terror, rationale that has been ignored, but not refuted.
2) I have listened to absolutely ridiculous claims of conspiracy from some, put forth with great vigor, but with absolutely no presentation of fact, as if shouting it from the rooftops makes it true.
3) I have read as some have constantly presumed that, since they didn't like the rationale for getting into the war, the war must be illegal, when in fact, the leaders of the country made a collective decision to move forward.
4) I have watched some excuse Democratic leadership for their part in this charade because they were gullible and taken in by the Machivellian monster in the White House, who would have had to orchestrate a conspiracy of such epic proportions that it boggles the mind to even conceive somebody would believe it to be remotely possible.
5) I have watched as the ire about the supposed lies have got in the way of rational discussion and serious inspection of the status of the war, presuming that all the information provided by one side MUST be a lie, and all the information from the other side MUST be true, when, in fact, neither is the truth because it is spun to serve their political purposes.
6) I have watched one of our political parties exploit, fabricate, misdirect, and just plain lie about the war, about the troops, and about the progress, and I have watched some follow them blindly without questioning their motives, their sources, or the accuracy of their claims.
7) I watched as leaders of a political party told the world that the only way they were going to get their power back was to discredit the leadership, demean the troops, and sow foment and discontent among the American public, and nobody paid any attention.
8) I read the statement from the enemy that said that all they had to do was to hang on and the Americans would defeat themselves, as they did in Viet Nam.
9) I have watched as people have demeaned the troops, defined them as second class citizens, dismissed their courage and their skill, ignored what they had to say about what is going on, refused to acknowledge their amazing accomplishments, and used them as pawns in a political game of oneupmanship.
10) I have endured the attacks of some who paint me as a lackey for the current administration, who accuse me of lying, who attack me both personally and professionally.
I do not support the administration -- frankly, I don't give a damn about this administration. But, I DO believe in this war at this time against this enemy. I also believe our troops can win it, and that the only thing that will stop that victory is ignorance on the part of the American people, and the disingenuousness of politicians who, frankly, don't care a damn about this country, but only are concerned about grabbing power, and who have a vested interest in us losing.
Now, if you wish -- we can go back to discussing each of the points in your argument that I disagree with. Or, we can agree to disagree.
I have never attacked you...if I dont agree with you I just shut the fuck up and let you go on!!!!! You have the right to you opinion and I have the right to mine.....I support our troops more than anyone on this forum!!!!!! I dont agree with the goverment at this point...I feel that they are treating the troops like shit!!!!! And they dont give a damn what happens to them....any of them!!!!!
Damn if I could spell it would be something!!
mrdiscreet
11-25-2007, 07:46 PM
1) This was an article taken from the Wall Street Journal. It was not written by anyone on this site.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier for passing along garbage suicide stats.
Now you're at it with deceptive posts again: this was not a WSJ article, which would imply responsible editorial vetting . It was nothing more than a weblink highlighted from OnlineWSJ website, run by the Opinion side. WSJ readers are well aware of the radical right agenda of the opinion page of the WSJ (which this didn't even make the cut for), and most choose to ignore the Op page. The WSJ to date has been a quality paper. It's opinion page has been a long-standing joke. Don't seek to give credibility to your quote by mis-citing the source.
2) It was intended to stir discussion.
Is a "liberals hate the military/America" really a discussion you want to inflame?
3) The comments were posted on a website designed to support the troops, rather than posted on a "bulletin board heavily opposed to the Iraq war".
Wrong. The comments were posted on fark.com, in respnse to an "invitation" to go to the ASY website.
4) It was posted here to serve as an example of just how "99.9% of us support the troops".
See persecution complex comment below.
5) I wasn't aware that you had been made arbiter of what happens on this site.
Missed the last mod meeting? Oh yeah ...
Casting a wide net to find troop haters aren't we?
But if you want to have a persecution complex, fine; unzip and have at it so you can really enjoy yourself.
mrdiscreet
11-25-2007, 07:51 PM
I have never attacked you...if I dont agree with you I just shut the fuck up and let you go on!!!!! You have the right to you opinion and I have the right to mine.....I support our troops more than anyone on this forum!!!!!! I dont agree with the goverment at this point...I feel that they are treating the troops like shit!!!!! And they dont give a damn what happens to them....any of them!!!!!
Damn if I could spell it would be something!!
Spare, with all the military reports you have access to, why not share with Kissie the mental helath reports the milirary received and ignored leading into the Iraq War?
You know, it really does get tiring listening to the same old diatribe about what was, what was said, what was done by whom to whom and for whom.
I disagree with you on so many points. I don't know how you could have become so misinformed. BUT - for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to just let it go. Instead, I will accept your completely fallacious assertion that it is all based on lies.
1) I have attempted to explain here the military rationale for selecting Iraq as a primary target in the war on terror, rationale that has been ignored, but not refuted.
2) I have listened to absolutely ridiculous claims of conspiracy from some, put forth with great vigor, but with absolutely no presentation of fact, as if shouting it from the rooftops makes it true.
3) I have read as some have constantly presumed that, since they didn't like the rationale for getting into the war, the war must be illegal, when in fact, the leaders of the country made a collective decision to move forward.
4) I have watched some excuse Democratic leadership for their part in this charade because they were gullible and taken in by the Machivellian monster in the White House, who would have had to orchestrate a conspiracy of such epic proportions that it boggles the mind to even conceive somebody would believe it to be remotely possible.
5) I have watched as the ire about the supposed lies have got in the way of rational discussion and serious inspection of the status of the war, presuming that all the information provided by one side MUST be a lie, and all the information from the other side MUST be true, when, in fact, neither is the truth because it is spun to serve their political purposes.
6) I have watched one of our political parties exploit, fabricate, misdirect, and just plain lie about the war, about the troops, and about the progress, and I have watched some follow them blindly without questioning their motives, their sources, or the accuracy of their claims.
7) I watched as leaders of a political party told the world that the only way they were going to get their power back was to discredit the leadership, demean the troops, and sow foment and discontent among the American public, and nobody paid any attention.
8) I read the statement from the enemy that said that all they had to do was to hang on and the Americans would defeat themselves, as they did in Viet Nam.
9) I have watched as people have demeaned the troops, defined them as second class citizens, dismissed their courage and their skill, ignored what they had to say about what is going on, refused to acknowledge their amazing accomplishments, and used them as pawns in a political game of oneupmanship.
10) I have endured the attacks of some who paint me as a lackey for the current administration, who accuse me of lying, who attack me both personally and professionally.
I do not support the administration -- frankly, I don't give a damn about this administration. But, I DO believe in this war at this time against this enemy. I also believe our troops can win it, and that the only thing that will stop that victory is ignorance on the part of the American people, and the disingenuousness of politicians who, frankly, don't care a damn about this country, but only are concerned about grabbing power, and who have a vested interest in us losing.
Now, if you wish -- we can go back to discussing each of the points in your argument that I disagree with. Or, we can agree to disagree.
I had a long long comment I was about to post to this. But It would have been out of anger and I try not to allow my emotions to control my brain.
I'm affraid this is as good as it gets.
Been there done that… I signed up to be in the Army, part of the deal is war. You know that going in, it’s what the Military is for, like it or not! Now granted at 18 you don’t really understand what war really is (of course I believe if you have not been there you never really understand no matter how old you are) but not knowing is what makes 18 year olds perfect for the military. They have no fear and can be trained to do things they have no comprehension of how their actions will effect others (and themselves). It’s ugly but it’s the truth. I had lots of bad shit happen to me while in the Army, and I don’t mean to sound (or be) such a hard ass but I dealt with it, I signed up for it and I did what I had to do, and my friends all did the same thing. Here is a quote from G.K. Chesterton that I believe is very true and what keeps soldiers sane in battle and from deserting (at least it was true for me)… “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
With all that said, do I hate war? Hell yes!!! Probably more then most. I have baggage locked in a can, locked in a box, locked in a trunk, buried way back in the recesses of my mind that I don’t wish on another human being ever. War sucks, but until humans no longer care about power and influence and money (and that’s the sane ones) we will have it and the young men of the world will have to fight it. Again, ugly but true…
Agreed :55
I have never attacked you...if I dont agree with you I just shut the fuck up and let you go on!!!!! You have the right to you opinion and I have the right to mine.....I support our troops more than anyone on this forum!!!!!! I dont agree with the goverment at this point...I feel that they are treating the troops like shit!!!!! And they dont give a damn what happens to them....any of them!!!!!
Damn if I could spell it would be something!!
Your spellings fine. I understood every word.:55
Cotties
11-25-2007, 08:20 PM
I read this thread everyday and yet you don't see me posting on it. It seems to be going in circles with the occasional overly emotional post but at the same time some very interesting posts.
It's fine to debate or voice ones opinion but remember this is meant to be a fun forum. Once you feel like this thread and a few others similar are occupying your thoughts and mood at this site far more than what some might define as healthy, just let it go, move on and stay calm.
Please keep your posts calm, considerate and non judgemental of other posters[that said while biting my bottom lip]. There may come a time this thread needs to be pulled to encourage site harmony and there will be no complaining or debating why it was pulled.
Please debate until you are blue in the face but remember where you are. Enjoyment is the prime goal. Don't forget that please.
mrdiscreet
11-25-2007, 08:56 PM
On the enjoyable side, I think its absolutely fascinating to consider how closely Spare's free-verse poetry above keys to Allen Ginsburg's "Howl"
I just read alternating lines between the two pieces, got goosebumps!
We truly live in ironic times.
Kissie
11-26-2007, 06:51 AM
I have never attacked you...if I dont agree with you I just shut the fuck up and let you go on!!!!! You have the right to you opinion and I have the right to mine.....I support our troops more than anyone on this forum!!!!!! I dont agree with the goverment at this point...I feel that they are treating the troops like shit!!!!! And they dont give a damn what happens to them....any of them!!!!!
Damn if I could spell it would be something!!
Spare....this was not ment as an ATTACK.....and if you took it that way I am sorry....we have been friends for a long while....I am just really frustrated....:kk :kk
Spare....this was not ment as an ATTACK.....and if you took it that way I am sorry....we have been friends for a long while....I am just really frustrated....:kk :kk
A lot of testosterone flinging. So much that the point get's lost. Like Cottie said lets all take a deep breath, back away from the table for a minute. We need not allow differences of opinions create bad feelings in a site that's setup to be fun. Maybe the best way would be to just state our opinions without rebuttal and or personal narratives toward individuals and let the chips fall where they may. I share your frustration Kissie.
Kissie
11-26-2007, 07:26 AM
A lot of testosterone flinging. So much that the point get's lost. Like Cottie said lets all take a deep breath, back away from the table for a minute. We need not allow differences of opinions create bad feelings in a site that's setup to be fun. Maybe the best way would be to just state our opinions without rebuttal and or personal narratives toward individuals and let the chips fall where they may. I share your frustration Kissie.
Well I just felt that I was a big enough woman to come back and tell Spare that I was sorry....I was kinda harsh to him...and he really doesnt deserve that from me!!!!!
Well I just felt that I was a big enough woman to come back and tell Spare that I was sorry....I was kinda harsh to him...and he really doesnt deserve that from me!!!!!
I understand
Spare, you use a lot of words and say nothing. The LIES spare, THE LIES. Iraq was in no way involved in September 11, 2001, the invasion of Iraq was an invasion of choice, not of purpose.
A small, but important reminder, the United States has not Declared War since Monday December 8, 1941. More over, the non-state of war you go on about is against a tactic, not a country. War on tactics very seldom successful.
Back to THE LIES.
YOU SUPPORT LIES. The whole and entire failed military mission in Iraq is based on LIES.
YOU SUPPORT LIES.
Shiane
11-26-2007, 03:14 PM
I completely understand how emotional all of this is. We all have some sort of tie to this war, either a family member or a friend of a friend. The question isn't whether you support the war, some do, some don't. THAT is your choice, afterall that is what being an American is all about, The Freedom to chose. I won't be changing your opinion and you won't be changing mine. The main thing we should all agree upon is that we have many young men and women fighting in a war and risking their lives each and everyday. Regardless of whether you belive in this war or not, they DESERVE your support. They DESERVE your respect. That is the bottom line.
Shiane
11-26-2007, 03:19 PM
It is blatantly obvious that "several" of you have different opinions and that is perfectly fine. You are free to voice those opinions here. As Cotties so elegantly said:
"Please keep your posts calm, considerate and non judgemental of other posters[that said while biting my bottom lip]. There may come a time this thread needs to be pulled to encourage site harmony and there will be no complaining or debating why it was pulled."
I saw one comment in which one member called another a liar. Sorry guys but this nonsense needs to stop, NOW! If you can't discuss this like adults, then you need to stay away from the political threads. I know topics like this can make tempers flare, but there are rules here. There are those of you who have not been following these rules. You have been previously warned about this kind of behavior and you know who you are. Calling people liars and thier ideas obtuse just because their ideas differ from yours doesn't belong on this site.
It is blatantly obvious that "several" of you have different opinions and that is perfectly fine. You are free to voice those opinions here. As Cotties so elegantly said:
"Please keep your posts calm, considerate and non judgemental of other posters[that said while biting my bottom lip]. There may come a time this thread needs to be pulled to encourage site harmony and there will be no complaining or debating why it was pulled."
I saw one comment in which one member called another a liar. Sorry guys but this nonsense needs to stop, NOW! If you can't discuss this like adults, then you need to stay away from the political threads. I know topics like this can make tempers flare, but there are rules here. There are those of you who have not been following these rules. You have been previously warned about this kind of behavior and you know who you are. Calling people liars and thier ideas obtuse just because their ideas differ from yours doesn't belong on this site.
My post refers to lies, but does NOT call anyone a liar. Believeing lies yes, but calling a person a liar no. Spare has called me "defeatist." Which is an insult. But calling him a liar, no.
Shiane
11-26-2007, 04:57 PM
My post refers to lies, but does NOT call anyone a liar. Believeing lies yes, but calling a person a liar no. Spare has called me "defeatist." Which is an insult. But calling him a liar, no.
I don't recall mentioning any names Traveler!
My post was not an invite for a discussion or rebuttal on this thread traveler, if you have a problem with another member you need to notify a moderator via a PM.
peaches
11-27-2007, 03:07 AM
I presume it is in reference to the 15 months PER tour requirement.
Of course, since Traveler is a "am vet", he is aware that the length of tour has little or no effect on the soldier in the field, since his focus is a single day at a time, just doing today's job and worrying about tomorrow's tomorrow, where staying alive UNTIL tomorrow is priority no. 1.
The impact is really felt at home - where the husband, wife, or children are left to count down the days, with little to break up the constant pressure and upheaval. I've always said it's a lot harder to sit and wait, than it is to go and fight.
I happen to agree with you Spare Change. I have a friend, where her Daughter and her Son-in-law (both) are over there and in two different countries. Now that is tuff. I pray for both of them and my friend nightly.....and for there safe reture is a priority 1, that is the way it should be.....
mrdiscreet
11-27-2007, 04:12 AM
4) It was posted here to serve as an example of just how "99.9% of us support the troops".
"Everything in this world has edges -- outer fringes, whether it be Christians or tree huggers or whatever.
To select one of the fringes and try to portray it as the norm is disingenuous at best." (Spare Change)
spare_change
11-27-2007, 04:17 AM
“There are some people who believe faith doesn’t belong in politics. But it does, and it is there inextricably. The antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the antiabortion movement, all were political movements animated in large part by religious feeling. It’s not that it doesn’t matter. You bring your whole self into the polling booth, including your faith and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad, just as presidents bring their whole selves into the Oval Office. I can’t imagine how a president could do his job without faith. But faith is also personal. You can be touched by a candidate’s faith, or interested in his apparent lack of it. It’s never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man whose made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it. We have the emphasis wrong. It’s out of kilter. And the result is a Mitt Romney being harassed on radio shows about the particulars of his faith, and Hillary Clinton—a new-class yuppie attorney and board member—announcing how important her Methodist faith is and how much she loves wearing her diamond cross. For all I know, for all you know, it is true. But there is about it an air of patronizing the rubes...” —Peggy Noonan
I happen to agree with you Spare Change. I have a friend, where her Daughter and her Son-in-law (both) are over there and in two different countries. Now that is tuff. I pray for both of them and my friend nightly.....and for there safe reture is a priority 1, that is the way it should be.....
Will someone please tell me what an "AM VET" is, I have never heard of one, nor have I ever met one.
There were people of faith ( White Southern Baptist ) who protested the Civil Rights Movement as well.
John Brown the abolitionist and man of faith ( against slavery ) was hung for treason.
Faith in two different interpretations of the bible once divided this country. It was called the Civil War. Faith can be a doubled edge sword that cuts both ways. Faith and politics can be good, but it can also be very bad.
I don't have a problem with a man of faith who uses his sense of right and wrong to govern his passions. But when he believes that his faith is the be all end all that will fix every problem, thats when he becomes a tyrant.
Politicians can't find common ground because of there faith in the party and the party line. What they should have faith in is the will of the people by majority.
Just my opinion.
Iwantutowantme
12-01-2007, 12:47 AM
Agreed, amen and agreed.
Spare, you want to wave the flag, which is all fine well, right, and good. But you should be just as willing to see what is going on in the name of that flag, and not just continue to wave and demand an un-qualified and un-questioned obedience to the National Leadership of the United States.
Thousands of innocent lives have been taken in the name of war of choice, Iraq was never a threat. Lies were told in the name of that war, lies that killed U.S soldiers and Iraq Civilians. You write about the success, but not about the lies that led to an un-necessary and costly invasion against a country that was of no real military value and most certainly no real military threat to anyone, at anytime.
Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld lied to you, to the American People and to the World, and all you do is continue to post about the great news that is under reported. Why aren't you as willing to post about how you were so willing to believe those lies, knowing you were being lied to and still are willing to support a WAR based on LIES.
A War based on LIES spare, complete and total lies. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.). No Nuclear Weapons Program. No Un-Manned Aerial Vehicles (U.A.V.). None. Each of these lies were used as the excuse(s) for a war that has killed over Three Thousand (3,000) U.S. Military Personnel as well as the lives of tens of thousands innocent Iraqi Civilians; men women and children. Dead because George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condie Rice and Colin Powell LIED. How can there be success in such a war? Why was there such a war?
What about the cost of this war, current reports by the White House Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.) and Congressional Budge Office (C.B.O.) say the cost of war in Iraq will top out at over Two Trillion Dollars ($2,000,000,000,000,000,000.00), where exactly is that money supposed to come from? Does success in Iraq mean bankrupting the United States of America as part of that success?
Where does the net effect of the cost of this war on the U.S. Economy, as well as the U.S. Population as whole begin to count? Or shouldn't such things matter in the long run?
The war in Iraq has broken our military as well, or maybe that is not important either. Troops facing their fourth or fifth tour of duty (15 Month Tour of Duty), are not rushing to re-up. Stress and strain on families has resulted in increased divorce rates, as well desertions and suicide. Unit Commanders have seen what happens to commanding officers who do not tow the line on a "Successful" War in Iraq. Just ask Generals Shinseki and Zinni. To question the war is to insure an end to your military career.
The Government of Iraq has made little if any sucess in meeting "Bench Marks." set by the White House, only three (03) of eighteen (18) have been met (This is according the White House Press Office). No plans for the sharing of Oil Revenue, no real power sharing either. The Kurds in the North are attacking into Turkey, which is no making noise about attacking the Kurds in return.
Much is being Iran supplying insurgents in Iraq, but is Saudi Arabia supplying insurgents as well, but we get their oil and Saudi supplied "I.E.D." (Improvised Explosive Device) get less press notice at U.S. Military Briefings.
U.S. Troops who came home after losing arms and legs in Combat were assigned rooms that had walls covered with mold and were issued mouse traps. Your continued support of an Administration that would allow U.S. Military Personnel wounded in combat, who lost parts of their body to enemy fire to live in such conditions baffels me.
Troops who have been wounded in Iraq, and returned to the United States for recovery are now being asked to "Return" their enlist bonus. The reason for the request that they failed to complete a full tour of duty in Iraq, I guess being wounded in combat doen't count. Your support an Administration that allows this also baffels me.
And all because of LIES. LIES, LIES, AND DAMN LIES.
******* Its all in the PLAN. and about everything is going according to their plan. Permanent bases, bankrupting America, ushering in the New World Order......... have a nice day... American Vetern..
FRMale
12-01-2007, 05:11 PM
We do not have to enlist when we turn 18 here in Canada; it is a choice if we want to serve our country. This makes it difficult at times to find people; unfortunately, the soldiers have to return to duty repeatedly, it is not unusual for them to have at least 3 tours within 1- 4 yrs and the average age of a soldier is 22-23 years old.
Last week our Supreme Court turned down two USA soldiers who wanted to be able to stay in Canada so that the US would not arrest them for deserting their duty (sorry forget the legal wording for all this), the court refused them and turned them over to the USA.
The question is becoming do we pull out now like the other countries? If we do what happens in the next ten years? What wars do we fight, what countries do we fight for? And of course the big one…is this war really about the control over oil?
I do wish all the soldiers a safe time and to get back to their families safely...and a big thank you...:wa:
“It’s A Sad World We Live In, Master Jack”
It is a sad world we live in... But to make it a little better I woll pray for everyone there in Iraq, as well as all those that are effected here in M&F
Cotties
12-01-2007, 06:05 PM
I'm guessing Am erican Vet eranWill someone please tell me what an "AM VET" is, I have never heard of one, nor have I ever met one...they also have themselves a website
******* Its all in the PLAN. and about everything is going according to their plan. Permanent bases, bankrupting America, ushering in the New World Order......... have a nice day... American Vetern..
And that is what scares me. Men who never served in Combat, sending men and women off to die in a military action that was from the very start based on false, misleading, mis-represented and mis-construde information.
spare_change
12-02-2007, 06:36 PM
And that is what scares me. Men who never served in Combat, sending men and women off to die in a military action that was from the very start based on false, misleading, mis-represented and mis-construde information.
So ... that means that you believe in order for men to send others into combat, they must be veterans? A new requirement for the Presidency?
mrdiscreet
12-02-2007, 09:19 PM
Maybe just a requiremtn that they fund healthcare for the troops they send to war.
Just saw in today's Washington Post a soldier summarily discharged from the military and bootd from Ward 54 (mental health) at Walter Reed; dumped at the bus station. A "pre-existing condition" no doubt.
She later hung herself.
mrdiscreet
12-03-2007, 10:09 AM
My mistake: it was airfare, not Greyhound.
The psych patients formed a close bond and shared an overriding fear: that the Army would drum them out with no benefits.
One soldier Whiteside befriended was a 20-year-old private named Sammantha Owen-Ewing. Intelligent and funny, Owen-Ewing was training to be a nurse when she suffered mental problems and was admitted to Ward 54. She was still receiving psychiatric care at Walter Reed when the Army abruptly discharged her. According to her husband, she was dropped off at a nearby hotel with a plane ticket. [Note: from a lock-down ward to released on the streets, no transfer to a civilian psych ward or even to the custody of a family member.]
...
Whiteside offered encouragement over the phone to her friend Sammantha Owen-Ewing, the soldier she befriended on Ward 54 who had been abruptly dismissed from the Army. Sammantha was waiting to see if she could receive her care from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
...
Whiteside walked outside into the cold. Her phone buzzed with a text message from the husband of her friend Sammantha, asking Whiteside to call right away.
Sammantha had hung herself the night before.
On Friday, Whiteside and her father flew to Utah for the funeral. Yesterday, after a service at a small Mormon church, Sammantha Owen-Ewing was buried.
So the Pentagon PR on caring about troop suicides is pure bullshit after all.
Yellow ribbons ... twisting in the wind ...
and, oh yeah, this suicide will not be included in Pentagon stats, because the Pentagon doesn't track troops after discharge, even though PTSD is known to largely hbit hardest in the years immediately following discharge.
Scumbags. But as long as we get to feel good about our yellow ribbons ... and ignore that ex-military are twice as likely to become the homeless that we step aside on our city streets ... another stat the Pentagon has no interest in.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.