Army suicides highest in 26 years!!

[JJR]

Army suicides highest in 26 years
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its scheduled release Thursday, found there were 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the previous year and the highest number since the 102 suicides in 1991 at the time of the Persian Gulf War.

The suicide rate for the Army has fluctuated over the past 26 years, from last year's high of 17.3 per 100,000 to a low of 9.1 per 100,000 in 2001.

Last year, "Iraq was the most common deployment location for both (suicides) and attempts," the report said

. . .


They're going the way of the Dodo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_suicides)

[MelBrooksfan]

What would happen to the numbers if we expanded them to include Vietnam? Iraq might be the most dangerous military action for US troops since then (I'll probably be corrected about this, so I apologize in advance) and I can see why they'd go up.

[Pardalis]

What war was happening in 1981?

[BeAChooser]

What war was happening in 1981?

http://www.vailtrail.com/article/20070815/OPINION/70815006 "'80s peace deadlier than today’s war ... snip ... Twenty years ago, in peacetime, the annual U.S. military death toll doubled our losses in today’s war. ":eye-poppi

[Miss Anthrope]

On it's face, it's sad.

If I can find I will post a related article. Spousal homicide among men in the military is apparently on the rise as well. Now, if this means five more than a few years ago I cannot say until I locate it. I can recall two in the last year at Fort Lewis, WA...both back from a tour in Iraq. It touched on higher suicide rates as well.

Disturbing.

[Cain]

What war was happening in 1981?

Ronnie Raygun had just come into power and everyone knew he was going to start pointing the Deathstar at South and Central-American countries. Nicaragua is a three days drive from Texas.

[Pardalis]

Ronnie Raygun had just come into power and everyone knew he was going to start pointing the Deathstar at South and Central-American countries. Nicaragua is a three days drive from Texas.

Was that a war?

[Mycroft]

Was that a war?

No, but it seemed like one to some people.

[JJR]

On it's face, it's sad.

If I can find I will post a related article. Spousal homicide among men in the military is apparently on the rise as well. Now, if this means five more than a few years ago I cannot say until I locate it. I can recall two in the last year at Fort Lewis, WA...both back from a tour in Iraq. It touched on higher suicide rates as well.

Disturbing.

Spousal homicide is really disgusting.

[ponderingturtle]

On it's face, it's sad.

If I can find I will post a related article. Spousal homicide among men in the military is apparently on the rise as well. Now, if this means five more than a few years ago I cannot say until I locate it. I can recall two in the last year at Fort Lewis, WA...both back from a tour in Iraq. It touched on higher suicide rates as well.

Disturbing.

I find this unsuprising after hearing NPR reports about Fort Carson as it is common practice to punish those who show symptoms of PTSD and other mental health issues that are detrimental to unit effectiveness.

That seems to be even how the staff psychologists concidered things in the follow up report Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7738485)

[Rob Lister]

I find this unsuprising after hearing NPR reports about Fort Carson as it is common practice to punish those who show symptoms of PTSD and other mental health issues that are detrimental to unit effectiveness.

That seems to be even how the staff psychologists concidered things in the follow up report Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7738485)

Yes, particularly the case of poor Mr. Johnson. Imagine getting booted out of the military for snorting coke. How terribly unfair.

erm...my point being that "All Things Considered" fails to consider even the obvious things. Seek thee a better source.

[Warge]

So WHY are soldiers committing suicide? Is it because of their very particular type of occupation? If that's the case I think they are wusses - they knew what they were getting into when signing.

That said, the occupation of Iraq is MUCH safer tan any military action by the US. Say 5-6000 dead (including inofficial ones) out of the thousands of troops, then it's pretty much a walk in the park. Came to think of it, it's probably more dangerous taking a walk through a park in any large city at night than being in Iraq...

[Crossbow]

So WHY are soldiers committing suicide? Is it because of their very particular type of occupation? If that's the case I think they are wusses - they knew what they were getting into when signing.

That said, the occupation of Iraq is MUCH safer tan any military action by the US. Say 5-6000 dead (including inofficial ones) out of the thousands of troops, then it's pretty much a walk in the park. Came to think of it, it's probably more dangerous taking a walk through a park in any large city at night than being in Iraq...

Are you serious?

Or are you just trying to be a troll?

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, particularly the case of poor Mr. Johnson. Imagine getting booted out of the military for snorting coke. How terribly unfair.

erm...my point being that "All Things Considered" fails to consider even the obvious things. Seek thee a better source.

See, the individuals need to be having serious mental health issues, and it can not affect their behavior simultaniously amd they need to be ready to wait several months for the to fit into the army's system.

[ponderingturtle]

I think we should thank Rob Lister and Warge for demonstrating exactly the problems that those with mental illnesses in the army face.

[Rob Lister]

I think we should thank Rob Lister and Warge for demonstrating exactly the problems that those with mental illnesses in the army face.

Or we could just thank you for looking at the issue with a critical, apolitical, eye.

Or should we?

[ponderingturtle]

Or we could just thank you for looking at the issue with a critical, apolitical, eye.

Or should we?

Well you clearly don't bother concidering reading links

the first part of it

Consider: One year ago, an Army nurse, Brenda Johnson, was helping to run a medical clinic for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. She was in the middle of her second tour there, and her first lieutenant had just given her a glowing evaluation: "Sgt. Johnson has shown time and time again," the document declares, "that she is an outstanding leader, medic and soldier."

But then, Johnson says, she started losing control. "I couldn't sleep," she told NPR. "I got real shaky. Every time I ate I got sick, just vomited everything I ate, my stomach was always in knots. Nightmares — I had a real hard time going to sleep, 'cause if I'd fall asleep, I'd wake up scared."

The Army medivacked Johnson out of Iraq and sent her to Fort Knox, where, according to Army documents, the medical staff diagnosed her with PTSD and depression. Johnson says Fort Knox never provided intensive therapy or other treatments designed to help cure her depression and PTSD. She went briefly to a private therapist, but had to quit because she couldn't afford it. A few months later, her officers discharged her from the Army, despite her protests. A document in her file states that she was "not likely" to become "a quality soldier."

Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7738485)

Clearly this Mr Johnson(oddly refered to as she in the text) was treated properly. Months of hazing between onset of symptoms and any treatment is standard psychological procedures as well, just ask any psychologist.

[Rob Lister]

Well you clearly don't bother concidering reading links

the first part of it


Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7738485)

Clearly this Mr Johnson(oddly refered to as she in the text) was treated properly. Months of hazing between onset of symptoms and any treatment is standard psychological procedures as well, just ask any psychologist.

from your LINK
Many of the people who've written are parents — including Kathy Johnson (no relation) in Oregon. Johnson says that when her son

Not too much of a leap to presume her coke-snorting son has the same name.

[Rob Lister]

They're going the way of the Dodo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_suicides)

or not!

The suicide rate for the Army has fluctuated over the past 26 years, from last year's high of 17.3 per 100,000 to a low of 9.1 per 100,000 in 2001.

I can't nail exact figures for this year down but CDC provides (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/harmsway.cfm) the following general rates for the U.S.

Young adults ages 20 to 24 — 12.5 per 100,000

(granted, the mean age of an Army soldier is a bit higher but this is close.)

It also states

More than six times as many males as females ages 20 to 24 died by suicide.

in 2004, the number of men and women serving in the army within that age group, according to defenselink (http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2004/appendixb/b_22.html) was 133,480 males and 24,077 females.

What is the expected rate? Something more than 17.3? Does being in the army reduce the likelihood of suicide?

ETA: NationMaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_you_mal-health-suicide-rate-young-males) calculates 21.9% for males 15 to 24. Source is WHO I think.

[JJR]

I guess they just wanna die. Such a pity.

[ponderingturtle]

from your LINK


Not too much of a leap to presume her coke-snorting son has the same name.

So the army is treating this the best way, by hazing and putting as many difficulties in the way of treatment for these individuals in the hopes that they commit some infraction to be tossed out then.

[JJR]

So the army is treating this the best way, by hazing and putting as many difficulties in the way of treatment for these individuals in the hopes that they commit some infraction to be tossed out then.

Well, you do have to be loyal if you are in the military. You have to do your job.

When you get out and are older, you can believe whatever you want to . . . just remember that wherever you go politically, religioiusly, or philodophically . . . you are the sort of citizen that believes in doing his duty.

It's really all you need. The real world of the quick and the dead demands results and little else. Victory is the priority, success is all that's on the menu.

EDIT: Pro-troups but anti-war . . . with this attitude you could even be a citizen and vote in Robert A. Heinlein's, "Star Ship Troopers" world, where only those that have served get to vote. Death to the, "Babykiller" thing . . . sometimes hippies give liberals a bad name.

This war is dumb. Soldiers have to follow orders or they are hung as traitors though.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, you do have to be loyal if you are in the military. You have to do your job.

When you get out and are older, you can believe whatever you want to . . . just remember that wherever you go politically, religioiusly, or philodophically . . . you are the sort of citizen that believes in doing his duty.

It's really all you need. The real world of the quick and the dead demands results and little else. Victory is the priority, success is all that's on the menu.

So you have to do your job regardless of any and all mental distress then, and if you can't you are so weak you deserve to get sent out of the military with something other than a honorable discharge as well.

If the military is so interested in punishing those with psychological stresses, why don't they just admit it and not claim that they are doing everything that they can to help those suffering form such disorders?

[Rob Lister]

So the army is treating this the best way, by hazing and putting as many difficulties in the way of treatment for these individuals in the hopes that they commit some infraction to be tossed out then.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[JJR]

So you have to do your job regardless of any and all mental distress then, and if you can't you are so weak you deserve to get sent out of the military with something other than a honorable discharge as well.

If the military is so interested in punishing those with psychological stresses, why don't they just admit it and not claim that they are doing everything that they can to help those suffering form such disorders?

In boot camp, they have the blue card. If you become too stressed out, you can use the card and get a time-out with the sergeant talking calmly with you.

Anyway, if you find stressful situations to be too much for you, you should just avoid them. Don't sign up.

You have to be prepared to kill the enemy when ordered to do so. There is no racism, no imperialism . . . nothing but the code of Unit-Core-God-Country . . . the unit comes first. The crew is your family. If you can't live that way, by all means avoid the military.

You will be hung for treason if you disobey orders.

[ponderingturtle]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

What facts not in evidence?

That they make people in extreme distress wait months for treatment.

Nope that happens

That they expect people in such distress to behave as if they where not in any distress.

Nope that is what you are in favor of.

That they claim that they are doing everything they can for such people

Nope that is easy

That when those in extreme mental distress start showing symptoms they are punished by their fellow soldiers and then if their behavior is upset enough by this distress they get remove from the military often with discharges that are not honorable?

Nope that happens.

So as they claim that they are doing everything that can be done, then the best course of treatment for depression and PTSD is clearly abuse. They are following long term 14 century psychological theory.

[ponderingturtle]

In boot camp, they have the blue card. If you become too stressed out, you can use the card and get a time-out with the sergeant talking calmly with you.

Anyway, if you find stressful situations to be too much for you, you should just avoid them. Don't sign up.

You have to be prepared to kill the enemy when ordered to do so. There is no racism, no imperialism . . . nothing but the code of Unit-Core-God-Country . . . the unit comes first. The crew is your family. If you can't live that way, by all means avoid the military.

You will be hung for treason if you disobey orders.

ANd if the situations you go through cause suicidal depression you are a wimp and should never have been in the military in the first place and killing your self would really be for the best, right?

[peptoabysmal]

Col. Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general, told a Pentagon press conference that the primary reason for suicide is "failed intimate relationships, failed marriages."

She said that although the military is worried about the stress caused by repeat deployments and tours of duty that have been stretched to 15 months, it has not found a direct relationship between suicides and combat or deployments.

"However, we do know that frequent deployments put a real strain on relationships, especially on marriages. So we believe that part of the increase is related to the increased stress in relationships," she said.

"Very often a young soldier gets a 'Dear John' or 'Dear Jane' e-mail and then takes his weapon and shoots himself," she said
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_suicides


It doesn't appear to be the stress of combat causing the rise in incidences.

[Warge]

Are you serious?

Or are you just trying to be a troll?

I'm stretching it of course, but considering the huge amount of troops in Iraq, don't you think too the losses are at an all-time low?

[Warge]

I think we should thank Rob Lister and Warge for demonstrating exactly the problems that those with mental illnesses in the army face.

And that means exactly what?

[JJR]

ANd if the situations you go through cause suicidal depression you are a wimp and should never have been in the military in the first place and killing your self would really be for the best, right?

Sounds like raw Nature . . . attempting to enforce Natural Selection in the most literal way. That's usually not the goal, although I can see being that militant in a grim situation. Not so much wanting people to die, but being able to laugh when it happenes and move on.

I simply think that soldiers have to honestly want to kill the enemy, that's all. You have to be scary . . . after all, if the enemy became scared and dropped his weapon and wet himself the war would be over.

Mercenaries are running away from you. Not that scary. They are thinking about going home and playing with their new toys they are going to buy with their ill-gotten gains. On the other hand, someone defending his homeland fights as hard as 10 men . . . and will settle for nothing less than victory.

Seriously, if someone needs to "time out" (back in boot) for a while and absorb the new information, that's always okay. I can see how getting brain fried could make you want to off yourself. The point is that following the correct procedure will get the best results, and the soldier must learn this.

I'm not saying, "Resistance is futile, inferior organism" . . . I'm saying that it's my way or the highway during a critical situation. This is the best way to succede.

The mercinary thing is gone. If that is what is causing this war to go on for so long unresolved then let's clear up those clouds of doubt! Frankly, mercs should be met with the same disgust as with a recruit who is openly homosexual. Mercinaries should be considered to be demoralizing and dangerous to the moral and mental health of the unit.

DISCLAIMER: No, I don't hate Gays and think Clinton's, "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is great. Just keep it to yourself. And, yes I know we all fight for land which means we want our own land so that we can marry a hottie and have kids. There is something intrinsic with the nice, moral white picket fence motivation that is missing with the beer and ladies of the evening homecomming hedonism fantacy . .. and I really think intrinsic motivation is the superior stimulus.

Everyone's objection to the military is against Authoritarian Motivation, which the Nazis had which makes things get invented faster, but not with as much efficiency and attention to details. Obviously people need to have dreams, but if we don't want our soldiers to have moral dreams why do we make them write their parents during boot camp?

If corruption exists, it must be stamped out. I don't find corrupt people to be as obedient and efficient. Bottom line.

[Crossbow]

I'm stretching it of course, but considering the huge amount of troops in Iraq, don't you think too the losses are at an all-time low?

No, I most certainly do not think that losses are at an all time low!

In fact if you care to check the facts, then you would soon see that for the people who have the job of walking about and carrying a weapon in order to force the will of the USA on the people of Iraq the losses are quite high indeed.

While the total number of deaths is remarkably low, however that is due to medical technology being so very good. A better way to look at is to compare the number of combat woundings and/or psychological trauma to the number of combat troops, and this ratio is quite high indeed.

[JJR]

No, I most certainly do not think that losses are at an all time low!

In fact if you care to check the facts, then you would soon see that for the people who have the job of walking about and carrying a weapon in order to force the will of the USA on the people of Iraq the losses are quite high indeed.

While the total number of deaths is remarkably low, however that is due to medical technology being so very good. A better way to look at is to compare the number of combat woundings and/or psychological trauma to the number of combat troops, and this ratio is quite high indeed.

Absolutely. This war is doing nothing but agitate people and bring harm to the extended military family. I'd say that there is more than enough evidence to prove that the soldiers don't know what the hell they are even fighting for.

If we really believed in our cause, we would have suicide bombed THEM by now . .. at least once. Then, to affirm the value of a brave soldier we would have leveled the town.

Instead we sit back and use cruise missiles to level the town anyway and the same soldier gets blown up in a hellicopter from a talliban rocket while surveying the damage after the missile attack. The same thing happenes . . . the same people die . . . but our weakness and obvious lack of faith in our side only emboldenes the enemy and helps to increase their funding, resources, and capabilities.

We send the CIA to help a group of people conquer a dictator themselves, then pull out at the last minute. Bush says he wants to go nuclear . . . then things change and the idea is dropped.

Something is very wrong and needs to change. The infection is great . . . those soldiers DON'T BELIEVE IN THE COUNTRY THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR!!!

I'd say even organizing a parade is impossible with that attitude - much less participating in a war anywhere near the theatre of operations. Forget winning - even being there on time isn't likely.

[Darth Rotor]

[QUOTE]Instead we sit back and use cruise missiles to level the town anyway and the same soldier gets blown up in a hellicopter from a talliban rocket while surveying the damage after the missile attack.
No

Cruise missiles being fired into Iraq ended a bit before Saddam was captured, and IIRC, before W's "Mission Accomplished" speech. A cruise missile is a particular kind of weapon, launched from a bomber, a sub, or surface ship.

A guided missile, on the other hand, like a Maverick or a Hellfire, is quite another matter. Those sorts of weapons are still in use. There are other guided munitions that combine guidance with simple gravity bombs -- i.e., no rocket motor -- that you could call a Guided Weapon, but it's not a missile, technically, but a bomb.
We send the CIA to help a group of people conquer a dictator themselves, then pull out at the last minute. Bush says he wants to go nuclear . . . then things change and the idea is dropped.
Sorry, when did Bush say he wanted to use nuclear weapons? If I missed it, please help me out here. Thanks.
Something is very wrong and needs to change. The infection is great . . . those soldiers DON'T BELIEVE IN THE COUNTRY THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR!
Do you mean the American soldiers, the various Iraqi soldiers, or the Kurds?
I'd say even organizing a parade is impossible with that attitude - much less participating in a war anywhere near the theatre of operations. Forget winning - even being there on time isn't likely.
Was this a digression?

DR

[JJR]

[QUOTE=JJR;2886573]
No

Cruise missiles being fired into Iraq ended a bit before Saddam was captured, and IIRC, before W's "Mission Accomplished" speech. A cruise missile is a particular kind of weapon, launched from a bomber, a sub, or surface ship.

A guided missile, on the other hand, like a Maverick or a Hellfire, is quite another matter. Those sorts of weapons are still in use. There are other guided munitions that combine guidance with simple gravity bombs -- i.e., no rocket motor -- that you could call a Guided Weapon, but it's not a missile, technically, but a bomb.

So . . . your Howard-Hues-like attention to detail aside, at the end of the day we still "carpet bomb" one town and then everything else I said happenes including the pwecious wittwe soldier getting blown up in a 'copter crash after the day's mindless bloodlust?

And, most importantly, the enemy gets emboldened from our weak visciousness and gets a bunch of new recruits?

Sorry, when did Bush say he wanted to use nuclear weapons? If I missed it, please help me out here. Thanks.

He said he wanted to use small nukes to "flush out" the terrorists hiding in those big tunnels they have over there. The same ones they theorized Osamma Bin Laden was hiding in.

Not all nukes are of the huge warhead destroy-and-irradiate-everything variety. They have little ones (nuclear "bullets") that destory just one square mile or something and they can be fired from off of a half-track.

Do you mean the American soldiers, the various Iraqi soldiers, or the Kurds?

Sadly, I meant America's soldiers. I said they are fighting for money, and I meant it. They have no faith in their cause and do not believe in America. If they were asked by the President of the United States to kill an obvious Arab terrorist with something strapped to his chest running at him they would be thinking about their own life and cash and other self-pleasuring things instead of the welfare of their Commander-in-Chief.

The President - the man who is in charge of every brave man who protects the soldier's family . . . his goddam mother, man . . . while he is away fighting for freedom. The family sleeps under the blanket of freedom provided by hardworking civil servants.

I know the President is supposed to believe that all men are created equal, but sheesh . . . I think a hardworking guy deserves some respect. I have reasons to be angry with Bush but I said it was cool that he wanted to go nuclear, and I mean it!!

Was this a digression?

DR

No, I really meant that soldiers without faith in their country can't organize a parade. They are a bunch of clowns, mate.

Clowns.

[JJR]

Basically, if the President points at someone and says, "Kill that man. RIGHT NOW!!" . . . and you don't do it and you are in the military . . . you have a problem with the system . . . you are low on morale . . . you don't like your job or something and it's going to cost lives.

Get out now. We don't want you.

[Darth Rotor]

So . . . your Howard-H ues-like attention to detail aside, at the end of the day we still "carpet bomb" one town
No, we don't. That is a falsehood.
and then everything else I said happenes including the pwecious wittwe soldier getting blown up in a 'copter crash after the day's mindless bloodlust?
No, not "mindless bloodlust." I don't think you appreciate how much restraint is exercised on a daily basis. In one day of mindless bloodlust, the American forces in Iraq, who number over one hundred thousand and have at their disposal some incredibly lethal machines, could slaughter three or four times their number without so much as batting an eye. I am glad they don't.

What is not obvious from reading the news reports is how ofter US forces don't shoot, which is most of the time.
And, most importantly, the enemy gets emboldened from our weak visciousness and gets a bunch of new recruits?
Yes, I think I understand what you are saying, and there is some substance to the problem of "not being a ruthless enough Imperium." I forget who first posited that paradox of current "American Empire," perhaps it was Ferguson, but more than one critic has suggested that if America wishes to be a successful Empire in the near term, ruthlessness needs to be added.
He said he wanted to use small nukes to "flush out" the terrorists hiding in those big tunnels they have over there. The same ones they theorized Osamma Bin Laden was hiding in.
You sure that wasn't Rummy asking for tactical nuke development? Can't read all the news, do you have a news story from the time?
Not all nukes are of the huge warhead destroy-and-irradiate-everything variety. They have little ones (nuclear "bullets") that destory just one square mile or something and they can be fired from off of a half-track.
UH, who? Tactical nukes have been taken out of the inventory for the most part, beginning in 1991 with President Bush, the elder, removing tactical nukes from Navy ships and from Europe.

Are you sure that nuclear munitions for cannon are still in the inventory? Do you have a good cite for that? I'd be interested. Are you familiar with the INF treaty?
Sadly, I meant America's soldiers. I said they are fighting for money, and I meant it. They have no faith in their cause and do not believe in America.
Falsehood. I cannot figure out where you met American servicemen who don't believe in America to come up with such a gross, and off base, generalization. As to "fighting for money" rubbish, not even going to dignify it. Had a chat with Cain on that one a few weeks ago, and I'm not interested in discussing with someone who hasn't his grasp of reality.
If they were asked by the President of the United States to kill an obvious Arab terrorist with something strapped to his chest running at him they would be thinking about their own life and cash and other self-pleasuring things instead of the welfare of their Commander-in-Chief.
Nice projection. Also, I don't think you've dealt with many Marines who served in Iraq or Afghanistan lately. If you want an interesting read, look up LTC Khan of the USMC and his work in central Afghanistan a few years ago. Funnily enough, once he and his battalion came home after being very effective fighters, he was relieved.
The President - the man who is in charge of every brave man who protects the soldier's family . . . his goddam mother, man . . . while he is away fighting for freedom. The family sleeps under the blanket of freedom provided by hardworking civil servants.
?? Care to explain the dymanics of that?
I know the President is supposed to believe that all men are created equal, but sheesh . . . I think a hardworking guy deserves some respect. I have reasons to be angry with Bush but I said it was cool that he wanted to go nuclear, and I mean it!
Who do you want to nuke, and why?
that soldiers without faith in their country can't organize a parade. They are a bunch of clowns, mate.
That would exclude the bulk of US servicemen, so who are you talking about, again?Clowns.
From which circus?

DR

[Garrette]

So . . . your Howard-Hues-like attention to detail aside, at the end of the day we still "carpet bomb" one town and then everything else I said happenes including the pwecious wittwe soldier getting blown up in a 'copter crash after the day's mindless bloodlust????


And, most importantly, the enemy gets emboldened from our weak visciousness and gets a bunch of new recruits?Not appearing weak is important, but is not the only factor. It must be balanced with not appearing to be genocidal and with appearing to be the better bet for the guy on the street. Stability supported by the populace lasts longer than stability brought on by the ruthlessness of an outsider.


Not all nukes are of the huge warhead destroy-and-irradiate-everything variety. They have little ones (nuclear "bullets") that destory just one square mile or something and they can be fired from off of a half-track.Not in the US military.


Sadly, I meant America's soldiers. I said they are fighting for money, and I meant it. This is, of course, all-pervasive, new, and unique?


They have no faith in their cause and do not believe in America.None of them?


If they were asked by the President of the United States to kill an obvious Arab terrorist with something strapped to his chest running at him they would be thinking about their own life and cash and other self-pleasuring things instead of the welfare of their Commander-in-Chief.They might be wondering why the CinC is standing on the battleground giving tactical orders.


The President - the man who is in charge of every brave man who protects the soldier's family . . . his goddam mother, man . . . while he is away fighting for freedom. The oath is not to the president. It is to the constitution.


The family sleeps under the blanket of freedom provided by hardworking civil servants.I don't think I have heard "civil servants" used to refer to the military before, but I have nothing against it. Being one myself, though, I have no problem ignoring the contributions of those other civil servants so often decried: diplomats and statesmen. Not to mention business folk who create the economic ties that do more than nearly anything to foster good relations.


I know the President is supposed to believe that all men are created equal, but sheesh . . . I think a hardworking guy deserves some respect.???


I have reasons to be angry with Bush but I said it was cool that he wanted to go nuclear, and I mean it!!I disagree with your position.



No, I really meant that soldiers without faith in their country can't organize a parade.Why would they want to organize a parade if they have no faith in the country? Why would they want to even if they do? Rather self-serving, no?


ETA: Darth beat me to it, and said it better, as usual.

[JJR]

Basically, if the President points at someone and says, "Kill that man. RIGHT NOW!!" . . . and you don't do it and you are in the military . . . you have a problem with the system . . . you are low on morale . . . you don't like your job or something and it's going to cost lives.

Get out now. We don't want you.

All of your questions in your last post, Darth Rotor, are answered in this quote. Oh, and they would hang you if you didn't do your job.

Gonna' hang ya . . . :D

[Garrette]

All of your questions in your last post, Darth Rotor, are answered in this quote.Not even close.

Aside from the morale issues, you haven't even touched the tactical nuke issue on which you are simply wrong.


Oh, and they would hang you if you didn't do your job.No. Only a few things warrant execution in the military. Nonfeasance is not one of them.

Nor are all orders expected to be followed simply because they are given.

Soldiers are free to disobey illegal orders.

Commanders are free to disobey operations orders if, in the midst of the fight, they rightly determine that their superior commander's intent is better served via another method.

Are you just yanking chains for the heck of it or do you honestly have no clue?

[Darth Rotor]

All of your questions in your last post, Darth Rotor, are answered in this quote. Oh, and they would hang you if you didn't do your job.

Gonna' hang ya . . . :D
No, it doesn't answer any of my questions.

A couple of things. Such orders as you suggest, if lawful, tend to end up in said person dying if the soldier, pilot, gunner, whomever, can get a visual confirmation and a round chambered in time.

Is it your assertion that most servicemen would disobey a lawful order to engage an enemey target? My experience suggests otherwise.

Where do you come up with that assertion?

Or, are you only discussing the folks who are killing themselves? You are not making sense.

DR

[Tailgater]

Basically, if the President points at someone and says, "Kill that man. RIGHT NOW!!" . . . and you don't do it and you are in the military . . . you have a problem with the system . . . you are low on morale . . . you don't like your job or something and it's going to cost lives.

Get out now. We don't want you.

All of your questions in your last post, Darth Rotor, are answered in this quote. Oh, and they would hang you if you didn't do your job.

Gonna' hang ya . . . :D

First of all, good non-answer.

Evidence anything in your post is based on fact?

[Crossbow]

Absolutely. This war is doing nothing but agitate people and bring harm to the extended military family. I'd say that there is more than enough evidence to prove that the soldiers don't know what the hell they are even fighting for.

If we really believed in our cause, we would have suicide bombed THEM by now . .. at least once. Then, to affirm the value of a brave soldier we would have leveled the town.

Instead we sit back and use cruise missiles to level the town anyway and the same soldier gets blown up in a hellicopter from a talliban rocket while surveying the damage after the missile attack. The same thing happenes . . . the same people die . . . but our weakness and obvious lack of faith in our side only emboldenes the enemy and helps to increase their funding, resources, and capabilities.

We send the CIA to help a group of people conquer a dictator themselves, then pull out at the last minute. Bush says he wants to go nuclear . . . then things change and the idea is dropped.

Something is very wrong and needs to change. The infection is great . . . those soldiers DON'T BELIEVE IN THE COUNTRY THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR!!!

I'd say even organizing a parade is impossible with that attitude - much less participating in a war anywhere near the theatre of operations. Forget winning - even being there on time isn't likely.

Thanks much for clarifying the fact that you are a troll.

[JJR]

No, it doesn't answer any of my questions.

A couple of things. Such orders as you suggest, if lawful, tend to end up in said person dying if the soldier, pilot, gunner, whomever, can get a visual confirmation and a round chambered in time.

Is it your assertion that most servicemen would disobey a lawful order to engage an enemey target? My experience suggests otherwise.

Where do you come up with that assertion?

Or, are you only discussing the folks who are killing themselves? You are not making sense.

DR

Do you believe that a soldier should stop and ask, "Is this lawful?" if given an order by a superior officer? I don't. That's what military court is for - if the C.O. does something wrong he is punished for it.

Not to sound like an internet psychologist, but I think I'm beginning to see your problem. I myself would kill the target I was directed to kill by the President.

[JJR]

First of all, good non-answer.

Evidence anything in your post is based on fact?

I suppose you'd have to have either the President or someone very high ranking in the Secret Service or the CIA give a soldier an order to shoot, and have it disobeyed.

[JJR]

Thanks much for clarifying the fact that you are a troll.

I am not a troll. I promise that I truly believe that soldiers do not respect the President or their superiors . . . but are trying to make a fast buck at the expense of Arabs. Men, women, and children.

I also promise that I am disgusted. Both morally and from a military standpoint.

[Darth Rotor]

Do you believe that a soldier should stop and ask, "Is this lawful?" if given an order by a superior officer?
They typically don't. You posited the President. That's not how it works.
I don't. That's what military court is for - if the C.O. does something wrong he is punished for it.
I tend to agree that normally, that is how it works, and should work. The soldier should not have to ask once the "weapons free" directive is given, and a target identified. Their commanders should have sorted that all out ahead of time. If that is what you are suggesting should happen, we agree completely.
Not to sound like an internet psychologist, but I think I'm beginning to see your problem.
No problem, you are projecting again. You are also presuming a position that I don't hold, So Knock It Off. You also demonstrate that you know about bloody eff all about how disciplined fires are actually applied.
I myself would kill the target I was directed to kill by the President.
We don't disagree.

When is the last time a President was in a tactical environment?

Here's an example. A guy named Zarqawi was on a list of "kill or capture" and when he was finally tracked down, and there weren't too many collateral casualties nearby, (that took a few years and a few missed chances) they got him with a rather large bullet: a GBU-12. That is a 500 lb bomb, laser guided.

As to "President gives order to kill someone" scenario, real life isn't Hollywood. The actual soldier, gunner, or pilot gets his authority to kill from the CINC down the chain to the brigade commander or the company CO, or to the squadron commander, who gives the execute order for taking out a target. When done correctly, they sort out all the legalities well before hand. The president doesn't typically talk to privates.

I have seen "weapons tight" orders from the NCA -- that is the President and the Sec Def -- which means we had a target that they wanted dead who they, for their own reasons that infuriated us more than once, didn't want target x, y, or z taken out "just now" since they were afraid someone else might die.

That's another story.

The problem isn't the soldier, which is who you have been blaming in this conversation. The limitation on putting warheads on foreheads is in the political constraints the RoE put on the soldier to not shoot unless cleared, or the RoE/VID conditions are met. That sort of guidance comes down from

The President and the Sec Def, aka the NCA.

If all you did was give a simple order

"go out and kill and keep killing until they give up and we win"

you'd have the mindless blood lust you discussed above, and the body count would be staggering. In that charnel pile would be a lot of people who America probably didn't want to kill in the first place. America wanted to sell them wheat, cell phones and PC's. That is why there is disciplined use of lethal fires: to kill who we aim to kill, and to wherever possible not kill those who aren't necessary to kill.

Now that you have been told how it actually works, do you have any further comment?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I suppose you'd have to have either the President or someone very high ranking in the Secret Service or the CIA give a soldier an order to shoot, and have it disobeyed.The CIA and the Secret Service are not in any soldier's chain of command. They can't order a soldier to shoot. His officers and NCO's can. They are in his chain of command from the President.

Next foolish remark?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I am not a troll. I promise that I truly believe that soldiers do not respect the President or their superiors . . . but are trying to make a fast buck at the expense of Arabs. Men, women, and children.
That isn't even wrong. It is also so outrageously insulting to every one of my brothers in arms that I cannot accept that you make the comment seriously. You are playing the Ann Coulter card to see how outrageous a comment you can make, and who will bite on it.

Pass, or rather, flush.
I also promise that I am disgusted. Both morally and from a military standpoint.
Since you don't know what you are talking about, see the other responses, you don't even know from a military standpoint.

If your moral stance is "I want to nuke them" (whoever them is) we have a different discussion, perhaps, if you can retain coherence.

DR

[Warge]

No, I most certainly do not think that losses are at an all time low!

In fact if you care to check the facts, then you would soon see that for the people who have the job of walking about and carrying a weapon in order to force the will of the USA on the people of Iraq the losses are quite high indeed.

While the total number of deaths is remarkably low, however that is due to medical technology being so very good. A better way to look at is to compare the number of combat woundings and/or psychological trauma to the number of combat troops, and this ratio is quite high indeed.

Easy, easy - I'm against the occupation and the lawless war the US has on its hands, and I do know that the total losses are higher when taking into account the wounded. However, that still doesn't make a high loss ratio. The US didn't even suffer "high" losses in Vietnam - 58 000 KIA out of almost 2 million troops assigned in a ten year period. Compare that to WW2 in which about the US lost about 400 000 KIA in four years out of about 16 million assigned.

Militarily speaking, high losses can be considered about 15% (if I remember my Clausewitz right) of the force - at that time its generally time to withdraw or retreat to reorganize. However, that is from a military standpoint. From a modern, civilian and democratic standpoint (for example the Americans) much lower losses are needed for demands for withdrawal.

That's where the Japan, the Soviet Union and Germany got off easy in WW2 - as totalitarian states, they could suffer much higher losses and get away with it.

[JJR]

The CIA and the Secret Service are not in any soldier's chain of command. They can't order a soldier to shoot. His officers and NCO's can. They are in his chain of command from the President.

Next foolish remark?

DR

So you do agree that the President has, at least . . . some authority over the soldiers? If a man who had been writing the President hate mail showed up at a Presidential speech, and the President recognized him, saw that he had a gun, and said, "shoot" . . . you seem to think that the soldier should check with his CO before obeying the President.

That's how it sounds. If things were run your way it would take six soldiers to change a tire on a jeep . . . after they verified that the orders were correct, in triplicate, lost, found, burned, the ashes stirred, burried in a potted plant, and finally recycled as cardboard.

Next boring remark?

[JJR]

That isn't even wrong. It is also so outrageously insulting to every one of my brothers in arms that I cannot accept that you make the comment seriously. You are playing the Ann Coulter card to see how outrageous a comment you can make, and who will bite on it.

Pass, or rather, flush.

Understandable, since you believe that the President of the United Sates has no real authority over any soldier, but rather only the CO does. In reality, the President is really, really the leader of this country . . . and sometimes orders have to be obeyed.

That's what's really going on, John.

Since you don't know what you are talking about, see the other responses, you don't even know from a military standpoint.

If your moral stance is "I want to nuke them" (whoever them is) we have a different discussion, perhaps, if you can retain coherence.

DR

Don't know from a military standpoint . . .

Okay, I've got a ton of brass in my family. Would you care to talk with a retired Navy Chief? How about a guy who commanded men to service B52s . . . and worked with thermonuclear weapons?

EDIT: You know, the big boom. You might have heard of nukes. There's been a few news stories about them. That's . . . THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS dude. K?

[JJR]

How about Bush, dude? My Dad was six feet from him not too long ago playing his trumpet. Yes. George Bush Jr., the current President of the United States. Let's see what he has to say.

Brothers in Arms, eh? I wonder what YOUR CO would say if he heard you were talking about how much of an "idiot" and how "foolish" the President was . . . and how you only obey the orders of your CO?

You sure you want to say I'm an idiot . . . AND SO ARE ALL OF MY ADVISORS??? ALL OF THEM?? I think they have a word for that. Hold on, I'm going prove that I know military jargon.

The word is, "Mutiny".

CIA, Nuclear bombs, brass . . . that's what MY family is about . . . how 'bout yours?

EDIT: I think it's going to be K.P., guard duty, and possibly the gallows. Your epitaph will read, "I was only following orders . . . and never read between the lines." Kind of like the folks at Neuremburg.

Here's an unofficial military term: "Regulation Charley". You fit the profile, and if you'd just care to share these remarkably maniacle views with your CO I'm sure we can get the process started . . . with all the "efficiency" you require.

[Warge]

You sure you want to say I'm an idiot . . . AND SO ARE ALL OF MY ADVISORS??? ALL OF THEM?? I think they have a word for that. Hold on, I'm going prove that I know military jargon.

The word is, "Mutiny".


I'm not that familiar with the US military jargon, but they also have this "AWOL" thing they wave around. It seems to be used about people leaving their units and not returning...


CIA, Nuclear bombs, brass . . . that's what MY family is about . . . how 'bout yours?


An I thought it was oil, booze and baseball, since it was that the family was most involved in. At least counted in years...

Yes, yes, I'm an ass... :D

[Garrette]

So you do agree that the President has, at least . . . some authority over the soldiers? If you think Darth Rotor or anyone else here has said otherwise, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.


If a man who had been writing the President hate mail showed up at a Presidential speech, and the President recognized him, saw that he had a gun, and said, "shoot" . . . you seem to think that the soldier should check with his CO before obeying the President.As has been pointed out, Real Life does not equal Hollywood.


That's how it sounds. If things were run your way it would take six soldiers to change a tire on a jeep A more accurate interpretation is that if things were run they really are run then indiscriminate killing will be kept lower than it might be, though regrettable exceptions will occur.


Understandable, since you believe that the President of the United Sates has no real authority over any soldier, You either read poorly or lie poorly. Either way, your misrepresentation does nothing but further the idea that you are a troll. And one of the more reprehensible trolls at that.


but rather only the CO does.See above.


In reality, the President is really, really the leader of this country No. He is the leader of the executive branch of the government. While the term "leader of the country" gets used a lot, it is wrong.


. . . and sometimes orders have to be obeyed.Really? Gosh golly gee. And here Darth Rotor and I served about half a century combined thinking they were just, you know, guidelines.

If you have an actual point, it might serve you well to clearly express it.


That's what's really going on, John.The President is leader of the country and sometimes orders must be obeyed.

THAT'S what's going on?

Where ever would we be without such insight?


Don't know from a military standpoint . . .I agree that you don't.


Okay, I've got a ton of brass in my family.Your sillinesses are explained by your military relatives?


Would you care to talk with a retired Navy Chief?I suggest you ask Darth Rotor his own experience. I imagine he has talked to quite a few Navy Chiefs.

Spoken to a few myself. Navy Captains, too. Not a few Army Generals.


How about a guy who commanded men to service B52s . . . and worked with thermonuclear weapons?Is that you or another family member?

Either way, a resume does not make silly comments non-silly.


EDIT: You know, the big boom. You might have heard of nukes. There's been a few news stories about them. That's . . . THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS dude. K?OMG!!!! YOU WORKED WITH NUKES???!!! Everything you say must be correct!

Please, please, please, inform us all about SAPs.

Without googling or talking to your family, of course.


How about Bush, dude? My Dad was six feet from him not too long ago playing his trumpet. Yes. George Bush Jr., the current President of the United States. Let's see what he has to say.I will not insult your father. The army band members I know are excellent musicians. Most are excellent people. All are decent soldiers.


Brothers in Arms, eh? I wonder what YOUR CO would say if he heard you were talking about how much of an "idiot" and how "foolish" the President was . . . and how you only obey the orders of your CO?Besides the fact that you're misrepresenting again, Darth's ex-CO would probably say that a retired veteran is free to say whatever he likes so long as he does not present his views as offical views of the service.


You sure you want to say I'm an idiot . . . I not only want to say but I am saying clearly here now that everything you have posted in this thread is idiotic. Whether or not you are personally an idiot I neither know nor care.


AND SO ARE ALL OF MY ADVISORS??? Your relatives are your advisors? Wow.


I think they have a word for that. Hold on, I'm going prove that I know military jargon.

The word is, "Mutiny".You haven't the slightest idea what this word means, have you?


CIA, Nuclear bombs, brass . . . that's what MY family is about . . . how 'bout yours?My family is not involved in this discussion. Your family's resume may be impressive in a separate context but is irrelevant to this discussion.

Your comments indicate that, if you have been given advice, it is either faulty or you have misunderstood it.


Here's an unofficial military term: "Regulation Charley". Here's a term not affiliated at all with the military: uninformed pomposity.


You fit the profile, and if you'd just care to share these remarkably maniacle views with your CO I'm sure we can get the process started . . . with all the "efficiency" you require.Aye Aye Captain Bligh!

[Gurdur]

...You either read poorly or lie poorly. Either way, your misrepresentation does nothing but further the idea that you are a troll. And one of the more reprehensible trolls at that.
Mild insanity does not necessarily equal trolling. Just a small alternative take on it all.

The army band members I know are excellent musicians. Most are excellent people. All are decent soldiers.

I can't resist pointing out that Germany hosts the annual world military "marching" band competitions; and military music has come a long way. I saw the USAF band put on quite a brilliant swing number, excellently choreographed; and the Tanzanian army band did very well that year too. Great watching, very well recommendable.

[Garrette]

I can't resist pointing out that Germany hosts the annual world military "marching" band competitions; and military music has come a long way. I saw the USAF band put on quite a brilliant swing number, excellently choreographed; and the Tanzanian army band did very well that year too. Great watching, very well recommendable.One of my regrets of my time in Iraq involved a concert put on by the V Corps Band. I had other obligations but several friends went.

The band first gave a standard concert which was reported as excellent. Then they stayed on after and did an all-night jam, doing gigs of swing, blues, jazz, and whathaveyou. They also took requests.

When my friends told me about the next day I was quite jealous.


ETA: Mild insanity does not necessarily equal trolling. Just a small alternative take on it all.You may be right.

Is it more insensitive to jump to that conclusion and be wrong or not to jump to that conclusion and be wrong?

[Darth Rotor]

So you do agree that the President has, at least . . . some authority over the soldiers? If a man who had been writing the President hate mail showed up at a Presidential speech, and the President recognized him, saw that he had a gun, and said, "shoot" . . . you seem to think that the soldier should check with his CO before obeying the President.
No, there would already be an RoE in place, and an engage order from legitimate authority, the Pres, would probably result in lead flying. But you again completely miss the point. That scenario you set up is where the Secret Service does its job long before the Pres ever has to tell someone to shoot. But let's put the scenario overseas, and the Pres is being guarded by soldiers. They already have an RoE in place, and being tactical would likely have engaged the target, either shoot to kill, or capture/kill, depending on the RoE briefed before the mission. That's how it works. If the only person who can make the VID is the President, which is unlikely but let's pretend it is, his identification of the target would fulfill the VID and once again, lead flies.
That's how it sounds.
Real life isn't Hollywood, and you are making stuff up, again.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Understandable, since you believe that the President of the United Sates has no real authority over any soldier, but rather only the CO does. In reality, the President is really, really the leader of this country . . . and sometimes orders have to be obeyed.
You are once again incorrectly trying to create a false position to be held by me, which is called "strawman" by some. So, once again, knock it off. The President is the Commander in Chief. His orders are orders to be carried out.
Don't know from a military standpoint . . .
No kidding.
Okay, I've got a ton of brass in my family. Would you care to talk with a retired Navy Chief?
I'd love to. I am a retired Navy Commander myself. Chiefs are the backbone of the Navy. You want something done, a Chief will get it done. It's what they do, and they take great pride in that talent.
How about a guy who commanded men to service B52s . . . and worked with thermonuclear weapons? EDIT: You know, the big boom. You might have heard of nukes. There's been a few news stories about them. That's . . . THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS dude. K?
And? President George H W Bush signed an executive order removing tactical nukes from the inventory. It made our lives on ships at sea a lot easier. One less thing to go wrong, one less hassle to deal with. The strategic forces are still in place. I got to work somewhat with (tactical) nuclear plans in a NATO job, however, most of what I was doing was getting nuclear (tactical) COP's shredded and cancelled since the guidance at the time was to remove the tactical nukes from the mix, due to backing down from the Cold War posture of tactical nukes being an option.

DR

[JJR]

So I'm crazy?? Nah. Maybe a little because I'm celibate. I'm also not "Captain Bligh" because I've always believed that people can do what they want when they want as long as they do their job when the need for work arises. A Captain Bligh would think that everything is an emergency.

This does not change the fact that when there IS an emergency . . . it is time for action. A lack of action indicates sloth and a lack of vigilance.

I've already committed what most would call a "heroic act" . . . back in med school a kid bonked his head on the sink. While the little blonde people with dreams of going into plastic surgery stood around in shock, I an the other A students (high honors list) dialed 911, got things underway, got the school nurse, and I flagged down the ambulance. I had to sprint.

We were very flustered and we were running around . . . but that's hustle, not madness. Our actions were fast, but controlled . . . we did what we had to do in order to protect a life.

I'd do it again.

Ben Stein was on telivision recently talking about his new book, "Can America Survive?" . . . which I find extremely interesting. Even though he is a conservative and the average liberal would disagree with his conclusions, his QUESTIONS are good ones. He asks weither or not America can survive the lack of respect, trust, and love she once enjoyed.

I mean, come on. Rich folks buzzing about 9/11 conspiracies . . . when they are supposed be leaders who you would think would try and cover everything up, if anything. Stein even said at the telivised book signing (about some angry liberals), "They should succeed from the union."

Is the United States going to fall? I want to know if soldiers are truly loyal to America . . . or if they are just a paycheck away from signing up with whatever other country will take them.

Being so government orientated, I want to know if I have real friends or if I have fair weather phonies. It's time to tighten things up . . . shake out the dirt and get r dun.

I'll take the gold and drop the dirtballs like a bad habbit. Oh, and in a Nazi or Commie totalitarian state the phonies would be liquidated . . . here they are fired. Try the fire department, son.

[JJR]

You are once again incorrectly trying to create a false position to be held by me, which is called "strawman" by some. So, once again, knock it off. The President is the Commander in Chief. His orders are orders to be carried out.

You say this knowing that we are buddy buddy with brass . . . with the President himself. You are rude, obnoxious, elitist, superior, and downright ornery . . . and you claim to be military.

You sound like just another hyperactive 13 year old basement dweller to me.

No kidding.

I'm not kidding . . . about being who I am. I sure hope you are kidding about being such a snotty elitist.

I'd love to. I am a retired Navy Commander myself. Chiefs are the backbone of the Navy. You want something done, a Chief will get it done. It's what they do, and they take great pride in that talent.

You're not going to say that they are nothing but cannon fodder and then say . . . "uber ponzage??" Hey - must be falling behind in your teen age anxed. More sugar and caffene is required I guess.

And? President George H W Bush signed an executive order removing tactical nukes from the inventory. It made our lives on ships at sea a lot easier. One less thing to go wrong, one less hassle to deal with. The strategic forces are still in place. I got to work somewhat with (tactical) nuclear plans in a NATO job, however, most of what I was doing was getting nuclear (tactical) COP's shredded and cancelled since the guidance at the time was to remove the tactical nukes from the mix, due to backing down from the Cold War posture of tactical nukes being an option.

DR

You're completely bonkers. Do you make balloon animals? Do you stalk other high ranking government officials and race after their limosene yelling, "You're just a public servant . . . no better than meeeeeeeeee!!!"

Wow man. Just . . . wow. What color is the sky in your world?

[Garrette]

So I'm crazy?? Nah.I'm beginning to see why it is considered a possiblity.


Maybe a little because I'm celibate.Way too much information. Who the hell cares?


I'm also not "Captain Bligh" because I've always believed that people can do what they want when they want as long as they do their job when the need for work arises. A Captain Bligh would think that everything is an emergency.My quip was meant as nothing more than a quip, but since you turned it in to more than that, I think you've got him pegged wrong.


This does not change the fact that when there IS an emergency . . . it is time for action.What, precisely, do you propose?



I've already committed what most would call a "heroic act" . . . back in med school a kid bonked his head on the sink. While the little blonde people with dreams of going into plastic surgery stood around in shock, I an the other A students (high honors list) dialed 911, got things underway, got the school nurse, and I flagged down the ambulance. I had to sprint.

We were very flustered and we were running around . . . but that's hustle, not madness. Our actions were fast, but controlled . . . we did what we had to do in order to protect a life.

I'd do it again.Good on you.

I think it is fair to say that no one else posting in or reading this thread has ever done anything even remotely similar.

We are awed by your heroic stature.


Ben Stein was on telivision recently talking about his new book, "Can America Survive?" . . . which I find extremely interesting. Even though he is a conservative and the average liberal would disagree with his conclusions, his QUESTIONS are good ones. He asks weither or not America can survive the lack of respect, trust, and love she once enjoyed.I may get the book. I like Ben Stein.


I mean, come on. Rich folks buzzing about 9/11 conspiracies . . . when they are supposed be leaders who you would think would try and cover everything up, if anything.???

Rick folks are our leaders?

And as leaders should cover everything up?

After this post, I think I am done responding to you. It is more and more obvious that you are either trolling or somewhat off.


Stein even said at the telivised book signing (about some angry liberals), "They should succeed from the union."Ben is smart enough to have actually said "secede" if he said anything like this. I doubt he said that a particular financial demographic should secede, though; that is generally reserved for a definable geographic and/or political entity.


I want to know if soldiers are truly loyal to America . . . or if they are just a paycheck away from signing up with whatever other country will take them.Now you're asking? Before this you were asserting.

I'll help you out, though: Yes, they are loyal, with the general caveats for those exceptions which always occur, and with the acknowledgment that degrees of loyalty vary.


Being so government orientated, I want to know if I have real friends or if I have fair weather phonies. It's time to tighten things up . . . shake out the dirt and get r dun.Have at it.


I'll take the gold and drop the dirtballs like a bad habbit. Oh, and in a Nazi or Commie totalitarian state the phonies would be liquidated . . . here they are fired. Try the fire department, son.
Toodles. Have fun rambling.

[JJR]

Wow. Hope you read the book . . . at least . . .

Incredible. Your obvious sarcasm toward and dislike of actual heroism has been noted.

[Darth Rotor]

You say this knowing that we are buddy buddy with brass . . . with the President himself. You are rude, obnoxious, elitist, superior, and downright ornery . . . and you claim to be military.
Retired military. Surly, salty, and sometimes just plain mean? Check. Guilty as charged, your honor.
You sound like just another hyperactive 13 year old basement dweller to me.
Get your hearing checked.
I'm not kidding . . . about being who I am. I sure hope you are kidding about being such a snotty elitist.
Since I never claimed to be a snotty elitist, that's your claim to support, I can't be kidding about it, can I?
You're not going to say that they are nothing but cannon fodder and then say . . . "uber ponzage??" Hey - must be falling behind in your teen age anxed. More sugar and caffene is required I guess.
Teenage angst? Nothing but cannon fodder? You talking about the Marines, pal?

You're completely bonkers. Do you make balloon animals? Do you stalk other high ranking government officials and race after their limosene yelling, "You're just a public servant . . . no better than meeeeeeeeee!!!"
How is this related to our conversation? Not sure.
Wow man. Just . . . wow. What color is the sky in your world?
On a sunny day, blue. In yours?

DR

[JJR]

W/e

I'd obey a superior officer if he told me to kill. As for your assertion that I'm anti-military . . . for those that consistently refuse to cooperate with the real rebel forces - nuclear sterilization.

[Crossbow]

I am not a troll. I promise that I truly believe that soldiers do not respect the President or their superiors . . . but are trying to make a fast buck at the expense of Arabs. Men, women, and children.

I also promise that I am disgusted. Both morally and from a military standpoint.

Thank you for the clarification! If you say you are not a troll, then that is fine by me and I say that you are not a troll.

However, it is quite apparent that you do not know what you are talking about in regards to the military, so I hope that you will understand if I disregard your various comments on this subject.