American soldiers now more drugged up than ever.

I love these opportunities to show you how ignorant you are of things military. The NPR good enough for you?.

Um, this says nothing about him making house calls in combat zones. If you actually bothered to listen to the NPR broadcast, you would find that he was assigned to a "combat stress clinic", such as the one where the soldier freaked out and killed people. He wasn't actually in a combat zone at all.

So try again with your google search that resulted in an NPR broadcast you didn't even bother to listen to to verify it was even germane before posting. Not to mention your repeated ad hom attacks that others simply don't know enough to criticize the military, while you think you apparently know more than enough to always try to defend them.

Twenty years ago, we werent at war. Duh.

So being "at war" makes it OK to send drugged out soldiers into the field? Didn't you just try to apologize how this must be a rare occurance?

A singular case, while problematic, isnt necessarily indicative of a huge problem.

So which is it? Or don't you really know?
 
Um, this says nothing about him making house calls in combat zones. Try again with your google search and ad hom attacks.

OMG. Are you so unfamiliar with things military that you dont understand what 'the field' is? Seeing 'soldiers in the field' precisely means making house calls.

Keep replying because that credibility hole you are digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

So being "at war" makes it OK to send drugged out soldiers into the field?

Again, its up to the doctors on site to evaluate who and who is not mission capable. And yes, being at war would indicate a much higher use of such meds to treat soldiers issues and keep them effective.

Or didnt you know that war is stressful?

Didn't you just try to apologize for this being a rare occurance without any actual knowledge of how frequently it actually occurs? So which is it? A rare occurance, or something that frequently happens when we are "at war"?

I have merely pointed out the obvious as I did earlier. The story states that narcotics have shot up dramatically from 2003 to 2008 for example. If one comprehends the increase in the number of casualties in those same years that *might* explain the increase in painkillers the military uses.
 
If you actually bothered to listen to the NPR broadcast you would find that he was assigned to a "combat stress clinic" such as the one where the soldier freaked out and killed people. He wasn't actually in a combat zone at all.

To address your ninja edit. For you information the entire country of Iraq and Afghanistan is listed as a 'combat zone'. Once you cross the border from Kuwait or enter the country via plane, you are IN a combat zone. Apprently you were ignorant of that fact. Its precisely germane, once someone actually understands what I combat zone is.
 
OMG. Are you so unfamiliar with things military that you dont understand what 'the field' is? Seeing 'soldiers in the field' precisely means making house calls..

Not when doesn't leave the crisis center to see his patients. Once again, actually listen to what you think must be proof. It won't so embarrassing.

Keep replying because that credibility hole you are digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

I just love irony, don't you? :lol:

Again, its up to the doctors on site to evaluate who and who is not mission capable. .
Again, the Colonel cited in the article is a doctor who is actually an expert on this particular subject while it would appear you would not be.

And yes, being at war would indicate a much higher use of such meds to treat soldiers issues and keep them effective.

If there was any actual shortage of troops that might even be a possibility albeit extremely remote. But didn't anybody tell you that is no longer the case? That there really isn't any excuse to keep obviously impaired troops on the frontline where they endanger everybody, including other Americans?

I have merely pointed out the obvious as I did earlier. The story states that narcotics have shot up dramatically from 2003 to 2008 for example. If one comprehends the increase in the number of casualties in those same years that *might* explain the increase in painkillers the military uses.

Actually, it was comparing 2003 to 2007, after US wounded and killed had already dropped dramatically...

According to data from a U. S. Army mental-health survey released last year, about 12 percent of soldiers in Iraq and 15 percent of those in Afghanistan reported taking antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications, or sleeping pills. Prescriptions for painkillers have also skyrocketed. Data from the Department of Defense last fall showed that as of September 2007, prescriptions for narcotics for active-duty troops had risen to almost 50,000 a month, compared with about 33,000 a month in October 2003, not long after the Iraq war began.

Reading continues to be fundamental.
 
Not when doesn't leave the crisis center to see his patients. Once again, actually listen to what you think must be proof. It won't so embarrassing.

Do you have any clue how many people have been wounded or killed in those bases?

Do you know what a mortar is? A rocket? Do you understand that those bases come under enemy fire? I have had friends wounded by mortar fire into what you so carelessly call 'not in a combat zone'. Soldiers have been killed by mortar fire, for example, while running on a treadmill in the base gym.

You are so utterly clueless. If you think I am the one being embarrassed here you are greatly mistaken. If your father were indeed in the military, I think he would be embarassed by your callous comments towards those indeed serving in combat zones and risking their lives in the process.
 
Actually, it was comparing 2003 to 2007, after US wounded and killed had already dropped dramatically...

Did it or did it not spike in the years between 2003 and 2007? And guess what...the funny thing about being wounded is...you kind of need medication while you are recovering from your wounds. Imagine that.

Maybe if we had had more fatalities our drug use would have declined. Bummer.
 
Do you have any clue how many people have been wounded or killed in those bases?.

Do you have any clue? Or would you just be guessing?

And do you know what the phrase "house call" actually means? Here's a hint. It typically doesn't mean staying in your climic while the patients come to see you. :lol:

You are so utterly clueless..

More irony. It's great! :lol:
 
Do you? Furthermore, do you know what the phrase "house call" actually means?>

Where do you think the soldiers live while they are not out on patrol?

Those same bases.

Let me ask you one in return. Do you know what a 'combat zone' is? I explained it a few posts up. Do you understand what a combat zone is now?
 
As I understand it, that is where we now send druggies.

:lol: WIN. :lol:

As I recall, mobboss, we seemed to manage fine in WW2 without all these psych drugs and prescription mixes. Morphine - good for painkiller. You didn't take morphine and then go into combat.
 
:lol: WIN. :lol:

As I recall, mobboss, we seemed to manage fine in WW2 without all these psych drugs and prescription mixes. Morphine - good for painkiller. You didn't take morphine and then go into combat.

Dont assume we 'managed fine' simply because those type of things went unreported. We know much more about PTSD and TBI type of injuries today than they could ever imagine in the 40s.

And a good number of soldiers did end up addicted to morphine because of its availability during WWII.
 
Just because "they" may know a fair amount about what they're doing certainly doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the soldiers. Especially not for 4,296 of them (not counting suicide or accidental death, IIRC).

"They" will do whatever they can to keep them out there, counter low morale & attempt to block out the side effects of war (insomnia, depression, etc.).

It's in their best interests to keep as many soldiers as fit and healthy as possible.

Soldiers that aren't fit or healthy are bad for the army, and the soldiers themselves.
 
It's in their best interests to keep as many soldiers as fit and healthy as possible.
First & foremost it's in the best interest to keep as many soldiers as possible. Blocking out troublesome symptoms until wartime is over is ideal (from a commander's perspective).
 
First & foremost it's in the best interest to keep as many soldiers as possible. Blocking out troublesome symptoms until wartime is over is ideal (from a commander's perspective).

I'm fairly sure the army holds certain standards that have to be met for their soldiers.
 
I'm sure they do but the military objective is the top priority. Look at how veterans were treated after Vietnam. I do think standards have evolved some since then but soldiers can & always will be guinea pigs to some degree.
 
Top Bottom