What does "support the troops" mean to you?

[MobBoss]

Dude, by that logic, my own father, an officer in the Australian Defence Force, doesn't "support the troops". I remember the day we invaded Iraq he said "well, it's a stupid idea but let's hope they somehow pull it off" (he still thinks it was a stupid idea and has no hope of success. He's more ambivalent about Afghanistan. But still, he voted for an explicitly anti-war party at the last Federal election). He was over there in a job he volunteered for about a year later.

I dont pretend to speak for Australian troops/veterans/etc.

I also disagree with you about your view of his opinion. His comment in hoping we 'pull it off' to me indicates he wishes to see us be successful, and thats a prime metric of what I consider support for the troops.

In other words, I think you just misquoted and misinterpreted your own fathers comments in regards to this conversation.

 

[Berzerker]

Most people opposed to invading Iraq hoped for success too, Mobby. But now you know the guy's views better than his own son?

 

[Arwon]

I dont pretend to speak for Australian troops/veterans/etc.

I also disagree with you about your view of his opinion. His comment in hoping we 'pull it off' to me indicates he wishes to see us be successful, and thats a prime metric of what I consider support for the troops.

In other words, I think you just misquoted and misinterpreted your own fathers comments in regards to this conversation.

That might well be the single most pig-headed, narcisistic, arrogant thing you've ever posted.

Beyond the sheer gall and presumption of that, though... if you are seriously saying that people who vocally oppose politically motivated wars of choice are wishing harm and failure on individual soldiers, that is simply outrageous and wrong.

Also: "I dont pretend to speak for Australian troops/veterans/etc."

Yes, you do. You just did. I know post-to-post consistency is largely beyond you, but do you even check to make sure each individual sentence is coherent with other sentences within a single post?

 

[Lovebird]

Oh snap.

 

[JohnRM]

When people ask me, 'When do you think our troops will be out of (enter country here).'

I go with the Derrick Jensen reply, 'I have troops?'

I don't have troops and I already support the US military with the portion of my income that is seized by the government for military adventures.

The whole "Support the troops" thing is nonsense. If you really want to support the troops, don't just say it. Send these people the things that will make their lives away from home easier and less liable to make them commit suicide. Help their families when the government repeatedly fails to take care of them when the troops are away. Most importantly, do whatever you can to convince the government to bring them home as soon as possible when the reasons they are away from home are complete BS.

 

[Uncle Anton]

Quote Formaldehyde: If they are getting PTSD in an environment with so few US casualties while acting primarily like cops in countries they shouldn't even be in in the first place, perhaps being a combat soldier in this day and age isn't the proper occupation for them. Not everybody is cut out for indiscriminately killing Muslims, or even being nearby while it occurs. There are apparently no lack of soldiers anymore, so they should just find something else to do with their lives.

But I don't buy it. I don't think there really is any such widespead combat stress problem which is typically created out of fear of their own deaths, not their victims. It is just an excuse to try to make people stop protesting the continual warmongering by the far-right. Apparently, none of the senior officers are complaining about this supposed problem which is allegedly so widespread.

Of all the mis-informed hyperbolic bile I've heard you spit out in this thread, this is the worst. EDIT: You are presumptively cheapening the traumatic experiences and pyschological casualties of those you know nothing about, and are quite frankly, as the saying goes "Talking out your @ss."

Kindly Sir (and I give you the assumptive title of being a gentleman, although your vitriolic, impolite and at times insulting tripe is indicative otherwise), please elaborate as to what intellectual frame of reference you possess, be it a perspective gained professionally or personally by which you qualify to make statements of such a sort? I invite you to make good on your intellectual propositions, or admit that you are commenting beyond your frame of reference and intellectual authority, and quieten your verbage accordingly.

Indeed, I cannot make such qualifying statements on PTSD in the U.S. Military. I can only comment on PTSD Cases in the ADF since Vietnam (relevant since the ADF was/is also involved in both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan), in which every informed PsyOps Officer or even casual commentators have acknowledged have legitimately increased....

Care to explain what good you're contributing to the world, other than a bad Avatar and a worse attitude?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The whole "Support the troops" thing is nonsense. If you really want to support the troops, don't just say it. Send these people the things that will make their lives away from home easier and less liable to make them commit suicide. Help their families when the government repeatedly fails to take care of them when the troops are away. Most importantly, do whatever you can to convince the government to bring them home as soon as possible when the reasons they are away from home are complete BS.

Indeed. I couldn't agree more.

Of all the mis-informed hyperbolic bile I've heard you spit out in this thread, this is the worst.

Merely because you apparently disagree with my personal opinion?

Why don't you try providing the name of even one senior military officer who is complaining that PTSD in Afghanistan is causing any sort of major problem, as you and others continue to allege. If it is such a serious issue, why is it being largely ignored by the Pentagon? Where is your strident criticism of them for actually causing the PTSD to occur in the first place, and as they continue to largely ignore it?

Furthermore, how can you possibly try to equate this problem that has always plagued combat troops to that of blindly supporting US military deployed to absurd wars? PTSD is caused by traumatic experiences and fear of dying. It has nothing to do with whether or not most people in the world today are totally opposed to our invasion and occupation of Iraq on the basis of lies and deceit. Nor that they are finally becoming fed up with our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. That this is what inevitably happens in democratic societies during extremely prolonged periods of 'war'. But I imagine it would cause at least some of them to complain they suffered from PTSD merely to try to get out of their commitments. I can hardly blame them.

If you really cared so much about PTSD as you allege, you wouldn't be so supportive of such ludicrous 'wars'. You would be doing everything you could to try to minimize them.

This is just "mis-informed hyperbolic bile" to try to deflect criticism from an activity which is becoming less popular every single day. It is a red herring continuing to be perpetuated by warmongers for quite obvious political reasons.

 

[Uncle Anton]

Originally posted by Formadehyde: Why don't you try providing the name of even one senior military officer who is complaining that PTSD in Afghanistan is causing any sort of major problem, as you and others continue to falsely allege. If it is such a serious problem, why is it being largely ignored by the Pentagon? Where is your strident criticism of them?

Huuuh??.... Wha????

Do you have even the slightest shred of humanity in you? Or are you simply 80 years behind the times in terms of medically admitting the condition exists?

Like I said, I'm not US Military, I can't give you any visibility into it there. But PTSD in the ADF?

http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/200607/sections/worklife.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/03/01/3152156.htm
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/...m-ptsd.html?site=brisbane&program=612_morning
http://pickingupthepeaces.org.au/media/

I haven't selected these links because they support my stance. They're simply the first four links available when you plug "PTSD Australian Defence Force" into Google.

Where is my strident criticism of the Pentagon? Since when have I EVER claimed to have anything to do with the Pentagon? I'm a serving member of the ADF, being the Australian Defence Force (Note what the "A" stands for there). What the Pentagon does is a matter for you. What the US Government orders the Pentagon, and the Military to do, is a matter for YOU as a Voter in a Democracy. I've made that point several times on these forums in the last couple of days, not that you seem to pay attention. Every comment I have made in this, and other related threads in the past few days has been on a UNIVERSAL basis. Go re-read some of my responses if you have any grey-areas on that.

As to strident criticism? If I had any to make, it would be that I find it prepostorous that any United States citizen can on one hand whinge and about their government decides to do, and then stridently refuse to vote on the grounds that it impinges their freedom with the other.

Blindly support US wars? Re-read my posts. ANY of them! I challenge you, Family Double Dare style to find any such blind support for any particular operation. I have, and continue, to debate on the theoretical and practical relationship between soldier, state, and civilian. If you can't see that, then with all due respect to your obviously reasonably developed intellect, I recommend you take some kind of post-secondary class in English studies, which would be a shame because I don't think you need it. I do think you need to re-read what it is that I'm saying without blinkers on.

Supportive of Ludicrous Wars? Again, re-read every single post I've made over the past few days. The only person here making presumptions and ridiculous statements is YOU. I have always advocated support for soldiers, not wars - indeed, the only time I ever advocated support for a "War" was when I responded to a post by Narz claiming the Korean War was probably necessary. I have always maintained that foreign policy advocation and prosecution is the realm of the politician. If you can't seperate Soldier from State in your thought process that's your issue.

You're absolutely correct to state that PTSD has little link with support for deployments or for liberal democracies' political stomach for prolonged casualties. I am in no way disputing that.

But your statement implied that PTSD does not occur as a result of the war in Afghanistan, which is abjectly false, and as I said, insulting to the poor bastards who've been royally f##ked up as a result of said deployments. I know several personally, so you need to recognise when you're out of your depth discussion-wise, and back off.

As to minimising the impact of PTSD? Would love to. But it's not within my capability to do so, I'm a Soldier, not a Member of Parliament. My government orders me to go somewhere and do something. I go, and do so, because I'm not in a position to pick and choose what conflicts might be "popular" or not, or what conflicts might result in me getting hurt or not.

Regardless of any of that.... (and feel free to break open the pen and paper, for this one) Do not presume to predilict or anticipate my agenda or thought processes. You and I aren't on familiar enough terms for you to politely do so.

As previously stated, I've to date rendered to you a bit of common courtesy. I expect the same in return. Understood?

 

[MobBoss]

That might well be the single most pig-headed, narcisistic, arrogant thing you've ever posted.

Beyond the sheer gall and presumption of that, though... if you are seriously saying that people who vocally oppose politically motivated wars of choice are wishing harm and failure on individual soldiers, that is simply outrageous and wrong.

Also: "I dont pretend to speak for Australian troops/veterans/etc."

Yes, you do. You just did. I know post-to-post consistency is largely beyond you, but do you even check to make sure each individual sentence is coherent with other sentences within a single post?

You described the comment...I am telling you how I interpret it.

Dont like it? /oh well.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Where is my strident criticism of the Pentagon? Since when have I EVER claimed to have anything to do with the Pentagon?

That is obviously what I was referring to. So you can't find a single senior Pentagon official who claims that PTSD is a major problem in Afghanistan, much less that it is in any way related to the absurd notion that being opposed to these "wars" causes it in any manner, shape, or form? That is, other than to possibly use it as an excuse to not have to serve, because they simply do not wish to go and endanger their own lives for such an absurd reason?

As to strident criticism? If I had any to make, it would be that I find it prepostorous that any United States citizen can on one hand whinge and about their government decides to do, and then stridently refuse to vote on the grounds that it impinges their freedom with the other.

You don't appear to know much, if anything, about American politics either. There is no viable political party which is opposed to such absurd US foreign policy. That is likely even true in your own country given their involvement in Iraq. And forcing everybody to vote in a supposedly free country is beyond absurd.

But your statement implied that PTSD does not occur as a result of the war in Afghanistan, which is abjectly false, and as I said, insulting to the poor bastards who've been royally f##ked up as a result of said deployments. I know several personally, so you need to recognise when you're out of your depth discussion-wise, and back off.

I never claimed it didn't happen. Once again, since you are apparently not even bothering to read what I have written, I certainly don't see it being identified as a major problem by Pentagon officials. Do you?

As to minimising the impact of PTSD? Would love to.

It is quite simple to do. Find another less-demanding occupation where you might be seriously injured or near someone who is injured or killed. Not that it has apparently happened all that frequently to Australians in Iraq or Afghanistan...

http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=AUS
http://icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx

25 dead compared to 6023 American deaths is hardly what I would consider to be a major problem. How many casualties have there been?

 

[MobBoss]

Merely because you apparently disagree with my personal opinion?

It might be because your opinion is so terrible incorrect on this particular issue.

Why don't you try providing the name of even one senior military officer who is complaining that PTSD in Afghanistan is causing any sort of major problem, as you and others continue to allege.

If PTSD and suicides arent such a problem today, how come I have to receive training annually now on how to spot the symptoms?

If it is such a serious issue, why is it being largely ignored by the Pentagon?

Its not.

Where is your strident criticism of them for actually causing the PTSD to occur in the first place, and as they continue to largely ignore it?

They dont.

Furthermore, how can you possibly try to equate this problem that has always plagued combat troops to that of blindly supporting US military deployed to absurd wars? PTSD is caused by traumatic experiences and fear of dying.

Its caused by more than just that.

But I imagine it would cause at least some of them to complain they suffered from PTSD merely to try to get out of their commitments. I can hardly blame them.

So, to you, PTSD is just a malingerers way to get out of the war?

That is obviously what I was referring to. So you can't find a single senior Pentagon official who claims that PTSD is a major problem, much less that it is in any way related to the absurd notion that being opposed to these "wars" causes it in any manner, shape, or form?

Is Defense Secretary Robert Gates a good enough Pentagon Official for you?

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2010/October/Ministry-Arms-US-Military-to-Conquer-PTSD-/

Seriously, Form, I have warned you many times about talking about things military. Your're found to be wrong once again.

 

[Perfection]

All I am saying is at least be honest about it, and dont claim 'you oppose the mission, but not the troops'. Thats just a cop out. To me, the two are mutually inclusive.

How so?

 

[Aegis]

For me, "Supporting the Troops" means to want them to return home safely. It means to make sure that they are properly equipped for the task at hand, even if you disagree with that task.

 

[SuperJay]

For me, "Supporting the Troops" means to want them to return home safely. It means to make sure that they are properly equipped for the task at hand, even if you disagree with that task.

I agree. Good point.

 

[Formaldehyde]

For me, "Supporting the Troops" means to want them to return home safely. It means to make sure that they are properly equipped for the task at hand, even if you disagree with that task.

In that sense, the GWB administration completely failed on both grounds in Iraq by not providing them with the proper equipment and sufficient manpower for years, while forcing them to pull multiple tours of duty.

 

[Uncle Anton]

That is obviously what I was referring to. So you can't find a single senior Pentagon official who claims that PTSD is a major problem, much less that it is in any way related to the absurd notion that being opposed to these "wars" causes it in any manner, shape, or form? That is, other than to possibly use it as an excuse to not have to serve, because they simply do not wish to go and endanger their own lives for such an absurd reason?

I was never making an argument for or against US Central Command one way or another. Is the Pentagon the sole authority on PTSD? I thought the British Army actually made the first steps in regards to that field of medical science back in 1916, although I could be wrong.

Who cares whether or not the Pentagon admits it exists? As a medical condition it does, regardless of whether or what U.S. Central Command thinks??

My comments about Voter apathy in the U.S. comes admittedly from a dodgy source, that being discussions and exposure over 5 years between 1998-2003 with the 80 or so U.S. citizens who inhabited Starwarsclub.org at the time I was active there. Not exactly a huge orver-representative sample, I'm sure you'll agree.

The fact that voter representation was only 63% for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election though pretty much tells me all I need to know about American politics in regards to my very legitimate swipe at U.S. political apathy, thanks very much.

If you don't have a viable political system featuring a government in office and an opposition to hold that administration accountable, well I genuinely feel sorry for you Formadelhyde. May I politely (and not trolling) suggest in such an instance that you move to a country with a Westminster model democracy? I can vouch for the lifestyle over here if it helps

You're correct that in Australia there is no mainstream party which actively opposes the War in Afghanistan, other than the Greens, but considering they are still developing a coherent and consistent party platform it would seem guys like me are in deep poop regardless wouldn't it?

For the record, we involved ourselves in Iraq as GWB invoked the ANZUS Treaty, and we chose to honour those legal requirements (New Zealand did not).

As for you not claiming it didn't happen and I'm not reading what you said?

But I don't buy it. I don't think there really is any such widespead combat stress problem which is typically created out of fear of their own deaths

Come again? Did I mis-contextualise? If I did, please extrapolate, and I will recant my criticism and apologise.

Otherwise if you did claim it's not happening, It's one thing to claim your nation's government is ignoring it, or hushing it up. That's fair game. God knows my government is probably doing as much. But you DID say you doubt it's not happening. That's a slight on every PTSD victim the last ten years have produced... which is a lot of broken people to be slagging off with one line of text.

Not cool.

Would be fairer (and likely more accurate) to say - "is happening more than any military command or government which has forces currently deployed to a warzone is willing to admit".

Resign?

I'll pay that - it's not a bad idea. But that won't help any number of the guys coming back from the MEAO with a metric butt-ton of problems. And like I've said in previous posts, how can I be guaranteed that if "dumbasses" like me don't fill the meat locker quota by volunteering that my government won't fill that quota in a couple of years when the numbers get too low by say, conscripting my brother who has a wife AND three little kids instead? Easier said than done mate, especially when it's not you in particular making that call?

 

[Aegis]

In that sense, the GWB administration completely failed on both grounds in Iraq by not providing them with the proper equipment and sufficient manpower for years, while forcing them to pull multiple tours of duty.

I agree with that sentiment fully. I was a very strong critic of Rumsfeld in particular for his inflammatory "We go to war with the army that we have, not the one we wished we had" comment. Even after 3+ years, we still had humvees (which were not meant for combat support) running around with fabric doors and troops lacking flak jackets, much less bullet-proof vests.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Who cares whether or not the Pentagon admits it exists? As a medical condition it does, regardless of whether or what U.S. Central Command thinks??

Once again, they obviously admit it exists. That is quite clear. They just don't claim it is an overwhelming problem, as some have tried to portray it here in this thread.

The fact that voter representation was only 63% for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election though pretty much tells me all I need to know about American politics in regards to my very legitimate swipe at U.S. political apathy, thanks very much.

I'm sure you think it does. Do you really believe that absurdly forcing everybody to vote really would have changed anything? Do you realize that the Republicans do all they can to disenfranchise the vote of those whom they think will vote against them? That the Democrats and the Republicans have far more similarities than they do differences? That the war in Iraq was quite bipartisan for the first few years?

If you don't have a viable political system featuring a government in office and an opposition to hold that administration accountable, well I genuinely feel sorry for you Formadelhyde. May I politely (and not trolling) suggest in such an instance that you move to a country with a Westminster model democracy? I can vouch for the lifestyle over here if it helps

Your own country sent a token handful of soldiers to Iraq. I seriously doubt Australia is all that much more enlightened in any regard, especially since they force people to vote. I'm not a big fan of authoritarian regimes, much less supposedly democratic ones that force people to do such things against their will. Are there any other similar laws?

As for you not claiming it didn't happen and I'm not reading what you said?

There have only been 6000 or so deaths by US military and our allies in both wars over the course of nearly 10 years. That is nothing compared to real wars where that many soldiers may die in a single battle.

Once again, I'm not claiming that PTSD doesn't occur. I am merely claiming that it is really not the big problem that some people in this forum have been using as an excuse to unconditionally support wars after they have commenced. That it is really just a part of the original red herring to try to deflect quite warranted criticism from these two absurd wars.

I'll pay that - it's not a bad idea. But that won't help any number of the guys coming back from the MEAO with a metric butt-ton of problems. And like I've said in previous posts, how can I be guaranteed that if "dumbasses" like me don't fill the meat locker quota by volunteering that my government won't fill that quota in a couple of years when the numbers get too low by say, conscripting my brother who has a wife AND three little kids instead? Easier said than done mate, especially when it's not you in particular making that call?

How many severe PTSD cases do you think resulted from the deaths of a bit more than 2 Australians per year for the last 10 years? How many fatal traffic accidents or cops got killed during that period?

 

[MobBoss]

Once again, they obviously admit it exists. That is quite clear. They just don't claim it is an overwhelming problem, as some have tried to portray it here in this thread.

I think you need to read the link I supplied. I can find many more if you desire. How much proof will it take to get you to admit you are wrong on this issue?

There have only been 6000 or so deaths by US military and our allies in both wars over the course of nearly 10 years. That is nothing compared to real wars where that many soldiers may die in a single battle.

Ok, so you are tracking on fatalities. But casualty figures also include wounded.

Once again, I'm not claiming that PTSD doesn't occur. I am merely claiming that it is really not the big problem that some people in this forum have been using as an excuse to unconditionally support wars after they have commenced.

The military professionals that know better than you do disagree.

How many severe PTSD cases do you think resulted from the deaths of a bit more than 2 Australians per year for the last 10 years? How many fatal traffic accidents or cops got killed during that period?

If you are going to argue about PTSD perhaps you should inform yourself in regards to it first. PTSD can result from myraid issues, and not just death of a fellow soldier.

 

[galdre]

What does PTSD have to do with supporting/not supporting the troops? Would PTSD go away or even significantly decrease if the entire population supported the war?

Besides, those really responsible for every case of PTSD, death and injury, are those who send our troops into combat.