RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/22/2008 4:47:10 PM)

BlackCapnHarlock,
Would it be possible for you to clarify what you were trying to say in your last post? I am not quite sure what you were trying to say.



rlj -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/22/2008 7:01:21 PM)

quote:

Also a lot of families have to move because the National Guard was not meant to fight foreign wars and,yet they are sent to Iraq. The income is sorely missed. The national guard was meant for localized emergencies...


Come on guys are you going to let this slide? When those guard people signed up for the guard they knew darn well they would have to serve 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 etc. tours over in some foreign war and recieve substandard health care compared to the other branches of service.

I know this because I got flamed for saying a few weeks back that those who signed up didn't anticipate being forced to serve 5+ tours for the next 100 years over in Iraq.



DenimDiva -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/22/2008 8:33:27 PM)

Being born into a military family, adopted into one, and twice married into them, I am appalled at the way our vets are treated.



phosadaud -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/22/2008 8:37:53 PM)

When you sign up to serve in the Army National Guard, you are signing up to serve your state (local emergencies) and the President (wars) as needed. Guard units have a 2-fold mission. The first thing you do when you enlist in the guard is head off to the regular Army bootcamp. If you don't want to fight in a war, don't sign up to serve in the military - regular, reserve or guard.

Fortunately, the guard members I know (including the one headed back to Iraq in August) get it even if the general public doesn't seem to know what the guard does...

As far as benefits/such, it depends on what state you live in because the Guard has a state mission and a federal mission. I'm not saying there don't need to be some drastic changes to how many states treat their guard, but....



wing2000 -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 10:19:35 AM)

...and this is the Department charged with caring for our veterans:


WASHINGTON - The Veterans Affairs Department has lied about the number of veterans who have attempted suicide, Sen. Patty Murray said Wednesday, citing internal e-mails that put the number at 12,000 a year while the department was publicly saying it was fewer than 800.

"The suicide rate is a red alarm bell to all of us," the Washington Democrat said, adding that the VA's mental-health programs are being overwhelmed by Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans even as the department seeks to downplay the situation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/24/20080424veterans0424a1.html



relady -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 10:31:48 AM)

quote:

Come on guys are you going to let this slide? When those guard people signed up for the guard they knew darn well they would have to serve 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 etc. tours over in some foreign war and recieve substandard health care compared to the other branches of service.

I know this because I got flamed for saying a few weeks back that those who signed up didn't anticipate being forced to serve 5+ tours for the next 100 years over in Iraq.


I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.....



davemiller7 -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 1:14:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

...and this is the Department charged with caring for our veterans:


WASHINGTON - The Veterans Affairs Department has lied about the number of veterans who have attempted suicide, Sen. Patty Murray said Wednesday, citing internal e-mails that put the number at 12,000 a year while the department was publicly saying it was fewer than 800.

"The suicide rate is a red alarm bell to all of us," the Washington Democrat said, adding that the VA's mental-health programs are being overwhelmed by Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans even as the department seeks to downplay the situation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/24/20080424veterans0424a1.html


This is a bit off topic but can anyone tell me why servicemen today are experiencing so many emotional problems, while those that returned from World War II seemed to cope with the war much better? Certainly the WWII vets saw just as much bloodshed (probably more) and atrocities.

-Dave, proud veteran



stamper_ben -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 1:54:40 PM)

quote:

This is a bit off topic but can anyone tell me why servicemen today are experiencing so many emotional problems, while those that returned from World War II seemed to cope with the war much better? Certainly the WWII vets saw just as much bloodshed (probably more) and atrocities.
Did they cope better? I know my Dad wasn't alone in not talking about his actions in WWII, some of them quite meritorious as I find from his service records. I think that generation just clammed up and went about what they had to do, get married, raise families and work jobs. There wasn't a system in place where they felt "comfortable" in letting their emotions out as there is now.



cow451 -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 1:55:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

...and this is the Department charged with caring for our veterans:


WASHINGTON - The Veterans Affairs Department has lied about the number of veterans who have attempted suicide, Sen. Patty Murray said Wednesday, citing internal e-mails that put the number at 12,000 a year while the department was publicly saying it was fewer than 800.

"The suicide rate is a red alarm bell to all of us," the Washington Democrat said, adding that the VA's mental-health programs are being overwhelmed by Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans even as the department seeks to downplay the situation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/24/20080424veterans0424a1.html


This is a bit off topic but can anyone tell me why servicemen today are experiencing so many emotional problems, while those that returned from World War II seemed to cope with the war much better? Certainly the WWII vets saw just as much bloodshed (probably more) and atrocities.

-Dave, proud veteran

I'm not so sure it's as different. People sought help less often because of shame and the fact that treatment for these problems was much more primitive.



rlj -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 3:58:53 PM)

quote:

Did they cope better? I know my Dad wasn't alone in not talking about his actions in WWII, some of them quite meritorious as I find from his service records. I think that generation just clammed up and went about what they had to do, get married, raise families and work jobs. There wasn't a system in place where they felt "comfortable" in letting their emotions out as there is now.


Something I have noticed about my Great Uncles who served in WW 2 was those who went to Europe could sometimes talk about it. Those who went to the Pacific could not. In Europe they were fighting an occidental opponent who had similiar western values with some exceptions the officers in the SS who came out of the Hitler Youth for example. In the Pacific the fighting was dirty and nasty. Lots of booby traps, Japs would play dead and jump up and ambush the rear. They would feign surrender. They'd do things to our corpses that I don't want to go into detail here describing. We were dealing with a different type of man, from a different culture who had completely different mores then us.

In Iraq it is more similiar to what happened against the Japanese but that is too simplistic of a description. The enemy in Iraq doesn't wear uniforms, blends in and lives with the very people we are supposed to be there protecting, they use booby traps. The stress level has to be high. Lastly though our soldiers no there is no end. They are stuck over in that region for multiple tours with no relief until this is over. For some this is fine and praise God for them but for many it isn't. In Vietnam the tours of duty were 12 or 13 months and you got to go home. In this war they are cyclical, never ending until the "job is done". Humans weren't meant to fight wars for 5+ years with no end in sight. If anyone honestly cared about the troops they'd draft and send in some new blood and let those who have been at it for several tours go home and recover.

quote:

I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.....


I don't believe our troops should have to serve a never ending myriad of tours of duty in Iraq from now until the next 100 years or they die especially the guard troops. 1 tour was enough in Vietnam it's enough now.



stamper_ben -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 4:27:50 PM)

My dad was in the Pacific theater. There was absolutely no end in sight there either and no chance to get leave home.

I was talking with an uncle of mine recently, he spent most of WWII here in the states, but mentioned it was somewhat ironic that he and his generation had Hitler and Hirohito to thank for the education he and others got after the war in the GI Bill.



rlj -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 4:56:12 PM)

What I was always told was "War is hell and no one can talk about it". What the family gleened from what happened in the Pacific was from a Great Uncle who for years after the war would go into these depressed fits and get really tanked. Then through tears he would talk about what he seen. What little I heard through the grapevine was beyond anything I ever read or seen in any book. It is simply despicable what men can do to each other when they don't have the Truth.



wing2000 -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 7:24:05 PM)

quote:

In Iraq it is more similiar to what happened against the Japanese but that is too simplistic of a description. The enemy in Iraq doesn't wear uniforms, blends in and lives with the very people we are supposed to be there protecting, they use booby traps. The stress level has to be high. Lastly though our soldiers no there is no end. They are stuck over in that region for multiple tours with no relief until this is over. For some this is fine and praise God for them but for many it isn't. In Vietnam the tours of duty were 12 or 13 months and you got to go home. In this war they are cyclical, never ending until the "job is done". Humans weren't meant to fight wars for 5+ years with no end in sight. If anyone honestly cared about the troops they'd draft and send in some new blood and let those who have been at it for several tours go home and recover.



Good points. And the repeated tours do appear to be a major contributor...excerpt from a 2006 article:
Repeat Iraq Tours Raise Risk of PTSD, Army Finds.


U.S. soldiers serving repeated Iraq deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with one tour to suffer from acute combat stress, raising their risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Army's first survey exploring how today's multiple war-zone rotations affect soldiers' mental health.

More than 650,000 soldiers have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001 -- including more than 170,000 now in the Army who have served multiple tours -- so the survey's finding of increased risk from repeated exposure to combat has potentially widespread implications for the all-volunteer force. Earlier Army studies have shown that up to 30 percent of troops deployed to Iraq suffer from depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with the latter accounting for about 10 percent.

The findings reflect the fact that some soldiers -- many of whom are now spending only about a year at home between deployments -- are returning to battle while still suffering from the psychological scars of earlier combat tours, the report said.



rlj -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 7:42:59 PM)

Ironic isn't it Wing that an ignorant liberal like LBJ understood the importance of rotating the soldiers in? For those who wanted to stay they didn't have to do one tour either they could re-enlist and many did.



relady -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/24/2008 9:01:09 PM)

quote:

I don't believe our troops should have to serve a never ending myriad of tours of duty in Iraq from now until the next 100 years or they die especially the guard troops. 1 tour was enough in Vietnam it's enough now.
Oh, I agree completely. Absolutely. But rather than reinstating a draft I would rather see us start working toward getting out. At some point Iraq needs to be put on notice that it's their country and they have to run it. If they have to have a civil war....wel, so be it.



Leon_Figg3 -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 12:57:49 AM)

rlj,
Good post.

I think many people tend to forget many things about WW II and that time in our history. IMO much of what was going on helped people get through those times.

1. Much of the safety nets that exist today, simply did not exist back then. People did what they had to do to survive. More often than not on they did it on their own and did not give it another thought. Surviving without safety nets seemd to make people then tougher and better able to deal with the reality of horrible situations than many seem to be today. (That's not to say that there were many who did not fare as well).

2. For the military, there probably was no end in sight for them during WW II other than the accomplishment of the mission-the defeat of Hitler and Tojo. The sooner they accomplished their mission, the sooner they saw themselves returning home.

3. After WW II ended in Europe and the Pacific, we kept troops in those two theaters for an undertemined length of time-we still have troops in Germany and have close mutual defense ties with Japan (I believe). We kept troops in those two theaters, after the war maninly because both areas were and are still seen as important parts of the world. Both areas have a strong militaristic history and bent. (IMO the world is and forever will be affraid of both Germany and Japan)

I am well aware that many people do not like comparisons between what is going on in Iraq to either Viet Nam or WW II, but people continue to draw parallels, and rightly so I believe. Iraq is important to us, the Islamic extremists, and the rest of the world.

I do not see the answer necessarily in reviving the draft (as we have come to understand it). What America needs to do is look at itself and what may lay ahead of us. Then we need to revamp not only the military structure, so that more people could serve, but every other economic and societal structure.

We need to finally get around to doing what this country has never really been able to accomplish and concentrate on-the idea of a citizen soldier in which just about everyone is equiped and trained to serve the country in some way if and ever called upon.



rlj -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 5:53:35 AM)

quote:

I do not see the answer necessarily in reviving the draft (as we have come to understand it). What America needs to do is look at itself and what may lay ahead of us. Then we need to revamp not only the military structure, so that more people could serve, but every other economic and societal structure.


Interesting answer because I don't see another way except for the revival of the draft or even some kind of compulsory service. I should have put your last sentence up there with what I already quoted because they definately go together now that I think more about it. ; )

quote:

2. For the military, there probably was no end in sight for them during WW II other than the accomplishment of the mission-the defeat of Hitler and Tojo. The sooner they accomplished their mission, the sooner they saw themselves returning home.


I'm not in Iraq but the difference to me and I think this is a big difference between Iraq and the 2nd World war is this: When troops(and people back home) got news of D-Day, of the Breakthrough at Aachen, the crossing of Remagen, of the Russian advance to Warsaw and into Prussia, of the landings at Iwo Jima and Okinawa they knew the end was coming.

As for Iraq it is up and down, and honestly I can't really tell from here. If we can or more importantly if the new Iraqi army can grind down the Sadr army to the point of impotence then there is definately a light at the end of the tunnel. Then we have to hope that the Awakening Councils lay down their arms in the future. I recall that the Sadr army ceasefire is what led to the tranquil period over the winter.

While all this is happening though we're gonna keep sending troops in tour after tour after tour... everyone even agrees that the government treatment and treatment by society as a whole is sub par to returning veterans. I'm not advocating leaving (though I'd like to) but it's simple fact- there comes a time when battle hardened troops become war weary. At some point with deployments continuing indefinately this WILL happen.



davemiller7 -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 10:39:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3

rlj,
Good post.

I think many people tend to forget many things about WW II and that time in our history. IMO much of what was going on helped people get through those times.

1. Much of the safety nets that exist today, simply did not exist back then. People did what they had to do to survive. More often than not on they did it on their own and did not give it another thought. Surviving without safety nets seemd to make people then tougher and better able to deal with the reality of horrible situations than many seem to be today. (That's not to say that there were many who did not fare as well).

2. For the military, there probably was no end in sight for them during WW II other than the accomplishment of the mission-the defeat of Hitler and Tojo. The sooner they accomplished their mission, the sooner they saw themselves returning home.



Good points. The WWII troops had lived through the depression without any safety net and I think that helped make them tougher and more resilient. Today, we have safety nets for nearly everything and I think we are softer than the "Greatest Generation" was.

They also had the Pearl Harbor attack to rally and solidify the general public behind the war effort. They knew who the enemy was and why they were fighting.

The news media, for the most part, supported our efforts. There wasn't so much of the "why can't we all just get along with each other" attitude either.

They also went there to win. In addition to winning on the battlefield, there is a need to break the enemy's will to fight. There was genuine "shock and awe", not the poof and fizzle version that we saw in Iraq. The massive bombardment and shelling of D-Day, the firestorms in Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo caused by Allied bombing all helped cause the enemy to become scared and disheartened. Civilian casualties, yes, but that's unavoidable in war.

Sorry if I sound cold and heartless, but if there is a cause to send our boys out to fight, I want them to be able to win, not just be target practice for the enemy so that we can appear to be humanitarian to the rest of the world.

-Dave



phosadaud -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 3:01:25 PM)

Having formerly worked in a nursing home and cared for many of these WWII vets, I can testify that though they may appear hard as nails on the outside, WWII still haunted most of them.



rlj -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 3:02:49 PM)

quote:

They also had the Pearl Harbor attack to rally and solidify the general public behind the war effort. They knew who the enemy was and why they were fighting.


There were scrap drives, rubber drives, collecting clothes for the soldiers, volunteer air raid wardens and all kinds of activities then to "support the troops". They also had to deal with rationing, drafts, the women had to sacrifise time at home to go to the factories. The unions got into it and I'm not aware of any major strikes during this period. People paid higher taxes to pay for the war effort. I read that some of the efforts really weren't that neccessary but they got the people involved and behind the troops.

Contrast that with today. The attitude was we'll go in with the least amount of troops possible, we won't draft, we'll cut taxes, we'll go in and out as fast as we can so no one knows there's a war going on. Before the 1991 war the attitude of government was such that we were aware of what was going on and we were ready to accomplish the mission. We were prepared for a long fight and man were we blessed when it was over quick! This time it was like they just figured we'll go in, be done, be out and all will be happy and well.

One of the strongest memories that I have from '90 was driving down to Columbus two hours away and counting like a dozen military convoys. Man did that bring it home to me what was going on.



phosadaud -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 3:33:36 PM)

There is a reason we don't need millions upon millions of troops now. Technology has made it so we can fight wars very differently. We don't need lots of bodies to throw at the enemy, we can use precision technology and defensive measures to wage war in a way never before seen in history.

We need to get away from the idea that wars must be fought in a conventional manner if we want to defeat the enemies of today. Throwing bodies at our enemies won't do a hill of beans towards winning the current fights.



davemiller7 -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 4:47:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: phosadaud

There is a reason we don't need millions upon millions of troops now. Technology has made it so we can fight wars very differently. We don't need lots of bodies to throw at the enemy, we can use precision technology and defensive measures to wage war in a way never before seen in history.

We need to get away from the idea that wars must be fought in a conventional manner if we want to defeat the enemies of today. Throwing bodies at our enemies won't do a hill of beans towards winning the current fights.


Like I said in my previous tirade, we need to break the enemy's will to fight. "Surgical strikes" may eliminate a few "bad guys", but they won't strike much terror in the hearts of the enemy.



rlj -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 7:10:46 PM)

quote:

There is a reason we don't need millions upon millions of troops now. Technology has made it so we can fight wars very differently. We don't need lots of bodies to throw at the enemy, we can use precision technology and defensive measures to wage war in a way never before seen in history.

We need to get away from the idea that wars must be fought in a conventional manner if we want to defeat the enemies of today. Throwing bodies at our enemies won't do a hill of beans towards winning the current fights.


Actually that's incorrect. All that technology hasn't done diddly/squat in Iraq - it's all about the infantry. Someone has to actually walk into the land, hold the land, pacify the population. It was that way in the Bible and it's that way today. We had all the technology in the world in Vietnam and it didn't do it. We have had all the technology in Iraq and it still isn't done.

We took Iraq in how many days? Didn't we go over 2 weeks without a battle when we were told "major operations were over"? Yet we still haven't won yet.



phosadaud -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 9:03:51 PM)

The closest we have come to fighting a "traditional" was in Iraq was the very beginning of the war (which still wasn't exactly traditional). We are not fighting a traditional war there now. As far as technology not doing diddly squat in Iraq, where have you been? Without the technology we utilized and are currently utilizing, this war would have significantly bloodier and with a the casualty counts would be astronomical. Because infantry is involved, does not make this an infantry war. Technology doesn't mean we don't need soldiers.

As far as whether we "won", we did win. We removed Saddam's regime and now there is a new elected government in place. Winning a war is not the same thing as winning the peace (which can often be, as is this case, the most difficult part of a conflict). And I personally think our men and women over there have fought bravely and very well, and I for one am very proud of the job they did. I think it's sad that most don't see that. [&o]

As far as Vietnam, technology had nothing to do with our problems there. We'd take a hill, then turn around and change our mind and leave it to the enemy, only to turn around and take it back at high cost. Technology doesn't mean we can wage war like idiots.



rlj -> RE: Veterans -Why are they treated so badly? (4/25/2008 11:05:54 PM)

For the love of all that is holy a war in Iraq had nothing ever to do with defeating the Iraqi army- it took us less than a month. You knew that it would, I knew that it would so why is the defeat of the Iraqi army even an issue? This had everything to do with what goes on after Saddam was deposed. You are making the exact same mistake this administration's planners made. Except for Dick Cheney who got it right in Iraq 1 but decided to change his mind this time around.

The US armed forces were vastly superior, they had vastly superior equipment, they had vastly superior morale then the Iraqi army had. This was common knowledge.

We had complete control of the air and when one has that the enemy has absolutely no mobility- he can move nothing. That is common knowledge.

Iraq was never a unified country filled with happy people who wanted to live free and hug each other. That was common knowledge.

The only thing holding Iraq together was Saddam Hussein and that was common knowledge.

To remove Saddam and maintain the country would take an extended commitment in excess of 300,000 troops over several years. That was common knowledge also for those of us who followed the first Iraq war when we became incredulous that Saddam would be left in power. This has been argued up and down, left and right, inside and out for almost 5 years. Ironically when you "take a hill, give it up, and take it again at h igh cost it is waging war like idiots." I agree. Now, shall go back and show you posts from a soldier who used to post about what wonderful, peaceful Shia areas the British had in Basra? And now that those soldiers are gone guess where the battleground is? Congratulations on taking Basra back in this "war of idiots" since it was nice and peaceful once upon a time, then it wasn't, then it got taken back again, we'll see in the future etc.

As far as "losing the peace" are we in a war or not? That is just a bad cliche that doesn't say anything. Win or lose in Iraq the fact that a decision will take so long is because of a total complete ignorance of the Grand Strategic in that theatre of operations. When you have a divided volatile population like Iraq's the war starts when you remove the tyrant leading it, it doesn't end when he is removed.

In short and this was always my opinion- looking at the defeat of the Iraqi army as anything more than a tactical or perhaps at best an operational victory in this theatre is made with sincere ignorance or brazen stupidity.

quote:

And I personally think our men and women over there have fought bravely and very well, and I for one am very proud of the job they did. I think it's sad that most don't see that.


I do see that and I have seen that since we started the conflict. The only thing that can stop our military is our politicians and leaders. What they've accomplished to this point they did so in spite of the administration's leadership not because of it.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI