DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on November 18, 2007, 12:25:05 AM
-
On PTSD, or more properly, on Coming Home
Posted By Grim
Kat from Castle Donovan wanted us to talk seriously about the problem of what is fashionably called "PTSD." No one here needs an introduction to the topic. Kat's concern is that, in knocking down bad numbers on veterans' mental or spiritual health, we might ignore a real problem that needs to be dealt with.
She wants us to talk honestly about it, so I'm going to do that. There's quite a bit about myself I'm not going to tell you, now or ever. I will tell you some things you haven't heard before, to be sure, but I won't tell you why I know what I know. Just see if it seems right to you.
Professor Andrew Lubin and I talked to COL Sackett, of TSGLI, about the need for legislation to help make sure combat veterans can receive whatever treatment they want without wrecking their career. There is also the famous problem of the 'stigma' of asking for help, which is often seen as an admission that you're bent or broken or damaged. Young men, as combat soldiers tend to be, often don't want to show weakness. That is natural enough.
What you need to know, first and last, is that so-called PTSD is not an illness. It is a normal condition for people who have been through what you have been through. The instinct to kill and war is native to humanity. It is very deeply rooted in me, as it is in you. We have rules and customs to restrain it, so that sometimes we may have peace. What you are experiencing is not an illness, but the awareness of what human nature is like deep down. It is the awareness of what life is like without the walls that protect civilization.
Those who have never been outside those walls don't know: they can't see. The walls form their horizon. You know what lays beyond them, and can't forget it. What we're going to talk about today is how to come home, back inside those walls: how to learn to trust them again.
There is a sense that combat changes people, but it really doesn't. It brings out parts of yourself that were always there, but that you hadn't encountered directly. Those parts are in everyone else as well. No one has clean hands. No one is different from you. That is important, so let me repeat it. Everyone around you is just like you. They don't know it, but they are. You are not sick; you are not broken. Everyone else is just the same.
One of my friends is a combat veteran of fourteen years and four wars: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Iraq. He fought into Baghdad in OIF 1, and is here again on his third tour. He has a thing about indirect fire -- he walks to the DFAC from one bunker to another, along a route he has created specially so that he will never be more than a hundred feet from one.
Is that living your life in fear? No: it is experience. He has been in the blast radius of a mortar before. He carries the wounds. We get indirect fire here fairly regularly. He is the one who understands what it means. Those who do not behave the same way are the ones who are fools, not him. Here, that insinct is wise and will protect him. When he goes home, he will need to start learning to trust that the skies will not drop explosives. That will be hard, and I know he knows it. He is afraid, and man enough to tell me so.
Or take this story, to show that this is not just about combat, but about reality. That's important to know, because it reinforces the point that this isn't something in you that has broken. It's just that you've learned something others haven't realized. Those lessons come from the world we live in, and point to its real nature. As such, the lessons can come from any place, anywhere the walls break down -- it's just that combat often brings that about.
When I first started to ride horses, I would get up on them without any sense that it was a dangerous thing to do. We'd go running through the forest free and easy. The first time I was thrown wasn't enough to lose that sense; it took nearly being killed, not once but three times, before the reality of what I was doing set in. That shook me up, I am not afraid to tell you. There was a time, months, when I could hardly sit a horse at all -- and no matter what I did, no matter which horse, it would spook or bolt when I got on it.
I couldn't do the normal things that any little girl could do: get up on a horse and ride it. It wasn't that I was wrong: I knew something that the little girl doesn't know, because she is too young to realize she can die. I was right; I understood.
But it made me helpless. I had to learn, here as elsewhere, to ride in spite of the fear, in spite of that clear knowledge. You have to learn to sit deep.
So, let's say you're in the saddle. You're coming down a rocky trail -- steep, and maybe washed out. How do you sit the horse?
You lean back, to take some of your weight off her front legs, and you relax. You let your weight sit deep on her hips. In two minutes you could be starting the rest of a long life in a wheelchair, but you relax.
And when she stumbles? You relax, sit deep, calm her. If she spooks? Relax, sit deep, pull the reins. If she falls, you do your best to leap free -- but until then, relax and sit the horse deep.
Relaxing isn't just about attitude. If you stiffen up, your center of balance shifts. It's easy to get thrown. It's easy to fall yourself. You can throw the horse's balance off, which will make it more likely she'll fall.
Or she'll sense your fear, and spook.
The attitude this breeds with practice has a direct parallel with warfighting and diplomacy alike. Both deal with genuinely dangerous situations. Likewise, in both cases, there are many times when the worst thing you can do is show fear. Sometimes, the best thing in the world is to show that -- no matter what -- you're feeling relaxed.
So here you are, where we've all been. You are suddenly aware of something your upbringing didn't prepare you for, and your society doesn't grasp. You know it's real, because you've seen it; and the fear and anger echoes deep into your core, because you have the same instincts that propelled us successfully through ten thousand years of war.
Yet now we have a society full of people who have never looked death in the eye, and never felt what it feels like to want to kill, or the guilt that comes from having wanted it. You have to come home and live among them, but to them you seem strange. You are afraid of what they will think of you, of how terrified they would be if they could see in your heart. You have thought how you might kill them. You don't intend to kill them; you just do that now. It scares you that you do, but it just happens, like breathing.
I know what that's like, and there are plenty of us who do. You can come home. You can learn to sit deep.
In fact, horseback riding may be one of the best things you can do. If there is a place where you can take lessons, I would strongly suggest that you consider them. It will focus your mind, and the discipline you will learn there is exactly the one you need elsewhere. You have to learn to trust the horse, even though really horses can't be trusted; just like you have to learn to trust the walls that hold up society, even though you know what lies beyond them.
Another thing that you can do is find a martial arts group that is composed of combat veterans like yourself. Here again, you will find a situation where you can train yourself in a discipline that will build just the qualities you need to deal with the world. Look for a group that teaches real fighting techniques, not sport techniques; and one that is filled with fighting men, not sportsmen. They will understand you. Anyone can -- you are normal. All of us are like this to a greater or lesser degree. It's just a question of whether or not they've had the experiences that let them see beyond the walls.
These tools will help you learn to do what you have to do. They will not be enough. More than anything else, you need love. Love cannot heal you: it cannot make you trust the walls. The training is what will do that. Love is what will give you the reason to push through the hard times, until the training can take hold. You must find someone who loves you, a mother or a wife or a friend, and trust them with your fear and your pain. You must be honest with them, especially because you fear it will scare them and drive them away.
Let them see. If they love you, they will stay with you. If they do, you will know you can rely on them. That will give you time, and strength, to train.
A few last words on what are called 'the helping professions.' There are three of these: psychologists, psychaitrists, and chaplains.
Psychology is a form of magic, not a science -- its fundamental models of the human mind are not falsifiable. That's a technical matter -- if you're interested in the question, I've written about the dangers of taking psychology seriously on occasion -- but it is important. We should never allow any of our veterans to be stigmatized, or have their careers in any way harmed, because of the opinion of a psychologist. They mean well, but they aren't doing science -- their readings of your psyche should impact your career neither more nor less than the chaplain's, who also isn't doing science, but is at least honest enough to admit it.
That said, psychaitry is a medical science. If you find that friends and chaplains aren't enough to drive off your demons, a psychaitrist can treat underlying chemical problems that may be adding to your difficulties. This can buy you some time to sort things out within your soul.
We tend to try to do this with alcohol. I've done plenty of that myself, so don't think I'm preaching here -- there are just some problems that booze won't fix, and might make worse. The right pill can turn off the parts of your brain that cause problems. Sometimes the right medicine might make the difference between learning to love and trust again, or not making it home. If you're thinking you may need that, and want to talk to someone you can trust, I'd suggest you try Doc Russia. He is a medical doctor, not a psychaitrist, but he knows about this stuff. More importantly, he's a Marine. You can talk to him without worry.
As for Chaplains, I have a lot of respect for men of God. That said, not all of them can be trusted, and not every religion is right for you -- and indeed, not everyone seems to be right for religion. You've got to sort that one out for yourself. A lot of men have found a fortress in God. You might be one of them, and finds walls there that you need not fear to trust. You might not.
The worst thing, though, is to trust someone who betrays you -- whether a chaplain, a psychologist, or a wife. Sadly, there are those who will. I told you that you should show yourself to those who love you, so you would know whom you could trust to love you while you train. It's different with 'helpers' -- they don't love you. Trust them if they come well recommended. Reach out to other fighting men to find the ones you can trust. They are out there.
At this time in my life, I feel very peaceful and easy. I have a wife who loves me and whom I know completely I can trust. I have a child who reminds me of the joy that is just as much a part of our nature as are wrath and murder. I have friends and family, and things are all right.
You can have that too. You can come home. It may seem like you will never know joy again; you may feel like all positive emotions are washed out, empty, or shadows of what they used to be.
That will not always be so. You can come home.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/11/on-ptsd-or-more.html
-
Nice article, BT.
Serious illness, PTSD. Serious attention needed.
Compassion needed from the rest of us.
Disability? War wounds? The side effect of life's scars?
Stories will always be ripe with the pain of war.
PTSD happens even in the best of times. . . to the best of us all.
God forbid.
Not just in a war. There has to be a scientific remedy to combat the engeries of life.
Medication is the best bet a vet has.
Love from thy neighbor is the second bet.
Our values are skewed. Basketball coaches are given such honor. . . via pay to the tune of millions.
Vets are often times lucky to have a meal once a month to the tune of the rest of us.
Ripping off America.
Shamefull
-
What's this? Another "warrior" looks into the recesses of his own soul and grants himself absolution on the grounds that no one else is any better?
If you heard this pop psychology crap from a bank robber or a child molester, if it came from a Taliban, al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah, you'd laugh it off in a nanosecond, but this guy is basically getting a get-out-of-jail-free card that not only guarantees no punishment for any crimes against humanity he may have committed (if any) but also gets to exercise his second amendment rights and whenever he feels like it to blow away anybody who pisses him off.
-
Mikey,
You are being inconsistent, once again. How many times have you excused the behavior of soldiers for their action against the Japanese, because the bastards deserved it. How many times have you excused the actions of Fidels henchmen because the bastards deserved it.
The author is simply stating the violence is a natural state of man. Read any urban paper and you can see examples of it.
-
Professor Andrew Lubin and I talked to COL Sackett, of TSGLI, about the need for legislation to help make sure combat veterans can receive whatever treatment they want without wrecking their career. There is also the famous problem of the 'stigma' of asking for help, which is often seen as an admission that you're bent or broken or damaged. Young men, as combat soldiers tend to be, often don't want to show weakness. That is natural enough.
Is it possible to screen or serve every veteran as they leave the theater , or end their military carreer?
-
The VA screens all their patients now. And offer support groups to those who exhibit symptoms. I think legislatively they should include those who serve in combat areas for shorter terms, like guardsmen, to make sure resources are available to them too.
The greater debate seems to be that PTSD patients should be awarded permanent disability payments like those who have lost limbs, sight and or hearing.
-
<<You are being inconsistent, once again. How many times have you excused the behavior of soldiers for their action against the Japanese, because the bastards deserved it.>>
The Japs started the war and deserved what they got. They were inhuman. Tortured, murdered and raped wherever they went. Fuck 'em.
<<How many times have you excused the actions of Fidels henchmen because the bastards deserved it.>>
I really don't think Fidel's "henchmen" ("comrades" is probably the better term) need to be excused because most of the allegations of abuse are bullshit. They don't kill families, they don't torture and they don't go around whining about their PTSD and excusing any misdeeds they may have doe by claiming that no one else is any better.
<<The author is simply stating the violence is a natural state of man.>>
It's certainly not the natural state of me or any member of my family. Last time I checked, we were still members of the Family of Man. Not only that but I don't KNOW any violent people, at least, not as friends or people I socialize with. So much for your theory.
<<Read any urban paper and you can see examples of it. >>
If it's all so "natural," how come it gets into the paper at all? Do they publish articles about every individual who goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning and brushes this teeth?
-
This article is valuable only as a purgative for the author and a cautionary tale for others about the depths to which you can sink. There are a host of points to take issue with here, not least of all his very conception of human nature. To use the alchemy of psychology, the author seems to have an atypical predisposition to antisocial tendencies: a fact he has to account for himself in his response but one he has no business generalizing for others. Whatever the state of nature may be, and whether it matters at this point in human history at all, it is a truth that we carry into extreme situations like war the strictures we acquired in our upbringing, in the wide sense, and that the intermeshing of that early "training" with the primeval forces at play in war dictate our subsequent response to the experience: that is, it is contextual (your life history), interactive (affected by the horrible situations you faced), and therapeutic (interlacing the two in an honest synthesis of the raw materials and the experience).
It ain't easy. This author suffers from chutzpah as well as PTSD, but he is entitled to the latter and to his effective response to it. What he is not is an oracle for the afflicted.
-
Let's review. Violence is a natural state of man. Wars have been going on for eons. Mikey acknowledges this when he speaks of the Japaneses soldiers and the justifiable actions of Fidel's comrades. The author never claimed to be an oracle for those afflicted, what he does claim is those who have seen the horrors of war as he has have seen the true state of the human condition. He also states that the major casualty of this lifting of the fragile curtain of civility is the trust one normally places in theri fellow man.
And it just isn't soldiers.
It could be victims of rape or assault or even prisoners. Anyone who has been exposed to the dark underbelly of humanity.
And his prescription is simply to take baby steps in rebuilding trust. First with family and loved ones, then community, then nations as a whole.
Makes sense to me.
-
Figures.
-
I just remember some "fire study" projects which are key to the training of infantry. Some huge study of WWII riflemen which indicated that even in combat some 40% didn't fire their weapons because of inhibitions against killing their fellow man. They didn't even want to kill Japs or Nazis! As a result of these studies, a whole new regimen had to be developed for training combat troops - - one thing I recall is that they always used the word "target" rather than anything that had a human connotation, they avoided words like "kill, killing, etc."
Honestly, BT, I've met violent types in the course of time, but they are very much a rarity and an exception. That's why there are many, many more people OUT of prison than IN prison, basically. I don't know anyone in my family or amongst my neighbours or my friends or even classmates that would fit your definition of the naturally violent, capable-of-murder "normal" human being. That's the EXCUSE that all these red-neck psychos cook up when they want people to feel sorry for them. They are so fucking manipulative.
-
Figures.
Why do you say, "figures", Gip?
-
What is normal?
Would you stand by and let someone rape your wife if you had the means to stop it?
Would you talk the rapist out of it or would you disable them, one way or the other?
-
If I had the means, I'd probably kill the guy. Or at least I hope I would. But that doesn't make me an animal. Doesn't mean I've done it from bloodlust. These guys with PTSD, they've got it because they did something to people who DIDN'T deserve it, that's why they claim they're fucked up (they say) but the fact is, if they weren't fucked up in the first place they could not have done what they did. A good man would NOT commit an atrocity. The problem with these guys is, they commit the atrocity but they still want to be the good guy. It doesn't work that way. Never has, never will.
-
If I had the means, I'd probably kill the guy. Or at least I hope I would. But that doesn't make me an animal.
Nope.
Makes you human. You would protect your family.
A soldiers family is his platoon.
You aren't looking at the individual, you are looking at the group and your perspective is skewed because you are against war.
Understandable, but unfair to that individual soldier coming back home after looking over the abyss. The same abyss you would be looking over as you tried to save your wife.
-
The soldier protects his platoon, but at the same time, he is also there to protect the young and the defenseless Iraqis.
The problem comes when he kills an innocent Iraqi in order to protect his buddies. This probably looks like exactly ther right thing to do at the moment, but then it turns out that the guy he shot is now dead, and the rifle the soldier saw turns out to have been a broomstick after all, the menacing figure was a gawky teenager or a woman, and then there is nothing he can do because they are dead, deceased, gone, kaputt.
It is easy to shoot the wrong people when you are toting around a submachine gun. My guess is that if we all were toting submachine guns or grenade launchers aropund every day, the population increase in the US would go into a rapid decline, and it would be an excellent time to invest in TV sets. Yappy little dogs would be a thing of the past.
It is a good thing that it is illegal for us to walk about carrying submachine guns and grenade launchers.
-
If the platoon, my "family" as you would have it, rapes and kills a 14-year-old girl, they're not my family any more. They deserve to be strung up by the balls, let alone turned in.
If my "family" decided to participate in a full-scale deadly assault on somebody else's family on the other side of town, I have the option to disown them before they start out and say "No thanks" to the invitation.
If my "family" travelled thousands of miles to somewhere they didn't belong and killed hundreds of thousands of people when they got there, I'd either bale out or I'd be a part of the problem.
Any way you slice it, these guys are fucking criminals. Now they're weeping into their beers over all the crimes they committed and wanting me to believe they're no worse than I am? That's moral relativism taken to its most ludicrous extreme. They did what they did, and they still wanna be considered heroes? If they didn't have their ridiculous buzzword "PTSD" to muddy the waters, the whole thing would be a non-starter.
I'll tell you something, I've GOT a family. It's not a platoon. It's not a bunch of redneck moron killers. If these guys choose to think of their platoon as their family, I have to shudder to think of what kind of real family they must have. A mother who napalms other mothers' kids? A father who tortures prisoners or turns a blind eye to it? This "family" BS is really lame - - they're "family" like the Manson Family is "family." A band of professional killers is "family?" Only in the most perverted of Republican "family values" are these guys "family" to one another. When I was their age, my mum and dad were all the "family" I needed. I was proud of them. I didn't need to go find a bunch of redneck psychos to be my new "family." What a fucking insult to real family.
-
If the platoon, my "family" as you would have it, rapes and kills a 14-year-old girl, they're not my family any more. They deserve to be strung up by the balls, let alone turned in.
And if they didn't participate in a war crime, would they not qualify as having PTSD?
If my "family" decided to participate in a full-scale deadly assault on somebody else's family on the other side of town, I have the option to disown them before they start out and say "No thanks" to the invitation.
So if there are mitigating circumstances to the rape, you wife was dressed provocatively, you wouldn't protect her?
Or if the war is characterized as unjust, then soldiers who participate are not afflicted with PTSD?
I'll tell you something, I've GOT a family. It's not a platoon. It's not a bunch of redneck moron killers. If these guys choose to think of their platoon as their family, I have to shudder to think of what kind of real family they must have. A mother who napalms other mothers' kids? A father who tortures prisoners or turns a blind eye to it? This "family" BS is really lame - - they're "family" like the Manson Family is "family." A band of professional killers is "family?" Only in the most perverted of Republican "family values" are these guys "family" to one another. When I was their age, my mum and dad were all the "family" I needed. I was proud of them. I didn't need to go find a bunch of redneck psychos to be my new "family." What a fucking insult to real family.
You reveal a lot about yourself in that paragraph.
-
I'll tell you something, I've GOT a family. It's not a platoon. It's not a bunch of redneck moron killers. If these guys choose to think of their platoon as their family, I have to shudder to think of what kind of real family they must have. A mother who napalms other mothers' kids? A father who tortures prisoners or turns a blind eye to it? This "family" BS is really lame - - they're "family" like the Manson Family is "family." A band of professional killers is "family?" Only in the most perverted of Republican "family values" are these guys "family" to one another. When I was their age, my mum and dad were all the "family" I needed. I was proud of them. I didn't need to go find a bunch of redneck psychos to be my new "family." What a fucking insult to real family.
You reveal a lot about yourself in that paragraph.
Ain't that an understatement. Pooch accurately highligted this egregious level of bigotry, just last week
-
I have met veterans of the good war, WWII who have had to make peace with the demons spawned from hellish experience.
Guilt is not the only important factor in PTSD , and guilt is not always from wrongdoing either.
Some of these experiences are of being surprised ay an explosion in the night , a wound caused by a booby trap ro a freind expireing in plain sight but unreachable because of the swarming bullets.
Do people feel guilt irrationally when they survive things that kill their freinds? Do people experience fear when a sound or smell simular to one preceeding a grevious wound is replayed by some innocent cause?
War is a very extreme thing survivors of it deserve some respect for the surviveing that they do when surviveing isn't easy.
-
plane's right, of course. (And BT to the extent that he dealt with possible PTSD causes) Guilt is not the ONLY significant factor in PTSD. I overlooked the other causes of which plane gave some good examples. I guess I was responding more to the initial post, where the guy was clearly concerned with exorcising the demons of guilt. I think from that writer's POV, or at least my impression of it, he was mostly concerned with escaping the consequences of guilt-induced PTSD. (And by "guilt," I mean legitimate guilt, guilt for crimes and atrocities, rather than the "guilt" of watching a buddy die and not being able to help.)
-
I'll tell you something, I've GOT a family. It's not a platoon. It's not a bunch of redneck moron killers. If these guys choose to think of their platoon as their family, I have to shudder to think of what kind of real family they must have. A mother who napalms other mothers' kids? A father who tortures prisoners or turns a blind eye to it? This "family" BS is really lame - - they're "family" like the Manson Family is "family." A band of professional killers is "family?" Only in the most perverted of Republican "family values" are these guys "family" to one another. When I was their age, my mum and dad were all the "family" I needed. I was proud of them. I didn't need to go find a bunch of redneck psychos to be my new "family." What a fucking insult to real family.
Wow! Real family?
Next you'll be spreading gravy across the wall at Thanksgiving spelling the word, PIGS!
And YOU're full of compassion enough to understand that there's a REAL world out there with REAL people who have REAL feelings attached to their REAL life experiences??
You're unreal, M-tee and frankly, I find this post of yours a slap in the face to the soldiers of the world.
-
<<You're unreal, M-tee and frankly, I find this post of yours a slap in the face to the soldiers of the world.>>
A slap in the face, huh? So what do you find it when the "soldiers of the world" drop napalm or WP on somebody's baby? A kick in the ass?
Tell ya the truth, Cynthia, I'd worry a little less about the hurt feelings of "the soldiers of the world" and a little more about what damage they inflict on their fellow human beings, which if you ever get out of your little cocoon, you would find to be truly appalling and horrific.
-
<<You're unreal, M-tee and frankly, I find this post of yours a slap in the face to the soldiers of the world.>>
A slap in the face, huh? So what do you find it when the "soldiers of the world" drop napalm or WP on somebody's baby? A kick in the ass?
Tell ya the truth, Cynthia, I'd worry a little less about the hurt feelings of "the soldiers of the world" and a little more about what damage they inflict on their fellow human beings, which if you ever get out of your little cocoon, you would find to be truly appalling and horrific.
Michael Tee. If I live in a cocoon, I celebrate that because I know that I will eventually burst forth to fly above the of the wee "Tees" of the world who hold HATE in their hearts. Hate for those who wear a uniform. Your "slurs" are at teh heart of this hate, M-tee. Those "negative slurs" are at the heart of your hate. Why not express your thoughts without the personal jabs?
Not all soldiers are "killers".
You show little respect for the total process....Metamorphosis is total.
Your minimal slights tossed at ALL SOLDIERS is a cutting remark, if not ridiculous.
Make your apples on the apple tree, and your oranges in the grove.
Not all soldiers kill babies. Not all ducks line up, Michael in the way YOU WANT in order to make the world right. Come on. Think,man. Who the heck are you really talking about?
Talk about that old saying BROAD STROKING!
Yes, your statement was bigoted because it placed all soldiers in the pile of a heap without a heart.
I would rather spread my wings, and live a life of compassion that hold such hate for a human being as you do.
Your political views have cut the curtain. Once the curtain is sliced, there's no turning back.
-
Not all soldiers kill babies. Not all ducks line up, Michael in the way YOU WANT in order to make the world right. Come on. Think,man. Who the heck are you really talking about?
Talk about that old saying BROAD STROKING!
Yes, your statement was bigoted because it placed all soldiers in the pile of a heap without a heart.
-------------------------------------------------
Still dodging the main issue, aren't you? "Not all soldiers kill babies." Brilliant. What's next, "Not all Nazis gassed Jews?" "Not all terrorists blow up buildings?" When did the issue ever become whether the crimes and misdemeanours of the army involved 100% of all its personnel? and what difference would it make if 1% or 2% or 5% or 10% of all soldiers had no direct part in any horrific and atrocious deeds committed by their comrades-in-arms?
A simple FACT seems to escape you completely: depending on whose count you trust more, there are from EIGHTY THOUSAND TO SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND dead Iraqi civilians who died by violence since the U.S. invaded Iraq. Directly at the hands of the U.S. forces or killed by the various indigenous forces set loose in the wake of the U.S. invasion. Many of them now armed, equipped and counselled by the U.S.
While you are fretting about "insults" and hurt feelings of the trained killers who invaded that country and tortured and/or killed tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, the sufferings of the victims of U.S. militarism and their families sails right on by over your head. Not worth a second's thought, apparently. Better to hold to the thought that some soldiers are responsible for the killing and some aren't. Which is ridiculous because they're ALL there on the same mission, the ones who aren't directly involved in the killing are doing whatever they can to facilitate it, whether it's warehousing and distributing the guns and ammo, analysing the intelligence so that the killers can track down even more victims for torture and murder, or giving press conferences to the MSM so that public support will remain high enough to allow the killing spree to continue.
<<I would rather spread my wings, and live a life of compassion that hold such hate for a human being as you do.>>
Yeah, well that's nice, so would I. It's very uplifting. It's just that your compassion seems to be a little short in regard to the victims of U.S. militarism, who are infants, children, nursing mothers, teachers, teenagers, working men and women and old folks, and a little long in regard to their torturers and murderers.
And BTW, I'd go a little lighter on the armchair psychoanalysis if I were you. You don't really know me and you don't know who I hate, how much hate I'm capable of holding, how much I actually hold or (if I do hate anyone) who those lucky people happen to be. I don't have a very high opinion of the U.S. military, that is perfectly obvious from my posts, and some of that opinion is deliberately exaggerated to make a point, but whether or not I actually hate them is something that you know absolutely nothing about. I don't think much of a moron and I don't think much of a professional killer, but it's a long reach from there to actually hating them.
<<Your political views have cut the curtain. Once the curtain is sliced, there's no turning back. >>
Well, I sure as hell hope that YOU know what you are talking about there, because I don't have the faintest idea.
-
"Not all soldiers kill babies." Brilliant. What's next, "Not all Nazis gassed Jews?" "Not all terrorists blow up buildings?""
Not all American Soldier kill babies! No they don't. Can't really say that all Nazi's were innocent of celebrating such racial hate that led to mass killings. Can't say that all terrorists don't WANT to kill by blowing up buildings. But they want to kill!
Most would welcome the chance.
I was responding to your broad stroking anti-American soldier rant. You admit it. So be it. I respond to it. That's the issue here.
The issue of war crimes is another post all together.
"...what difference would it make if 1% or 2% or 5% or 10% of all soldiers had no direct part in any horrific and atrocious deeds committed by their comrades-in-arms?"
Your thoughts here seem to find a way to involve ALL American soldiers even if they are not involved. How is that fair?
In my opinion, a bigot gives little room for fairness or logic. What about the killing of thousands outside of a war stage? How about killing pregnant women, old men, children....without protocol? The fact that you are even comparing soldiers to Terrorists is uneven and wrong. But you will find a way to make the argument go your way...why?
Do you think it would be feasible if all Americans sat back and allowed the terrorists of the world plan more attacks?
What if Iraq had declared the war on America. I am not saying Bush was right to invade Iraq.
What would you say about killings, be they justified or not, in any war...be it rational or not? Would you cheer on the under-dog Americans if they were the victim? I doubt it. Why? You hold a sort of bigoted tone against them. IMO
War and terrorism are obviously two different things. Who wants a war?
Not I, said the duck. Not I, said the poor little child who cries for his father or mother to return from the battle field.
But who wants the support of someone like Saddam? Not the men, women or children who cried for the return of loved ones......to return from the pits they were buried in. (no battle field there)
I don't agree with your numbers by the way. Show me the statistics of the #'s of Iraqi's killed by the mean American with a proof of the soldiers "intent" to massacre in each statistic, as well. INTENT, please. Your posts seem to infer that soldiers are "red-neck mass murderers".....thus the bigoted stream".
<<Your political views have cut the curtain. Once the curtain is sliced, there's no turning back. >>
"Well, I sure as hell hope that YOU know what you are talking about there, because I don't have the faintest idea"
It's an old Persian saying. You have made outrageous statements that seem to be coming from a bigoted base mind-set, Michael.
I was responding to the way you throw that hate in the direction of all, instead of a few.
What this saying basically means is that once you have "sliced or cut the curtain" in terms of your choice of words, or actions toward another person(s), it can't be repaired. You have made meanspirited and highly generalized comments about the American military in total.
How can you repair your bigoted statements now, M-tee?
You don't really know me and you don't know who I hate, how much hate I'm capable of holding, how much I actually hold or (if I do hate anyone) who those lucky people happen to be. I don't have a very high opinion of the U.S. military, that is perfectly obvious from my posts, and some of that opinion is deliberately exaggerated to make a point,
I get a pretty good idea of your intent. Not trying to Psychoanalyze you, but a man's words show plenty about his soul. If anything I think your hate speaks for itself, and that is what I was responding to. Not your feelings about life in general. Don't know how far your hate goes. Spreadin' those butterfly wings?
-
As I suspected, you don't know much about me or psychoanalysis. My opinion of the American military is pretty low, I hate the men who cooked up this war on lies and false claims, but in fact I don't hate the soldiers themselves except for the ones who actually commit the atrocities. So much for your ability to read a man's soul through his words. It's possible, of course, but I think you let your own prejudices, likes and dislikes get in the way of an accurate reading.
The "intent" of the U.S. military insofar as it relates to the casualties they caused is, of course, a red herring. In fact, it's a crock. Their INTENT was to invade, subdue and dominate a nation of 23 million. Naturally they would prefer to do it the "nice" way, with everyone rolling over and meekly accepting U.S. dominance, but when THAT doesn't happen (as if!!) then they bomb wherever they bomb, shoot wherever they shoot, and thousands of Iraqis, mostly civilian, happen to wind up dead. Like they would give a shit if they were told that the bomb that killed them didn't have their name on it. Every bomb that is dropped is dropped with the intention of doing harm, of fucking somebody up real bad, and whoever it fucks up is the victim - - NONE of the bombs were dropped with the intention that they would explode somewhere harmlessly, doing harm to no sentient being.
<<Your thoughts here seem to find a way to involve ALL American soldiers even if they are not involved. How is that fair? >>
I dunno. You tell me. Are any of those soldiers over there under the mistaken belief that they were to be America's delegate to a peace conference?
<<What about the killing of thousands outside of a war stage? >>
Sounds wrong to me.
<<How about killing pregnant women, old men, children....without protocol?>>
That's wrong, too. Isn't it?
<<Do you think it would be feasible if all Americans sat back and allowed the terrorists of the world plan more attacks? >>
Some of us are pretty certain, on good evidence, that your "President" and his Cabinet lied to you, that Saddam and his entourage were NOT terrorists, did not attack America and in fact were way too secular to have any sympathy for the so-called "terrorists" at all. So that there is absolutely NO credible way that you can equate not invading Iraq with "sitting back and letting the terrorists of the world plan more attacks."
<<I don't agree with your numbers by the way.>>
Well, they're not "MY" numbers, the low ones are Iraq Body Count and the high ones are Lancet's, a British Medical Journal. If you don't agree with them, show me a set of numbers you DO agree with and let me know why I should believe them rather than Iraq Body Count or The Lancet.
<< Show me the statistics of the #'s of Iraqi's killed by the mean American with a proof of the soldiers "intent" to massacre in each statistic, as well. INTENT, please. >>
As I stated above, the requirement of "intent" is a real crock. I've already answered it in this post.
<< Your posts seem to infer that soldiers are "red-neck mass murderers".....thus the bigoted stream".>>
They're not that simple and you're just not paying attention. They are either doing the killing or aiding and abetting the killers. I like the phrase "redneck mass murderers," which is pretty much the same as "unconcerned that their activities have caused the death of about a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians to date, at a minimum and 600,000 at a maximum." "Redneck mass murderers" is a more colourful way of expressing more or less that same concept. You'll notice that their former commander, Tommy Franks, in reference to civilian casualties, famously stated that "We don't do body counts," a more conclusive statement of indifference to civilian casualties you could not hope to find. Why don't you try to read HIS soul through HIS words, and the souls of the men who stood ready to carry out any order that this apostle of humanity might issue?
<<What this saying basically means is that once you have "sliced or cut the curtain" in terms of your choice of words, or actions toward another person(s), it can't be repaired. >>
Oh. You mean like once you've blown a family to shit with bombs, missiles or tank shells, you can't just sew them back together again? Yeah, I'll go along with that.
<<You have made meanspirited and highly generalized comments about the American military in total.
How can you repair your bigoted statements now, M-tee?>>
Geeze, I dunno, Cynthia. I'll give it some more thought when they've figured out how to repair the hundreds of thousands of civilians they've blasted and shot and fried to death. Accidentally, of course.
-
<<Do you think it would be feasible if all Americans sat back and allowed the terrorists of the world plan more attacks? >>
Some of us are pretty certain, on good evidence, that your "President" and his Cabinet lied to you
Of course, "evidence" in this case being defined as pointing to some completely prejudiced Bush-lied" web site, perseverating blatant distortions, and Tee-leaf (il)logic, when not out and out lying about lying. THAT is what consititutes "good evidence" for "Some"
-
A good man would NOT commit an atrocity
I kinda doubt this
a good person would have trouble ,but if push come to shove there is a small chance anything can happen
it`s like the issue of torture ,if you live a clean life you will be magiclly be immune to torture
I`m talking about false confessions retrieved by police officers.
it`s not impossible push a person to go too far
-
No one has claimed otherwise, Kimba
-
Of course, "evidence" in this case being defined as pointing to some completely prejudiced Bush-lied" web site, perseverating blatant distortions, and Tee-leaf (il)logic, when not out and out lying about lying. THAT is what consititutes "good evidence" for "Some"
LOL. I guess when you're heavily invested in the idea that Bush, Cheney and Rummie are honourable men, that Amerikkka's cause is just and that oil was not the main or even the only reason for the Iraq invasion, then sirs' ludicrous rationalizations are as good a way as any of dealing with all of the undeniable evidence to the contrary that just won't go away.
-
Also helps when said sentiment is based on reality, vs Tee's alternate version of "undeniable evidence to the contrary"
-
I frankly see no reason why we shouldn't want the oil. It's better than wanting blood, which is what the Saddams in history want.
You continue to rant about the American's need for ........
oil
killing babies
bastards
rednecks
Where's you rant about
loss of dignity because one is a woman
loss of digits because said woman wears nail polish
loss of life because said life is simply different.
OIL?
balance, Michael. Your attitude towards Americans doesn't hold sense, nor water.
-
You're saying that the struggle for women's rights in the Muslim world trumps the struggle against fascism, militarism and imperialism in America? That you'll ignore fascism, militarism and imperialism in America as long as America fights against the oppression of women in the Middle East?
Never heard that before, but how do you reconcile that attitude (if that's what you're saying) with these facts:
1. Iraqi women were much LESS OPPRESSED than women in traditional U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; and
2. there are many more people (babies, toddlers, teenagers, women, the elderly) killed as a result of American action in the Middle East than there are women killed by patriarchal oppression in the region?
Also, considering the torture, rape and murder of women in Iranian prisons, particularly Bahai women, how come Bush, Cheney and Rummy, the saviours of Middle Eastern womanhood, invaded Iraq, which was liberal and accepting in its attitude towards women, and not Iran?
-
"You're saying that the struggle for women's rights in the Muslim world trumps the struggle against fascism, militarism and imperialism in America? "
I am saying that there has been a struggle in the Muslim world. I am not agreeing that there is fascism, miliarism and imperialsm in America.
ONe is truth. One is your slant on the basis of broad stroked bigotry.
Saudi women aren't free to live as the westen woman, either, but we aren't invading Saudi Arabia. I am saying that Saddam not only killed women and treated them with the lowest level of respect, he was massively involved in mass murders. Genocide to be exact.
The fact that Iran is anti-west and against the freedoms of women due to fundamental Moslem Islamic believes...or not fundies..just typcial..historical....
isn't the question at hand.
Oil still doesn't mix with the letting of blood.
A dictatorship vs Oil hungry imperialism...(IF That's what we are to you.)..
They still do not deserve to be in the same mixer.
Bake a cake without death and be sure to add plenty of oil.
Ciao down....it's Turkey's Day
-
<<I am saying that there has been a struggle in the Muslim world. I am not agreeing that there is fascism, miliarism and imperialsm in America.>>
Well, I certainly agree with you on your first point and on the second we will just have to agree to disagree.
<<ONe is truth. One is your slant on the basis of broad stroked bigotry. >>
Well, that's your opinion. Mine is that both are the truth.
<<Saudi women aren't free to live as the westen woman, either, but we aren't invading Saudi Arabia. I am saying that Saddam not only killed women and treated them with the lowest level of respect, he was massively involved in mass murders. Genocide to be exact.>>
I don't get it. You're saying that Saddam oppressed women more than Saudi Arabia did because he also committed mass murders and genocide? And THAT'S why the U.S. invaded Iraq and not Iran or Saudi Arabia? But Bush never tried to get public support for the invasion by claiming that Saddam was a mass murderer and was guilty of genocide. His main argument to the American people was "weapons of mass destruction" and then when that lie was exposed as a fraud, he found another reason, not related to either genocide or mass murder. It was to "bring democracy" to Iraq.
The fact that Iran is anti-west and against the freedoms of women due to fundamental Moslem Islamic believes...or not fundies..just typcial..historical....
isn't the question at hand.
<<Oil still doesn't mix with the letting of blood.
<<A dictatorship vs Oil hungry imperialism...(IF That's what we are to you.)..
<<They still do not deserve to be in the same mixer.>>
This means that it's worse to be a murdering dictatorship than an oil-hungry imperialist? I would tend to agree with you (IF that's what you are saying) except for the fact that the oil-hungry imperialists are ALSO mass murderers and on an even bigger scale than Saddam.
<<Bake a cake without death and be sure to add plenty of oil.>>
Uhh . . . OK.
<<Ciao down....it's Turkey's Day>>
We already had Canadian Thanksgiving about a month ago. But Happy Thanksgiving to you (and the rest of the 3DHS gang) anyway.
-
Hope your Canadian Turkey was fully stuffed!
:)
Cindy