Post Traumatic Stress (PTS) (1 Viewer)

[Vassago]

I think the point was lost on Anthony; I was emphasizing that war is different than almost any other human experience, and in an attempt to be glib, he diluted the message.

And then of course, you reinforced it with your response.

The discussion was about survivors of war, not casualties.

But, this is the internet.

Edit: Actually battle is different, war has many similarities.

I know, this is the watercooler though.

 

[Thales750]

I know, this is the watercooler though.

Why would it be here? Maybe Davep's condition is getting worse.

 

[Fifty2One]

Trouble with that scenario is one side of the fighting seems to be mandated to adhere to some sort of rules of engagement.

Imagine having a nice little drive in the Afghanistan countryside, its beautiful day, you and your buddies are taking much needed medicine to an Afghani village.

A child appears out of nowhere.

You stop to keep from running over her. The next thing you know is your old friend Brian’s brains are in your lap.

The following day, or week, depending on how long they let you mope around whining about Brian, and you’re out on patrol again. Oops too close to that IED. Bill’s head just rolled down the dirt road, without his body. You can’t hear shit, you walk around in a daze till some young Corpsman puts you in a stretcher.

Luckily that Hunvee was armored. Only that poor bastard Bill got the ride back to his kids and wife, in a bag.

Well it’s almost over. Next week you leave for home, I made it. One last patrol.

What is that up ahead? It’s a little girl in the street, right in the middle of a fucking fire fight…

Do you think 23 year old James will stop the vehicle?

I don’t know; maybe yes, maybe no.

But either way, he ain’t going home normal.

 

[Thales750]

Trouble with that scenario is one side of the fighting seems to be mandated to adhere to some sort of rules of engagement.

Well my little story seems to have pretty much ended the debate.

I’ll take that as success.



Rules of Engagement?

That is a whole other discussion.

Maybe we should have it. I think that even my ideologically right leaning opponents, would be shocked and dismayed at the lengths I think we should go to, to end this insanity.


And none of them really involve capitulation. At least, not from us.

 

[Galaxiom]

Trouble with that scenario is one side of the fighting seems to be mandated to adhere to some sort of rules of engagement.

You mean like targeting a house with a drone because the US forces suspect that "insurgents" are inside. Whoops we made a mistake but that's is OK because they were only Afghanis, not real people.

 

[Thales750]

You mean like targeting a house with a drone because the US forces suspect that "insurgents" are inside. Whoops we made a mistake but that's is OK because they were only Afghanis, not real people.

The actual message is, War is Hell.

We shouldn't be there; the Muslim World should be policing their own back yard.

But they won't, and some day WWIII could well be caused by their lack of vision, or resolve, whichever applies.

They should stop and think because if the Eye of China ever turns towards them, things will be different, indeed.

 

[puzzled]

Imagine having a nice little drive in the Afghanistan countryside, its beautiful day, you and your buddies are taking much needed medicine to an Afghani village.

A child appears out of nowhere.

You stop to keep from running over her. The next thing you know is your old friend Brian’s brains are in your lap.

The following day, or week, depending on how long they let you mope around whining about Brian, and you’re out on patrol again. Oops too close to that IED. Bill’s head just rolled down the dirt road, without his body. You can’t hear shit, you walk around in a daze till some young Corpsman puts you in a stretcher.

Luckily that Hunvee was armored. Only that poor bastard Bill got the ride back to his kids and wife, in a bag.

Well it’s almost over. Next week you leave for home, I made it. One last patrol.

What is that up ahead? It’s a little girl in the street, right in the middle of a fucking fire fight…

Do you think 23 year old James will stop the vehicle?

I don’t know; maybe yes, maybe no.

But either way, he ain’t going home normal.

Sounds like the same traumas faced by troops during the first and second world wars, what's the difference with today I wonder?

 

[Rabbie]

Sounds like the same traumas faced by troops during the first and second world wars, what's the difference with today I wonder?

People in the First World War were traumatised. It was called Shell-Shock once it was recognised. Unfortunately some sufferers were shot for cowardice

 

[Thales750]

Sounds like the same traumas faced by troops during the first and second world wars, what's the difference with today I wonder?

Or they were left to find their own way, some did, many didn't.

We used to drink our water unprocessed. And in many cases downstream from the sewer.

Should we still do that?


I never have understood how anyone could use the argument that, “since it was ok to do things, one way or another, in the ignorant past, then it should be ok today”.

 

[Rich]

We used to drink our water unprocessed. And in many cases downstream from the sewer.

Should we still do that?

Not in the US
and who said treatment of troops was ok in the past

 

[Brianwarnock]

Not in the US
and who said treatment of troops was ok in the past

Nobody, but did you read puzzled's post which suggested that troops in the past did not suffer from trauma.

Brian

 

[Rich]

Nobody, but did you read puzzled's post which suggested that troops in the past did not suffer from trauma.

Brian

No he didn't, he merely made the point that troops etc. in the past suffered the same traumas and weren't able to or even given to sue for compensation. Nobody's saying that our armed forces don't face dangers etc.etc. but then why would one enlist?
To sit in the barracks in comfort perhaps

 

[Thales750]

Not in the US
and who said treatment of troops was ok in the past

Puzzled said it, or rather,he implied it.

 

[Thales750]

Not in the US
and who said treatment of troops was ok in the past

Actually Americans had higher standards than Europe centuries before the Europeans even knew about it.

When the first European settlers came here my ancestors had a longer life span. Why you ask, mine knew to crap down stream from where they bathed.

 

[Rich]

When the first European settlers came here my ancestors had a longer life span. Why you ask, mine knew to crap down stream from where they bathed.

You still crap in the water, no wonder you've so much pollution

 

[Rich]

Puzzled said it, or rather,he implied it.

No he didn't

 

[Brianwarnock]

He said they faced them not that they suffered, an important distinction.

They did infact suffer but it was not recognised.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

Nobody, but did you read puzzled's post which suggested that troops in the past did not suffer from trauma.

Brian

puzzled is Rich by the way Brian. Just to clarify. Link

 

[ColinEssex]

No he didn't, he merely made the point that troops etc. in the past suffered the same traumas and weren't able to or even given to sue for compensation. Nobody's saying that our armed forces don't face dangers etc.etc. but then why would one enlist?
To sit in the barracks in comfort perhaps

Do troops get told about the fact that they may see horrible things? Why is it such a shock?

As Rich says - why enlist in the first place if you can't take it.

If you napalm a 12yr old girl so her skin burns and she screams in agony whilst running - is that unexpected when you napalm a village? That's what American troops do isn't it?

Col

 

[Galaxiom]

When the first European settlers came here my ancestors had a longer life span. Why you ask, mine knew to crap down stream from where they bathed.

... and upstream from the next town's water suppply. An early manifestation of the "I'm alright Jack" attitude still seen in most Americans.