Army suicides highest in 26 years!!

[Darth Rotor]

All of your questions in your last post, Darth Rotor, are answered in this quote. Oh, and they would hang you if you didn't do your job.

Gonna' hang ya . . .

No, it doesn't answer any of my questions.

A couple of things. Such orders as you suggest, if lawful, tend to end up in said person dying if the soldier, pilot, gunner, whomever, can get a visual confirmation and a round chambered in time.

Is it your assertion that most servicemen would disobey a lawful order to engage an enemey target? My experience suggests otherwise.

Where do you come up with that assertion?

Or, are you only discussing the folks who are killing themselves? You are not making sense.

DR

 

[Tailgater]

Basically, if the President points at someone and says, "Kill that man. RIGHT NOW!!" . . . and you don't do it and you are in the military . . . you have a problem with the system . . . you are low on morale . . . you don't like your job or something and it's going to cost lives.

Get out now. We don't want you.

All of your questions in your last post, Darth Rotor, are answered in this quote. Oh, and they would hang you if you didn't do your job.

Gonna' hang ya . . .

First of all, good non-answer.

Evidence anything in your post is based on fact?

 

[Crossbow]

Absolutely. This war is doing nothing but agitate people and bring harm to the extended military family. I'd say that there is more than enough evidence to prove that the soldiers don't know what the hell they are even fighting for.

If we really believed in our cause, we would have suicide bombed THEM by now . .. at least once. Then, to affirm the value of a brave soldier we would have leveled the town.

Instead we sit back and use cruise missiles to level the town anyway and the same soldier gets blown up in a hellicopter from a talliban rocket while surveying the damage after the missile attack. The same thing happenes . . . the same people die . . . but our weakness and obvious lack of faith in our side only emboldenes the enemy and helps to increase their funding, resources, and capabilities.

We send the CIA to help a group of people conquer a dictator themselves, then pull out at the last minute. Bush says he wants to go nuclear . . . then things change and the idea is dropped.

Something is very wrong and needs to change. The infection is great . . . those soldiers DON'T BELIEVE IN THE COUNTRY THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR!!!

I'd say even organizing a parade is impossible with that attitude - much less participating in a war anywhere near the theatre of operations. Forget winning - even being there on time isn't likely.

Thanks much for clarifying the fact that you are a troll.

 

[JJR]

No, it doesn't answer any of my questions.

A couple of things. Such orders as you suggest, if lawful, tend to end up in said person dying if the soldier, pilot, gunner, whomever, can get a visual confirmation and a round chambered in time.

Is it your assertion that most servicemen would disobey a lawful order to engage an enemey target? My experience suggests otherwise.

Where do you come up with that assertion?

Or, are you only discussing the folks who are killing themselves? You are not making sense.

DR

Do you believe that a soldier should stop and ask, "Is this lawful?" if given an order by a superior officer? I don't. That's what military court is for - if the C.O. does something wrong he is punished for it.

Not to sound like an internet psychologist, but I think I'm beginning to see your problem. I myself would kill the target I was directed to kill by the President.

 

[JJR]

First of all, good non-answer.

Evidence anything in your post is based on fact?

I suppose you'd have to have either the President or someone very high ranking in the Secret Service or the CIA give a soldier an order to shoot, and have it disobeyed.

 

[JJR]

Thanks much for clarifying the fact that you are a troll.

I am not a troll. I promise that I truly believe that soldiers do not respect the President or their superiors . . . but are trying to make a fast buck at the expense of Arabs. Men, women, and children.

I also promise that I am disgusted. Both morally and from a military standpoint.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you believe that a soldier should stop and ask, "Is this lawful?" if given an order by a superior officer?

They typically don't. You posited the President. That's not how it works.

I don't. That's what military court is for - if the C.O. does something wrong he is punished for it.

I tend to agree that normally, that is how it works, and should work. The soldier should not have to ask once the "weapons free" directive is given, and a target identified. Their commanders should have sorted that all out ahead of time. If that is what you are suggesting should happen, we agree completely.

Not to sound like an internet psychologist, but I think I'm beginning to see your problem.

No problem, you are projecting again. You are also presuming a position that I don't hold, So Knock It Off. You also demonstrate that you know about bloody eff all about how disciplined fires are actually applied.

I myself would kill the target I was directed to kill by the President.

We don't disagree.

When is the last time a President was in a tactical environment?

Here's an example. A guy named Zarqawi was on a list of "kill or capture" and when he was finally tracked down, and there weren't too many collateral casualties nearby, (that took a few years and a few missed chances) they got him with a rather large bullet: a GBU-12. That is a 500 lb bomb, laser guided.

As to "President gives order to kill someone" scenario, real life isn't Hollywood. The actual soldier, gunner, or pilot gets his authority to kill from the CINC down the chain to the brigade commander or the company CO, or to the squadron commander, who gives the execute order for taking out a target. When done correctly, they sort out all the legalities well before hand. The president doesn't typically talk to privates.

I have seen "weapons tight" orders from the NCA -- that is the President and the Sec Def -- which means we had a target that they wanted dead who they, for their own reasons that infuriated us more than once, didn't want target x, y, or z taken out "just now" since they were afraid someone else might die.

That's another story.

The problem isn't the soldier, which is who you have been blaming in this conversation. The limitation on putting warheads on foreheads is in the political constraints the RoE put on the soldier to not shoot unless cleared, or the RoE/VID conditions are met. That sort of guidance comes down from

The President and the Sec Def, aka the NCA.

If all you did was give a simple order

"go out and kill and keep killing until they give up and we win"

you'd have the mindless blood lust you discussed above, and the body count would be staggering. In that charnel pile would be a lot of people who America probably didn't want to kill in the first place. America wanted to sell them wheat, cell phones and PC's. That is why there is disciplined use of lethal fires: to kill who we aim to kill, and to wherever possible not kill those who aren't necessary to kill.

Now that you have been told how it actually works, do you have any further comment?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I suppose you'd have to have either the President or someone very high ranking in the Secret Service or the CIA give a soldier an order to shoot, and have it disobeyed.

The CIA and the Secret Service are not in any soldier's chain of command. They can't order a soldier to shoot. His officers and NCO's can. They are in his chain of command from the President.

Next foolish remark?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am not a troll. I promise that I truly believe that soldiers do not respect the President or their superiors . . . but are trying to make a fast buck at the expense of Arabs. Men, women, and children.

That isn't even wrong. It is also so outrageously insulting to every one of my brothers in arms that I cannot accept that you make the comment seriously. You are playing the Ann Coulter card to see how outrageous a comment you can make, and who will bite on it.

Pass, or rather, flush.

I also promise that I am disgusted. Both morally and from a military standpoint.

Since you don't know what you are talking about, see the other responses, you don't even know from a military standpoint.

If your moral stance is "I want to nuke them" (whoever them is) we have a different discussion, perhaps, if you can retain coherence.

DR

 

[Warge]

No, I most certainly do not think that losses are at an all time low!

In fact if you care to check the facts, then you would soon see that for the people who have the job of walking about and carrying a weapon in order to force the will of the USA on the people of Iraq the losses are quite high indeed.

While the total number of deaths is remarkably low, however that is due to medical technology being so very good. A better way to look at is to compare the number of combat woundings and/or psychological trauma to the number of combat troops, and this ratio is quite high indeed.

Easy, easy - I'm against the occupation and the lawless war the US has on its hands, and I do know that the total losses are higher when taking into account the wounded. However, that still doesn't make a high loss ratio. The US didn't even suffer "high" losses in Vietnam - 58 000 KIA out of almost 2 million troops assigned in a ten year period. Compare that to WW2 in which about the US lost about 400 000 KIA in four years out of about 16 million assigned.

Militarily speaking, high losses can be considered about 15% (if I remember my Clausewitz right) of the force - at that time its generally time to withdraw or retreat to reorganize. However, that is from a military standpoint. From a modern, civilian and democratic standpoint (for example the Americans) much lower losses are needed for demands for withdrawal.

That's where the Japan, the Soviet Union and Germany got off easy in WW2 - as totalitarian states, they could suffer much higher losses and get away with it.

 

[JJR]

The CIA and the Secret Service are not in any soldier's chain of command. They can't order a soldier to shoot. His officers and NCO's can. They are in his chain of command from the President.

Next foolish remark?

DR

So you do agree that the President has, at least . . . some authority over the soldiers? If a man who had been writing the President hate mail showed up at a Presidential speech, and the President recognized him, saw that he had a gun, and said, "shoot" . . . you seem to think that the soldier should check with his CO before obeying the President.

That's how it sounds. If things were run your way it would take six soldiers to change a tire on a jeep . . . after they verified that the orders were correct, in triplicate, lost, found, burned, the ashes stirred, burried in a potted plant, and finally recycled as cardboard.

Next boring remark?

 

[JJR]

That isn't even wrong. It is also so outrageously insulting to every one of my brothers in arms that I cannot accept that you make the comment seriously. You are playing the Ann Coulter card to see how outrageous a comment you can make, and who will bite on it.

Pass, or rather, flush.

Understandable, since you believe that the President of the United Sates has no real authority over any soldier, but rather only the CO does. In reality, the President is really, really the leader of this country . . . and sometimes orders have to be obeyed.

That's what's really going on, John.

Since you don't know what you are talking about, see the other responses, you don't even know from a military standpoint.

If your moral stance is "I want to nuke them" (whoever them is) we have a different discussion, perhaps, if you can retain coherence.

DR

Don't know from a military standpoint . . .

Okay, I've got a ton of brass in my family. Would you care to talk with a retired Navy Chief? How about a guy who commanded men to service B52s . . . and worked with thermonuclear weapons?

EDIT: You know, the big boom. You might have heard of nukes. There's been a few news stories about them. That's . . . THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS dude. K?

 

[JJR]

How about Bush, dude? My Dad was six feet from him not too long ago playing his trumpet. Yes. George Bush Jr., the current President of the United States. Let's see what he has to say.

Brothers in Arms, eh? I wonder what YOUR CO would say if he heard you were talking about how much of an "idiot" and how "foolish" the President was . . . and how you only obey the orders of your CO?

You sure you want to say I'm an idiot . . . AND SO ARE ALL OF MY ADVISORS??? ALL OF THEM?? I think they have a word for that. Hold on, I'm going prove that I know military jargon.

The word is, "Mutiny".

CIA, Nuclear bombs, brass . . . that's what MY family is about . . . how 'bout yours?

EDIT: I think it's going to be K.P., guard duty, and possibly the gallows. Your epitaph will read, "I was only following orders . . . and never read between the lines." Kind of like the folks at Neuremburg.

Here's an unofficial military term: "Regulation Charley". You fit the profile, and if you'd just care to share these remarkably maniacle views with your CO I'm sure we can get the process started . . . with all the "efficiency" you require.

 

[Warge]

You sure you want to say I'm an idiot . . . AND SO ARE ALL OF MY ADVISORS??? ALL OF THEM?? I think they have a word for that. Hold on, I'm going prove that I know military jargon.

The word is, "Mutiny".

I'm not that familiar with the US military jargon, but they also have this "AWOL" thing they wave around. It seems to be used about people leaving their units and not returning...

CIA, Nuclear bombs, brass . . . that's what MY family is about . . . how 'bout yours?

An I thought it was oil, booze and baseball, since it was that the family was most involved in. At least counted in years...

Yes, yes, I'm an ass...

 

[Garrette]

So you do agree that the President has, at least . . . some authority over the soldiers?

If you think Darth Rotor or anyone else here has said otherwise, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

If a man who had been writing the President hate mail showed up at a Presidential speech, and the President recognized him, saw that he had a gun, and said, "shoot" . . . you seem to think that the soldier should check with his CO before obeying the President.

As has been pointed out, Real Life does not equal Hollywood.

That's how it sounds. If things were run your way it would take six soldiers to change a tire on a jeep

A more accurate interpretation is that if things were run they really are run then indiscriminate killing will be kept lower than it might be, though regrettable exceptions will occur.

Understandable, since you believe that the President of the United Sates has no real authority over any soldier,

You either read poorly or lie poorly. Either way, your misrepresentation does nothing but further the idea that you are a troll. And one of the more reprehensible trolls at that.

but rather only the CO does.

See above.

In reality, the President is really, really the leader of this country

No. He is the leader of the executive branch of the government. While the term "leader of the country" gets used a lot, it is wrong.

. . . and sometimes orders have to be obeyed.

Really? Gosh golly gee. And here Darth Rotor and I served about half a century combined thinking they were just, you know, guidelines.

If you have an actual point, it might serve you well to clearly express it.

That's what's really going on, John.

The President is leader of the country and sometimes orders must be obeyed.

THAT'S what's going on?

Where ever would we be without such insight?

Don't know from a military standpoint . . .

I agree that you don't.

Okay, I've got a ton of brass in my family.

Your sillinesses are explained by your military relatives?

Would you care to talk with a retired Navy Chief?

I suggest you ask Darth Rotor his own experience. I imagine he has talked to quite a few Navy Chiefs.

Spoken to a few myself. Navy Captains, too. Not a few Army Generals.

How about a guy who commanded men to service B52s . . . and worked with thermonuclear weapons?

Is that you or another family member?

Either way, a resume does not make silly comments non-silly.

EDIT: You know, the big boom. You might have heard of nukes. There's been a few news stories about them. That's . . . THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS dude. K?

OMG!!!! YOU WORKED WITH NUKES???!!! Everything you say must be correct!

Please, please, please, inform us all about SAPs.

Without googling or talking to your family, of course.

How about Bush, dude? My Dad was six feet from him not too long ago playing his trumpet. Yes. George Bush Jr., the current President of the United States. Let's see what he has to say.

I will not insult your father. The army band members I know are excellent musicians. Most are excellent people. All are decent soldiers.

Brothers in Arms, eh? I wonder what YOUR CO would say if he heard you were talking about how much of an "idiot" and how "foolish" the President was . . . and how you only obey the orders of your CO?

Besides the fact that you're misrepresenting again, Darth's ex-CO would probably say that a retired veteran is free to say whatever he likes so long as he does not present his views as offical views of the service.

You sure you want to say I'm an idiot . . .

I not only want to say but I am saying clearly here now that everything you have posted in this thread is idiotic. Whether or not you are personally an idiot I neither know nor care.

AND SO ARE ALL OF MY ADVISORS???

Your relatives are your advisors? Wow.

I think they have a word for that. Hold on, I'm going prove that I know military jargon.

The word is, "Mutiny".

You haven't the slightest idea what this word means, have you?

CIA, Nuclear bombs, brass . . . that's what MY family is about . . . how 'bout yours?

My family is not involved in this discussion. Your family's resume may be impressive in a separate context but is irrelevant to this discussion.

Your comments indicate that, if you have been given advice, it is either faulty or you have misunderstood it.

Here's an unofficial military term: "Regulation Charley".

Here's a term not affiliated at all with the military: uninformed pomposity.

You fit the profile, and if you'd just care to share these remarkably maniacle views with your CO I'm sure we can get the process started . . . with all the "efficiency" you require.

Aye Aye Captain Bligh!

 

[Gurdur]

...You either read poorly or lie poorly. Either way, your misrepresentation does nothing but further the idea that you are a troll. And one of the more reprehensible trolls at that.

Mild insanity does not necessarily equal trolling. Just a small alternative take on it all.

The army band members I know are excellent musicians. Most are excellent people. All are decent soldiers.

I can't resist pointing out that Germany hosts the annual world military "marching" band competitions; and military music has come a long way. I saw the USAF band put on quite a brilliant swing number, excellently choreographed; and the Tanzanian army band did very well that year too. Great watching, very well recommendable.

 

[Garrette]

I can't resist pointing out that Germany hosts the annual world military "marching" band competitions; and military music has come a long way. I saw the USAF band put on quite a brilliant swing number, excellently choreographed; and the Tanzanian army band did very well that year too. Great watching, very well recommendable.

One of my regrets of my time in Iraq involved a concert put on by the V Corps Band. I had other obligations but several friends went.

The band first gave a standard concert which was reported as excellent. Then they stayed on after and did an all-night jam, doing gigs of swing, blues, jazz, and whathaveyou. They also took requests.

When my friends told me about the next day I was quite jealous.


ETA:

Mild insanity does not necessarily equal trolling. Just a small alternative take on it all.

You may be right.

Is it more insensitive to jump to that conclusion and be wrong or not to jump to that conclusion and be wrong?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So you do agree that the President has, at least . . . some authority over the soldiers? If a man who had been writing the President hate mail showed up at a Presidential speech, and the President recognized him, saw that he had a gun, and said, "shoot" . . . you seem to think that the soldier should check with his CO before obeying the President.

No, there would already be an RoE in place, and an engage order from legitimate authority, the Pres, would probably result in lead flying. But you again completely miss the point. That scenario you set up is where the Secret Service does its job long before the Pres ever has to tell someone to shoot. But let's put the scenario overseas, and the Pres is being guarded by soldiers. They already have an RoE in place, and being tactical would likely have engaged the target, either shoot to kill, or capture/kill, depending on the RoE briefed before the mission. That's how it works. If the only person who can make the VID is the President, which is unlikely but let's pretend it is, his identification of the target would fulfill the VID and once again, lead flies.

That's how it sounds.

Real life isn't Hollywood, and you are making stuff up, again.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Understandable, since you believe that the President of the United Sates has no real authority over any soldier, but rather only the CO does. In reality, the President is really, really the leader of this country . . . and sometimes orders have to be obeyed.

You are once again incorrectly trying to create a false position to be held by me, which is called "strawman" by some. So, once again, knock it off. The President is the Commander in Chief. His orders are orders to be carried out.

Don't know from a military standpoint . . .

No kidding.

Okay, I've got a ton of brass in my family. Would you care to talk with a retired Navy Chief?

I'd love to. I am a retired Navy Commander myself. Chiefs are the backbone of the Navy. You want something done, a Chief will get it done. It's what they do, and they take great pride in that talent.

How about a guy who commanded men to service B52s . . . and worked with thermonuclear weapons? EDIT: You know, the big boom. You might have heard of nukes. There's been a few news stories about them. That's . . . THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS dude. K?

And? President George H W Bush signed an executive order removing tactical nukes from the inventory. It made our lives on ships at sea a lot easier. One less thing to go wrong, one less hassle to deal with. The strategic forces are still in place. I got to work somewhat with (tactical) nuclear plans in a NATO job, however, most of what I was doing was getting nuclear (tactical) COP's shredded and cancelled since the guidance at the time was to remove the tactical nukes from the mix, due to backing down from the Cold War posture of tactical nukes being an option.

DR

 

[JJR]

So I'm crazy?? Nah. Maybe a little because I'm celibate. I'm also not "Captain Bligh" because I've always believed that people can do what they want when they want as long as they do their job when the need for work arises. A Captain Bligh would think that everything is an emergency.

This does not change the fact that when there IS an emergency . . . it is time for action. A lack of action indicates sloth and a lack of vigilance.

I've already committed what most would call a "heroic act" . . . back in med school a kid bonked his head on the sink. While the little blonde people with dreams of going into plastic surgery stood around in shock, I an the other A students (high honors list) dialed 911, got things underway, got the school nurse, and I flagged down the ambulance. I had to sprint.

We were very flustered and we were running around . . . but that's hustle, not madness. Our actions were fast, but controlled . . . we did what we had to do in order to protect a life.

I'd do it again.

Ben Stein was on telivision recently talking about his new book, "Can America Survive?" . . . which I find extremely interesting. Even though he is a conservative and the average liberal would disagree with his conclusions, his QUESTIONS are good ones. He asks weither or not America can survive the lack of respect, trust, and love she once enjoyed.

I mean, come on. Rich folks buzzing about 9/11 conspiracies . . . when they are supposed be leaders who you would think would try and cover everything up, if anything. Stein even said at the telivised book signing (about some angry liberals), "They should succeed from the union."

Is the United States going to fall? I want to know if soldiers are truly loyal to America . . . or if they are just a paycheck away from signing up with whatever other country will take them.

Being so government orientated, I want to know if I have real friends or if I have fair weather phonies. It's time to tighten things up . . . shake out the dirt and get r dun.

I'll take the gold and drop the dirtballs like a bad habbit. Oh, and in a Nazi or Commie totalitarian state the phonies would be liquidated . . . here they are fired. Try the fire department, son.