T1B

War Wagon wrote:

mvscal wrote:What unit did you serve in again?

55th OMS (Organizational Maintenance Unit), Offut AFB, Ne.

Flightline flunky, basically a glorified gas station attendant, but it wasn't boring.

I did my time and have the DD form 213 with the honorable discharge to prove it.

Don't you mean DD 214?

213, 214 - whatever it takes.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:It was murder, and now he's got to stand trial. So, does he get some kind of insanity defense? Why not?

I'm sure his lawyer will try. Insanity can certainly be used as an affirmative defense in a court martial.

And moreover, your suicide stats are total bullshit: the 150 suicides in Iraq should properly be counted as a percentage of actual combat soldiers--NOT the entire military population. How absurdly disingenuous--but typical of an Avi.

In fact of the 450,000 or so servicemen stationed in Iraq probably no more than 100,000 at the most are actually in combat situations. And of this 150 suicides is indeed a harrowing number. And again, this does NOT count those unfortunates who killed themselves after being discharged.

I was wrong--there is actually a lot LESS than 450,000 in Iraq. In fact there are only about 150,000--and of these a much smaller number are in combat.

You immediately attack Sgt Russell's military record? Based on...NOTHING. Unlike yourself, he was a professional soldier, a communications specialist, who had served three tours in Iraq. Why would a little creep like you presume to offer any opinion on someone with far more experience and knowledge of military matters than yourself? Why don't you just continue your predictable pissy posts in support of Israel and its PNAC machinations, as you have diligently for many years.



Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, more than 150,000 Army soldiers have deployed more than once to Afghanistan, Iraq and the surrounding region. Of those, about 46,000 have served a third or fourth deployment. Because of the military's manpower shortage in recent years, many of those taxed soldiers have spent only a year at home before being sent back into combat. Chiarelli said he hopes that once U.S. forces start to leave Iraq in significant numbers next year, troops will have two years between combat deployments.

Russell is a member of a group that has faced particular strains: non-commissioned officers, or NCOs. They often are referred to as the "backbone" of the Army, the sergeants and staff sergeants whose mission is to lead soldiers and take care of them. A 2007 Army study showed that more than 27% of NCOs on their third or fourth deployment showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety or depression — compared with roughly 20% of the Army as a whole.

"If the backbone of the Army begins to wobble, it's worrisome," says Ward Casscells, until recently the Pentagon's top doctor. He says senior leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, "are worried sick about it."

LTS TRN 2 wrote:a communications specialist

Must of saw alot of action. No wonder he went postal.


WW

Sirfindafold wrote:Must of saw alot of action.

TVO, Van and Dins, your thoughts?

Nice linkless edit job...

LTS TRN 2 wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... ting_N.htm

BTW, with all the concern about multiple deployments, it's nice of the Pelosi/Reid administration to decide to slash funding for recruitment and retention.

mvscal wrote:I spent 18 months over there in far more stressful situations than this assclown has ever experienced. Somehow I managed to get through without murdering anybody.

That happened later.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I was wrong--there is actually a lot LESS than 450,000 in Iraq. In fact there are only about 150,000--and of these a much smaller number are in combat.

Not all of those suicides are combat troops. Since you're struggling here, I'll help you out. Only about 1 solider in 10 is in a combat MOS.

You immediately attack Sgt Russell's military record? Based on...

Based on the fact that he is an E5 with 15 years on active duty and multiple deployments. With that experience he should be an E7 even in a small MOS like communications.

To clarify, he should be at least an E7 in peacetime. The fact that he's an E5 in wartime makes him even more of a fuckup.

With all due respect to mvscal and his service. Nobody knows, including him. Typically he knows more than me however I've heard, second hand accounts mind you, that when a unit - combat or not - moves from FOB to FOB - that unit is responsible for convoy security. That has the potential to put non combat MOS types in traumatic "combat like" situations.

To suggest that because somebody's MOS is not in Combat Arms, one wouldn't be subjugated to horrors and stress of war is ridiculous in my opinion.

1. Lowest ranking soldier in the vehicle pulls machine gun duty in the "turret". How nerve racking must it be ? From what I've heard - second hand - very. Rules of engagement. You're on your own. You have to make the call. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. You might just get to stand trial if you make a mistake. Far be it for me to assess one's mental fitness after years of that without having experienced it myself. Very tense situation.

2. IEDs, Snipers, "hidden enemies". Certainly the combat troops face this. Combat troops also have a release valve, that is, they get to hunt once in awhile. They get to go on the offensive and respond with targetted action against known bad guys in an orchestrated operation. Men like Russell, are left only to react and constantly be in a DEFENSIVE POSTURE, against Iraqis AND ... the "international community". Rest assured his CO doesn't want to be the next grill on CNN.



As usual, while I can disagree with mvscal on some of the minutae ... his insight and conclusions are pretty spot on. All indications are that his primary "issue" was in fact fear that his career was all but over ... http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -only.html

But what got him to that point ? The War. Nobody knows unless they're put to the test. The tests Russell took.

mvscal wrote:In the Army, you move up or you get put out.

Whether one is a dud or not. Seems to me not all duds get put out and not all high speeders get moved up.

Ce' lay vie, I supppose.

Tom In VA wrote:

mvscal wrote:In the Army, you move up or you get put out.

Whether one is a dud or not. Seems to me not all duds get put out and not all high speeders get moved up.

Ce' lay vie, I supppose.

the high speeders that don't get promoted get the fuck out and make money on the outside.

Appreciate the insight, and of course defer to your experience. From my experience with friends and working with men who were once NCO's and other who were officers, I would derive that what you're saying is true MOSTLY within the NCO ranks. As for Officers ... it would seem more politics comes into play there. Politics and ring knocking that at times can overshadow less than competent performance.

Experience you have shared also leads me to my statement. Your disdain for Powell and other officers and of course the infamous "Die to Death" story.

The pentagon's top doctor, Ward Casscells refers to Sgt Russell and those of his rank and experience as "the backbone of the army." So where does a lock-step racist phony like Avi get off attempting to dismiss him as some kind of total loser who was about to be fired? Sure, apparently Sgt Russell was extremely pissed at the army brass--but not for any reason suggested. Moreover, Avi's typically shallow analysis completely ignores the biggest problem--beyond the myriad of others resulting from the harsh conditions, etc. And that is the essential immorality of the American occupation of Iraq. As disastrous and incompetent as the entire affair has been implemented, the moral debt is coming due with a vengeance. And it will prove just as corrosive in Afghanistan.

We don't know just what lead to Sgt Russell going nuts. And--try to wrap your tiny attention span around this--he's just an example of a much larger and more serious problem, that of our military machine running into a fucking wall. Overstressed, overworked, NO CLEAR MISSION, and above all a corrosive immorality underscoring the entire operation. As for Afghanistan, this is related but is so much more of disastrous endeavor that it should be considered separately--at least in terms of how it will completely implode.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:We don't know just what lead to Sgt Russell going nuts.

He must've read one of your sniveling posts and I can only wish that you had been close by when that happened.

Better luck next time.

The reason he snapped ?

Bob Orr: [Sgt] Russell's father said he may have snapped fearing his military career could be ended by a stress diagnosis

Wilburn Russell: His life was over as far as he was concerned. He was going to lose everything. And I guess it was too much.


Bob Orr: Military investigators don't know what triggered the shootings but say Russell was agitated when asked to leave the clinic after arguing with a counselor. A short time later, Russell returned to the stress center with a weapon he apparently stole from his armed escort. The rampage played out quickly.

Gotta wonder whether or not the escort's career is over as well. From what I hear not maintaining positive control over your weapon is a big no no.

mvscal wrote:

Nice white flag you vapid racist fuckstain.

Thanks for the irrelevant info you stupid vile cockcloset.

Way to lie to the board and then run like a girl you vile racist pile of cumdust.

Papa Willie wrote:Democratic presidents killed over 600,000 American troops in the 1900's.

In the cases of Freddy Roosevelt and Tommy Wilson, that was after running on anti-war platforms, of course.

Come on , Dio, don't forget LBJ. And remember, in 1968 when Humphrey was appearing a front runner over Nixon, Henry Kissinger, the biggest war criminal of this century, was fully prepared to join the Humphrey administration. That's right, he would have been there regardless, which presents the question: who has been behind the U.S. War Machine since the 1950's?

In any event, as horrific and disastrous a failure was Vietnam, this moral malignancy in Iraq and Afghanistan is much worse. And as much as Clinton did his bit, and as much as Obama is playing right along, this monumental clusterfuck--the Worst Foreign Policy Decision in American History--is all on the PNAC and Israel. Wake the fuck up!!

It's worse--much worse--because unlike Vietnam, the nations we're attacking illegally this time are Muslim--and the resulting hatred of America--and the West-- carries far more threats and problems than the murdering of hundreds of thousands of peaceful Cambodians and Vietnamese. Further, the Israeli factor becomes metastasized out of all proportion by greatly empowering Iran (by undermining Iraq), galvanizing the same regional resistance to everything American, and giving a freer hand (if that's possible) to the rogue apartheid state. Moreover, like Vietnam--but much worse--the resulting criminality in carrying out this horrific crime has caused a serious deterioration in our constitutional process of government. Just as Nixon and Kissinger sought to avoid lawful behavior, Cheney and Chimp and all the PNAC gang have made a mockery of U.S. and international law in a variety of ways.

I can see you're cranky and need your afternoon bourbon, but really, cut the hysterics and wake the fuck up. Your simplistic and disastrous ATTACK policy has been tried--and it has failed. It failed in Vietnam. It failed in Iraq. It will fail in Afghanistan. Moreover, you're dead wrong about Islam simply hating the West. The Fundamentalist Muslims have in fact been given their greatest impetus in their history by this grotesque crime of PNAC and its drooling supporters.

Alright, you're not cranky, you're on a full bender.Regardless, you're aware that our attack of Vietnam was no pattycake session--any more than our current assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan. You are aware that the amount of bombs dropped on Vietnam and Cambodia far exceeded the amount used in all of WWII. You are aware that this current disaster has nothing to do with chasing Arapahoes around the plains, and that the Afghanistan mission presents a culmination of the worst of all the great U.S. fuck ups of it bloated military blundering. And if you had any real concern for the brave men and women who dutifully serve you wouldn't dare deploy them in such callous dishonor, even if it's but in a ranted daytime vapored sneer.

mvscal wrote:Muslims already hate the West, you sobbing twit. I don't really give a fuck either. Hate us till you're blue in the face but, if you fuck with us, we will lay waste to you and your whole shitty country. Bomb them, gas them like cockroaches and nuke them till they glow. It doesn't matter one bit to me.

They don't give a fuck about our innocent civilians, so I don't give a fuck about theirs. Nobody on planet earth can beat us in a killing contest. It's past time for this country to find its balls and tell hand wringing fuckwits like you to shove it up your ass.

RACK... except that I'd just as soon put a bullet in his forehead as waste any breath actually reasoning with the sniveling bitch.

This story is a shame. Most soldiers do suffer from sort of PSTD or other mental problems once they return home. The US military is not properly evaluating the soldiers during the "reintegration" period once they return home to their families.

I'm also of the belief that if the man/woman has mental problems before they go over there--that they will only worsen.

This subject is a very personal one for me.

Killed enough of whom? How many actual official kill on sight "enemies" are there in Afghanistan? A few thousand? And they're working overtime attacking us!

Katy wrote:Most soldiers do suffer from sort of PSTD or other mental problems once they return home.

Most?

I've seen numbers, like maybe 20%. That hardly qualifies as "most".

This subject is a very personal one for me.

I'm all over it.

KN

War Wagon wrote:
Most?

I've seen numbers, like maybe 20%. That hardly qualifies as "most".

I lived on a military base for nearly 4 years and it happens far more than the media reports. The murder suicide rates on Ft. Bragg alone were astounding. The government pretty much stopped most reportings of this happening after 2002. Fort Bragg and Fort Hood are two of the largest army bases and they deploy the most. Fort Bragg being airborne and special forces and Fort Hood being most of your infantry guys.

I lived across the street from a man that wiped out his entire family and himself. Was it on the news? No.

My point is that the military needs to get these men and women counseling before turning them back into society.

How many Taliban members are there? Are they all on a shoot-on-sight status? Aren't there real efforts to weave them into the government? You sound like Ollie North! "There's enemies out there"....while ignoring that Vietnam, like Iraq, was not only a disastrous effort, but a profoundly immoral one.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:How many Taliban members are there? Are they all on a shoot-on-sight status? Aren't there real efforts to weave them into the government? You sound like Ollie North! "There's enemies out there"....while ignoring that Vietnam, like Iraq, was not only a disastrous effort, but a profoundly immoral one.

These "people" aren't human beings. They strap bombs to their children and use them to attack convoys. This war is still very much a necessity. This is a holy war to these people.

I'm in full support of this war continuing as we've yet to see the last of attacks on our own soil.

Katy wrote: Fort Bragg and Fort Hood are two of the largest army bases and they deploy the most. Fort Bragg being airborne and special forces and Fort Hood being most of your infantry guys.

I'll take your word for it, but doesn't Fort Benning also supply a fair amount of cannon fodder?

My point is that the military needs to get these men and women counseling before turning them back into society.

I get that. I just wonder how much good "counseling" actually does.

As for women needing it, not to be sexist, but I haven't really heard of many chicks having PTSD. They're not involved in actual combat, except for fighting off the horny bastards who just want a "piece" of home. Are you talking about "friendly" fire here, Katy?

War Wagon wrote:
As for women needing it, not to be sexist, but I haven't really heard of many chicks having PTSD. They're not involved in actual combat, except for fighting off the horny bastards who just want a "piece" of home. Are you talking about "friendly" fire here, Katy?

My sister was over there and was injured. Her injuries ended her 9 years in the service. She still suffers from PTSD.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:

Katy wrote: Fort Bragg and Fort Hood are two of the largest army bases and they deploy the most. Fort Bragg being airborne and special forces and Fort Hood being most of your infantry guys.

I'll take your word for it, but doesn't Fort Benning also supply a fair amount of cannon fodder?

Ft. Hood is armor. 1st Cav, 4th Mech, 3rd ACR

My bad...

Katy, you're an idiot if you think any Afghanis were directly involved with 9/11. Do you even know what an Afghani is? What makes you think the (often non-Afghani) Taliban have any plans whatsoever to attack any other nations? How would they get there, they don't have a army, an air force, or a navy, obviously. And if you're implying some sort of secret commando attack, I think you've been watching too much"24." As far as the locals attacking our convoys, maybe it's because we invaded them and have been recklessly killing civilians. Sure, I don't like the idea of a intolerant theocracy, but if a Crusade is all you're really supporting, then you're fucking nuts as well.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Katy, you're an idiot if you think any Afghanis were directly involved with 9/11. Do you even know what an Afghani is? What makes you think the (often non-Afghani) Taliban have any plans whatsoever to attack any other nations? How would they get there, they don't have a army, an air force, or a navy, obviously. And if you're implying some sort of secret commando attack, I think you've been watching too much"24." As far as the locals attacking our convoys, maybe it's because we invaded them and have been recklessly killing civilians. Sure, I don't like the idea of a intolerant theocracy, but if a Crusade is all you're really supporting, then you're fucking nuts as well.

I'm all for bombing Mecca and leaving a massive crater in the Earth where the middle east once was. If that makes me a nut then oh fucking well.

War is hell. Civilians sometimes die in the crossfire. I'm not saying it's right--but it happens.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What makes you think the (often non-Afghani) Taliban have any plans whatsoever to attack any other nations?

That's hardly the point as you well know. The point is that they rolled out the welcome mat for groups that do have such plans. The question that remains is whether or not they have suffered enough to have learned their lesson.

RACK.

Most if not all the hijackers were Saudis...rich well financed saudis...The Saudi government could certainally not be in a position to put these animals up, so they naturally go to an outlaw nation...afganistan/the talaban, where they were very welcome to hide out....with everything they need. We knew where they were. That's where we went. mvscal is quite correct. Why is that so hard to understand?

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What makes you think the (often non-Afghani) Taliban have any plans whatsoever to attack any other nations?

That's hardly the point as you well know. The point is that they rolled out the welcome mat for groups that do have such plans. The question that remains is whether or not they have suffered enough to have learned their lesson.

Those that rolled out the welcome mat (Taliban & it's supporters) will never learn their lesson. At this point it's a matter of eliminating enough of them so that they can't take control of the country again.