Rally your family and together convince him to seek treatment. It is called "tough love". Don't take no for answer. There is help for him available and I'm sure he will thank you all afterwards for doing what it takes to get him the help he needs.
Guys like him need their families to not give up on them, to not accept that his life and his mental state cannot get better.

Y'know I could see that argument being made since most rulers throughout history have been men but I don't think that women are any less prone to such behavior.

Thankfully some people in the army have a slightly deeper understanding of the matter than August.

http://www.army.mil/article/45556/

http://www.army.mil/article/72230/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...lBJ_story.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/study-8...ry?id=15872301

BTW, August, longer time ago I was engaged in a project treating traumatised people from the balkans, torture victims. Chances are I made a much more and closer experiences with what traumatisation does with people, than you. You often pose as if people having worn a uniform were a better form of human beings. But as Steve already indicated indirectly: many of these people still cheered when their leaders sent them into unneeded wars, over lies and staged events, amongst that Iraq and of course Vietnam. That does not speak for their cleverness.

People are not all the same,. some are more robust, others are less. EVERYBODY has his breaking point. No exception. One should not just look at what somebody contributes in total, one should better check what he is willing to contribute for, over what cause he is indifferent, and what he is unwilling to contribute for, even if maybe following (opposing) orders. This tells oyu much more about the human you are delaing with, than his attitude to serve, no matter for what.

To make a rough example, to make the point clear: in WW2, the most potent forces often were the most fanatical Nazi units: SS units, and later youngster and teenagers at the end of the war being thrown from ther romantic Hitler Jugend directly into the meat grinder, to contribute their share to the defence of Hitler.

Obviously, an alone attitude of wanting to serve, to contribute, is not what decides the human value of the person. You still can be an extremely stupid person, even if wanting to serve your country alomost fanatically.

That is where for me calmness of mind, realism dominating over idealism, comes into play. This combined with discipline and a lack of illusions about what war is, what it means, and what iot does with humans - this I would call calm, cool professionalism. And that is a resulting quality in attitude that you can gain without ever having served in an army. Some may also gain it inside the army. But maybe that is not because of the army, but despite the army.

In 2003 or 2002 I mentioned first the to be expected high casualty numbers for the participating invading armies, due to PTS. August, you were amongst those laughing back then and attacking me for it. You still do now, because I scratch on your self-definition and the shining armour of how you see yourself and the role of the soldiers as you see it.

That you laugh about me means little, I just find it bewildering that I, as a foreigner, seem to care more for your army's people (and that of the German troops and that of the other nations) than you with all your plenty of macho experience. But like you offended many people repeatedly when thinking you must call me a warehouse worker time and again, you now offend all those "comrades" of yours" who return from recent wars mentally damaged, with a desintegrating social and family life, and find themselves falling through the social net because society does not lend its returnign warriors a hand if they do not grin wide and celebrate loud and parade with papertanks on the alley in Disneyland. War yes - but only if the blood and the sweat, the tears and the the the suffering gets faded out. Make it look like elegant sports, like fencing in white dresses, and let our bright heroes appear as marvel heroes, supermen with a skin of Mithril and a breath of fire that razors through mountains like laserbeam to teach the bad guys the lesson. The loosers - well, not needede to see their misery on TV. Who wants to see that, who wants to be reminded of the real costs the hip-hip-hooray event costed? The silence about PTS amongst troops, in the US, in britain, in germany, and probably elsewhere as well, was ear-deafening until recently.

I also remind of the fact that the army tries its best to manipulate statistics on losses. It emerged some years ago that for example soldiers dying while being en route to or being treated in Landstuhl, did not count as KIA in Afghanistan or Iraq, but were seen as deaths unrelated to combat and happening in Germany - they do not show up in the official KIA statistics. Other tricks like this are used as well, and have been revealed over the past couple of years by media. Bash that media now!

Further, there is the multiplication of suicides amongst troops with too much exposure to warzones. Again, the army tries to minimise interpretations thta link the suicides to mental stress resulting from having been in the warzones too long. A vet may be seen to have committed suicide due to a diovorce and not finding a job after the army retired him. That he may not find a job and his wife was more and more alienated because of his immense personality changes after he returned from his tours, gets intentionally not taken into account in such arguments. Many are said to volunatrily return to the war, since they cannot get otn out of their head, it keeps on rolling and rolling, and civilian life is where they do not fit, they want back to the war action, since that is what they now "know", although it consumes them, possibly. I knew one such case personally, a German Afghanistan veteran. He fell down the whole civilian ladder: job in family business, marrtiage, relation to children, getting divorced, alienating all his friends, finally working as mercenary in some security buzsiness in Afghanbistan. He shot himself in autumn 2010. The BW does not recognise any link between his time as BW soldier in afghanistan, and his suicide in private business - both officially are "unrelated".

The usual estimation on rates of PTS amongst BW soldiers serving in Afghanistan, is around 20-25%. For other armies, comprable rates are estimated. Now consider how many troops the US have rotated in and out in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. And then do some basic math. Then you know the real casualty rate of American forces. It is multiple times as high than what the army says.

The total numbers on suicides amongst US soldiers range widely, depending on whether you ask the army, or some indipendent source, but even the army recongises that a statistzically highly significant rise has taken place. If it is just 80%, as the army claims, or up to 600% (some estimate even higher numbers!) as estim ated by independent orgisnations and researchers that are unrelated to the army, is hard to decide. I think it is more, since the army does not count suicides that are committed by vets who already have left the army and stayed alone with their problems in civilian life. And again, the army tries hard to make suicides due to PTS or caused by war-related mental proplems appearing as unrelated to right these war-factors.

I knew a doctor specialising in treatment of traumata, a Brit who was with the british army in 1991, at the Gulf. He now lives in Germany, was too alienated by what he called the stupditiy of the British leaders. I worked for him on that project I mentioned, a great man with a fantastic sense of dry humour and razorsharp mind - he was as British as a Brit can be: smart, elegant, and humorous, really. Anbd probbaly the best psycho doc I have ever seen in action. By what he told me about the background of medical caretaking in the British army at that time, and the expereinces from earlier war back to WW1, I would estimate the true number of american WIA in Afghanistan and Iraq alone to be several hundreds of thousands. And the KIA number also needs to be corrected upwards. God knows by how much.

Some people attack me when I am clear and determined about wars I see as a need, Iran for example. Others attack me when I am not all cheerio about unneeded wars based on stupidity and lies, like Iraq. But whatever it is, I find it strange that I seem to have less illusions about what war is and what it does to the human psyche, and am more aware of the need to care for those returning, than some people having been with the military and that now seem to think that that made them something better. The argument sometimes is that the attitude to serve and even sacrifice oneself for the cause (the criticism here would be that many seem to not care much for what cause they put themselves at risk, and that they do not care for the treacherous nature of those leaders they put their trust into), somewhat ennobles man. Or that the attitude taught in the army makes oyu dealing with your later civilian life "better", or ion the job. Well, in both cases the argument is not that war makes people better, but discipline. Altruism. Competence. NOT WAR ITSELF. War does only one thing: it destroys and kills. Bodies. Minds. Psyches. Own's, and enemy's. Combatants, and civilians. That'S all war does.

"Krieg vertiert." Nothing there that enobles man.

good old "Der Spiegel", still the propaganda arm of the European loony left I see. There are many good articles on PTSD available, no need to pick one with such a blatant anti-american slant.

Everyone agrees PTSD is a problem, always has and always will be, but it does not just affect soldiers: policemen, firemen, paramedics, victims of violent crimes/plane crash/major accidents can all be affected by PTSD. Most eventually recover and are able to function in society. For the ones who really go off the deep end, you can't really know for sure if there was not an underlying condition already present.

The big difference is that now, most armed forces recognize the problem and setup programs to help service members suffering from PTSD as opposed to previous wars when they would be jailed or shot for "cowardice".

Maybe, but you ain't one of them and you will never be one of them.

Oh and BTW I never claimed that PTSD does not exist or that it isn't a problem. That is a strawman you have created like this fantasy that you have any clue what military veterans have to deal with.

Oh, not to get dropped into silly wars and not wearing a uniform, neither yours nor ours, is a mishap I can happily live with. Leaves me with greater independeance of thought and wider array of options, and does not give me the feeling of getting sucked empty and spit out over excuses basing on betrayal and misleading of the people. It's great to decide yourself what you stand up for and what to make sacrifices for, instead of just following orders by politically superiors who could not care less for those they send into war. ;)

You implied that mentioning PTS in context of caretaking for psychologically injured veterans equals troll baiting. That was your charming opening in this thread, and it was completely unasked for.

Like was the rest.

PTSD Euphemisms ( Watch it. )

No I implied nothing of the sort. That was your misunderstanding. I think this threadis troll bait because it's you who started it.

You know what: I think it was a big mistake to start "talking" with you again. Thankfully it is easy to correct that.

And this is exactly what i wanted to quote - thanks.

It is not really funny, though - Orwell's doublespeak at its best, but who of the 18-year-old soldiers read that when being sent to war ?


(Also regarding the Spiegel: It is (not entirely wrong) regarded as "leftist", but it mostly tells the truth regardless of consequences, and this has brought this newspaper in a brédouille lots of times. They also attack left politicians and their tactics, and most hate it for speaking what others don't want the public to hear.
You read an article and instantly say that can't be true, only some 3-4 years later it becomes obvious that it has been)

Greetings,
Catfish

SB, A question for you and no, I am not baiting you. I am just curious.

If you were 19 years old and your country drafted you into the army during wartime what would you have done?

Probably would have rejected it, for this reason:

when I was 19, I lived in West-Berlin, and the BW did not draw recruits there (special status of the city). But as a matter of fact I was thinking extremely hard to join the army as a professional, voluntarily, if I would made it through the tests. I weighed the pro and contra. And finally decided against it, for already back then, I did not trust politicians (and nations).

If you volunteer for a military profession, then you give up the right to refuse to fight a war you do not like, but you have to go when you get the order. The decision on whether you want to go or not in such a scenario, you need to make BEFORE you join the army. Once you volunteered, the choiuce is gone - you gave it up, voluntarily and all by yourself. And already back then I was not certain that I would will to risk my health and life because a war or a mission gets ordered that I consider to be not worth to lose my life for. I have oinly one life, and I am not willing to leave such a decisiuon to the kind of political, unscrupulous retards that today dominate our world.

When I consider the German mission in Afghanistan and Atalanta offshore Somalia, as well as the KFOR operation, also several UN missions, and consider the political excuses to run them the way they get run, and for the reasons claimed by political leaders, then I am happy that I am not a pro and decided against serving in the armed forcesit. I never have regretted it in the past 26 years since I was 19. But I feel a strong sympathy for the services, and I often thouight, when we got news about the Germans in Afghanistan, that many of them maybe are like me, just m,ade one single decision different, and maybe pay for it. Needless to say, I totally oppose the Afghanistan mission, since many years, for several reasons that got discussed in GT over the past years.

People considering to volunteer for servicing, I absolutely advise not to fall for silly catchphrases and empty slogans. Every young man or woman considering it, should consider it on the basis of realism only, not on the basis of idealism or seeing it as just another way do get an income like in any other job. It is not like most other jobs. The most stupid argument for joining the army is "serving the country". That one enrages me, really. In American ears, this must sound offensive, but it is not meant to be that. Idealism means nothing when you get sent to a war like Vietnam, Iraq, and it is in a way derogatory and arrogant towards many others who also serve the community of that country, it'S people: firemen, policemen, highway medics, and so many others. Steve probably meant what I say when he said above that macho cult not only wins battles but also can make people accepoting wars for wriong reasons, or joining the services over superfiical motives. I am aware that many soldiers who fought over the past ten years, indeed thoiught they were fighti8ng for soemthign good, or they belpieved in what Bush and Cheney told them. They got lied to, and their idlaism got abused by political azzholes who do not hesiatte to wlak over the bodies if their own people that they have sent to wars over lies or weak, anti-intellectual reasoning. Not to mention the terrifying dilletantic preparation and planning. For this, I indeed believe that several names from the Bush adminstration should hang from trees.

It makes me angry to the bone when somebody gives the impression that only military service is a honourable business, and earning you citizens' reward. A silly, unneeded war is never an honourable thing, but remains to be silly and unneeded, no matter how you turn it. You can win all battles and vaporate the enemy in battle, and still it is a silly, unneeded war. And if you support a silly and unneeded war although you have the choice, when you volunteer for it or support it at home in opinion and argument, then that makes you look silly yourself.

I exclude people how get drafted and get sent to a war that they oppose. However, I cannot let them get out of the respinsibility all for free completely: even when you get drafted, you have the freedom to decide to illegally evade military service, by deserting. Under this special circumstance, I see no wrong and nothing dishonourable in deserting, but I respect the courage. Deserting under this described, special circumstance may not be comfortable and may mess up your life, absolutely. But still: the option to do so exists for everybody. It's not as if people have no choices. It'sa just that all choices come at a price. And for most people, prices are what determines their decisions - not lacking options.

I am not in disrespect for the military in principle, and if you read some of my Iran postings, you know that I can be extremely determined on war actions - if I consider the cause being a needed one. But I hope I have no illusions about what war means for those fighting it and being effected by it, and I refuse to give military reputations in a biography more credits than it deserves.

made my day. (evening)
he would play dead. or dumb. or both. or...he just wouldn't have to pretend.

I should have known I'd not get a yes or no answer. :O:

I understand your reasons for not joining the military or choosing it as a career, but getting drafted is a different can of worms.

Let me ask this instead.

During WWI you come of age and Germany sends you that draft notice and you are to report in 10 days. Do you go? If not, do you leave the country?
I am not talking about desertion. You have to first be in the army to desert. Do you go, or do you refuse to go and accept the consequences of that?

Does your answer change depending on which of Germany's wars are used in the example? I ask this because you imply there can be a war you determine as just but I cannot recall a conflict you agree with on principle.

Before all, you ask me about decisions and situation that in a way rate as extreme situations - and I think most humans, me included, can only be honest enough to know what they HOPE they would do in such a situation, if it ever arises. What people really do when it is not just words, but reality, is something different. The bigmouthed tavern-hero may turn out to be a coward wheen deeds are needed. The unheared-of silent mouse all people overlooked suddenly may becoming a fighting tiger. It is hard to know oneself. And even harder to look into others. So all my answers are given in the light of "I do not know what I would do for sure, but I know what I hope I would do". I do not believe anyone claiming to know his answers for sure as long as he has not been there, in real life.

Assuming that I have the ethical and intellectual "horizon" I have today, in this present I live in: no, I would not.

Whether I would have gained my present horizon and education back then, in that cultural climate, in that different world and era, is something different, nationalism and emperor and all that. The man I am today I am because of the factors that formed my life and left an impression. And the world allowed these factors, and prevented others.

I am only human, so I know what I HOPE I would do in that extreme situation. Yes, I would take the consequences. Either join a resistence group. Or leave the country. I even can imagine to change sides. As a German in WWII, for example. In that example I would not even consider it as treason to Germany, but fighting for Germany. A Germany without Nazis, and which has a peaceful perspective for the future.

I value the Western culture, but I know no principle loyalty to my country for the only reason that it is the place I was born in. That holds no merits. What I am loyal to is the things I weigh as right and as wrong. Freedom. To be at peace with my conscience. That is all so much more important than just nationality, or flags and symbols. Flags and symbols is not the stuff I can understand - I can only realise (with bewilderment) that such things seem to be important for many others, althoigh nit is only flagsd and symbols. Man is a strange species at times, hard to understand reasonably. However, in the end, I always end up with my conscience, don't I. And not just in this context here.

Tricky. I must precise your question: ask the question about the reason and cause of the war, independent from "nation". Answer would be: yes, it depends on what wars we talk about. About the world wars: WW1 was an unwanted and needless war from all sides, absolutely stupid, imo. I would not have joined any side. WW2: I would not have joined the Nazis. I HOPE I would have had the courage to join the resistance. If I were a citizen of an Allied country, I would have not evaded service.

If I were the leader of the world :D you would see me waging far less wars than we have seen in the time since WWII, wars like Vietnam, Iraq 03 would not take place, other wars like Lebanon 06 and Afghanistan would have been done very differently and securing defeat of the enemy even at the cost of turning the place into a miles-deep burning hellhole, if that would have been the only way. The wars I would wage I would wage with all consequence and determination, even unlimited brutality needed to secure the achgieving of objects and crush the enemy. So, history has seen many wars of lesser harshness, I would run the show by a principle of "lesser wars, but these with all forces necessary". And I mean it when saying "all force needed".

Call it: "as little force as possible - BUT AS MUCH FORCE AS NEEDED".

War should not be taken so lightly, like some nations today do. It should alsom not be ruled out so totally, like especially my own nation says. Germans love to say "Never again war!". I prefer saying "Never again war for the wrong side, never again war for evil or for lies".

Fighting the Nazis was necessary and unavoidable, absolutely. That would be an example for a war that I unconditionally support.

However, I usually do not differ between just and injust wars, but between wars of choice and wars of need. I oppose the first, I accept the latter, though I do not like the latter. But what is in "need", is necessary. War always is injust, even needed wars, it always is at the cost of too many innocents, it turns everybody into victims. There is no thing such as "just wars".