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".

Thank you, that helps me understand much better things you have said here and in the past.

Does that mean the bait caught August?

You're welcome!

It is a career choice ....nothing more.
In particular because the guy went for mercenary and so on.
So if he did not join the army it all would not happen to him.
Some people would not be alcoholics if not exposed to booze or shoot themselves due to financial risks taken or overall displeasure with life..

If it was like that i would live in a country of nut cases....some may argue that i do:haha: but actually people with respectful service are usually also quite successful in life and careers.
Maybe some armies are better with character judgments but for that you need vast pool of volunteers to have the choice to begin with.:hmmm:



.................

Everyone who has seen combat has been "wounded".

Been quite a while since I last seen that or something very similar :hmmm:

A climb in suicide rates of active US army personell is reported again. By that count, the losses from suicides are higher than losses suffered in combat again.

The number would be even higher if also counting those suicides commited by veterans who no longer are in service and that the Pentagon thus loves to describe as unrelated to war deployments during service time.

The total numbers are constantly rising since a decade despite attempts to tackle them by increased options for personell to ask for help.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...icide-war.html

Your eyes see war, your soul pays a price. Always.

I read today elsewhere, that the number of suicides in the US miltary has overtaken the numbers killed in combat.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-837659.html
There's not much to add - the "trauma" (also a nice latin word for being wounded) exists.


- I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in."

- "War is old men talking and young men dying"

(McCain (?))

Post Traumatic stress disorder or shock shell, pff just names, who cares about names or the crap posted by leftist crapnews like "Der Spiegel".
I suffer from PTSD and was retired in 1997 due to medical reasons (aka unfit for further service).
To fight my insomnia i need Trimipramine (150 mg) and in the morning i must take Mirtazapine (50mg).
Nevertheless i still sleep with lights on in my room, mostly with hardest nightmares when i sleep at all.
Many times i woke up, and had vomitted my bedding while dreaming.
My GF sleeps in a seperate bed because i can't sleep with another person even in the same room.
After all those years i still can't go to overcrowed place like public viewings during the Football World Championship etc. Even going to a supermarket full with people makes me shivering and sweat like hell.
Over the years i learned to avoid situations or places which could casue Falshbacks.

But what i "like" the most are comments by Monday morning quarterbacks and armchair generals like "get over it" or even better "everything will be fine again"
Everything will be fine again my arse.

The experience i made is that nothing is kept under the carpet and every Armed Service of any country does the best they can do for the men/women which are suffering from PTSD or any other kind of battle trauma.

Thanks for sharing your pain, Kongo Otto. So many people from so many walks of life suffer the emotional effects of trauma. At least modern society recognizes and tries to help those who suffer from PTSD, at least here in America the Veteran's Administration is dedicated to trying to help.

Has your doctor considered a possible causal link between vomitting and taking Trimizapine? Gastro-intestinal problems are a known sideeffect of Trimi.

Both medications have a generally dampening effect, and I am sure you already know that taking such drugs only deals with symptoms and neurologic interfaces, not with the symptoms' psychic causes. This is not meant to minimise this value of theirs, I know that it can make all the difference between a life that can be handled, and a life that gets out of control.

I wish you to have found company and assistance in form of somebody understanding this, who is capable to handle you nevertheless despite you maybe being "difficult".

Psychotherapy will or will not help you, I do not judge that from outside and from the distance. But I know that people having to deal with endlessly running memories of somethign bad and traumatising sometimes find relief when withdrawing their lives away from the crowded, people-rich places like towns and cities, and seek to start a new life in the countryside, in nature, distanced from other people. I mean that as an active decision, not just as a reaction you feel urged to obey like you do when avoiding crowds and public events - I mean the difference between chosen retreat and mere avoidance behavior. The very experience of nature itself can be healing, sometimes to more sometimes to less degree. Times of chosen retreat (not fleeing into avoidance) can be helpful. Unfortunately, for the effected subject it is difficult to decide when retreating is indeed kind of therapeutically useful, and when it just tranbslate into avoidance and thus increases the pathological net effect and leads deeper into the troubles, due to unconstructive self-isolation. So, there is risk involved when going this path.

You possibly will never go back to your former life and self. But I hope you travel a path that leads you towards finding your "new" life bearable one day.

What absolute nonsense! Any child who has ever been punished by their parents has been wounded then. Anyone who has ever been pulled over for a traffic violation has been wounded then.

Your talking out your rear. Not everyone who has seen combat has PTSD or some emotional scar. Yes some things never go away. Some stressful situations change the way we look at things. That doesn't mean its a wound. You know nothing of what you speak.

K.O. - Brother, your in my prayers. Let me encourage you to see if there is a PTSD support group in your area. There are many here in the States and I strongly suggest PTSD sufferers to give it a try. It helps many.

@Skybird - Its important to understand WHY the occurances of PTSD have increased. Think back to WW2 - submariners didn't sink seamen, they sank ships. Pilots shot down planes, not pilots. Warfighters tend to disassociate as much as possible from the reality that their actions cause the deaths of people. The conflicts that have been ongoing have not allowed such disassociation. You can make a ship or a plane "impersonal" to an extent. You can't look down the barrel of a rifle and site on a person and pull the trigger and then make it impersonal.

This is why the barbarity and inhumanity of the actions of the enemy are stressed by the warfighter. Its psychologically necessary to dehumanize the enemy in some way. Given the problem of seperating the civilian from the combatant, more and more of the symptoms displayed are of the type described by K.O. - the struggle to deal with places where there are lots of people - for example. Its like those who need to sit in a corner at a restaurant just so they can see everyone.

PTSD is real. Many militaries and countries do indeed take it seriously, and try to help those who suffer from it. Could it be done better? Everything like this can be "done better" - but don't think the effort isn't there.

I think the ral dimension of the problem is hidden from the public to give the wars they decide to fight a nicier face. I also think that in an army that is at war and where the personell pool is under stress, the priority in psychological treatement is not towards ehaling but to ensure usability in a combat environment again. In fact over the past years this has been reported in documentaries several times in case oif the US army.

Not everybody seeing the dying and destruction in war or experiencing the sensual environment of battle, suffers immediate PTS. But I am absolutely certain that something in man breaks when seing such things. There is a scar left in the hidden, in the inside. Something breaks, leaves an invisible wound. Makes your turning into a fatalist, or a barbarian dog, or a man having lost his thunder, or having lost his sensuality, sensibility, ability to admire nature and beauty. Whatever it is, the effect inevitably is there.

I am also sure that every man has his personal total, absolute breaking point. Push him beyond that point, and some core of his soul springs into pieces like glass, leaves him diagnosed with PTS or whatever. A German politician who has lived thorugh the war, put it in just two words, in the best way I ever heared it expressed: "Krieg vertiert." (Egon Bahr).

In the end, man is a creature that wants to see meaning and sense in life, and preferrably a pösotive meaning, not just an instrumental explanation. A hunger for meaning. Don't feed that, or disapoint that craving, and you see man loosing himself. Drugs. Fatalism. Barbarism. Blindness. Just consider what Vietnam did to many GIs.

That so many people fall for religions, also is to be xplained bny that: hunger for meaning, for a sense in living, an explanation why we are here. This is imo one of the most fundamental dimensions that define the essence of being human, beside the drives of survial, and sex. And it can overcome both the latter and even can make man sacrificing himself and actively refusing the survival drive.

as a footnote: Do not forget the 'casualties' among the families (especially their children) /friends of WIA soldiers and also not of those civilians, who have to live in the conflict zone and bear the consequences.

I do not always agree with Skybird ;) but on this topic he's definitely right. I think military organizations need more transparency in general and one way to do this is to have independent reviewers. In the end this would be beneficial for all...for the military and for society.

Especially if you think that the people who join the military are often teenagers, who lack the education and experience to judge what consequences their decision will have. I think it's only fair for them to see the whole story - what it is to go to war before they make their decision.

I also do not agree on statements like 'you were never in the military, you cannot judge how it is' and that stuff. Sure you do not get the whole picture...but btw...do you really get it when you were there...have you really seen all?