The Associated Press (via America Online) highlights how U.S. Army suicides are the highest in a quarter century, but we have to wait until the fifth paragraph to read an interesting detail:
The 99 suicides included 28 soldiers deployed to the two wars and 71 who weren't. About twice as many women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide as did women not sent to war, the report said.
Earlier, in the second paragraph, the report states that all 99 soldiers were on "active duty." Yet, 71 of these suicides were not deployed in either Afghanistan or Iraq? Perhaps the 71 had been deployed but were not at the time of their deaths, but this is something that the AP makes the reader conjecture on his own. One is left wondering why over 70% of the suicides took place among soldiers not serving where the actual fighting is taking place.
In addition, it's not until the eleventh paragraph that it's revealed
About a quarter of those who killed themselves had a history of at least one psychiatric disorder. Of those, about 20 percent had been diagnosed with a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder and/or depression; and 8 percent had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, including post traumatic stress disorder - one of the signature injuries of the conflict in Iraq.
A history of a psychiatric disorder? Again, the reader is left wondering: How long of a history? Was participating in either of the wars the cause? Why are mental ailments such as post traumatic stress -- a battlefield-induced disorder -- mixed in with mood illnesses like bipolar which a person is likely to have had since childhood?
—D. S. Hube is an educator and a member of the National Association of Scholars. He blogs regularly at The Colossus of Rhodey.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
New Journalistic Methodology?
August 16, 2007 - 10:55 ET by BeowulfI suppose this is the newest attempt at "unbiased" reporting. Give a few tidbits (perhaps misleading, perhaps not) and let the reader finish the story and reach their own conclusion. The one thing that can be said is that at least they did give some pertinent statistics...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
You know, as soon as I saw
August 16, 2007 - 10:55 ET by TheConservativeChemistYou know, as soon as I saw this story on the morning news, I KNEW the MSM would twist it to be anti-American and anti-military...I also *knew* there was more to it that I wasn't being told.
It's sad when these are my first assumptions on hearing just about ANYTHING from the MSM...
"Yesterday's Communists are Today's Democrats....
Yesterday's Democrats are Today's Republicans..." - An analogy made by *ME*
Excuse me but how is this
August 16, 2007 - 11:06 ET by LeonExcuse me but how is this story anti-American or anti-Military?
Is it not true that the Army suicide rate is the highest in 26 years?
Did they lie?
I don't understand your anger. Instead of complaining about the media, I'd like to think this story would make you think about the troops and whether we're doing enough for them when they get home.
If you want to play the
August 16, 2007 - 11:11 ET by AgnosticIf you want to play the willfully ingnorant game then:
Are you saying that we should send all troops to battle since the highest portion of the percentage of suicides was of those that were not in a war zone.
Did they lie? No.
Did they arrange information so that the average reader would come to an incorrect conclusion? Most likely.
Ag, How am I being
August 16, 2007 - 11:15 ET by LeonAg,
How am I being wilfully ingnorant?
1) The story is not a lie. Exactly. It's a simple presentation of the facts.
2) They arranged the information so that the average reader would come to the conclusion that the Army has their highest suicide rate in 26 years (as indicated by the headline)
I see nothing wrong with this story. When you say most likely, what do you mean? You have access to the article, why don't you read it and definitively tell us if the information was arranged to form an incorrect conclusion? Most Likely? What a worthless answer. It's either yes or no. Read and pick one.
The insinuation is that the
August 16, 2007 - 11:18 ET by BDThe insinuation is that the war in Iraq is responsible for the increase, which is not founded in the data.
BD, That's just your
August 16, 2007 - 11:21 ET by LeonBD,
That's just your assumption. We have no idea how many of the 71 had served in Iraq or Afghanistan. If they've all been deployed at one time or another then there is sufficient data to draw a causal relationship between the increased suicides and the wars.
And yes, obviously the insinuation is that the wars are responsible for the increase. Common sense stands to reason that military suicides will always be higher during war time.
Shouldn't we want to know if this is true?
reading habits
August 16, 2007 - 11:36 ET by AgnosticSo knowing that readers generally read headlines and enough of the article to get the main idea the paper delibrately put any data not supporting the implication that soldiers are killing themselves because of Iraq past paragraph 10 is been up front and honest. If readers did a detailed analysis of every article they read then I would agree with your premise that this article contains all the facts the reader needs. However, I will agree that it is not the writers responsibility if people don't read and research thoroughly. However, how the article it put to print does indicate, at least to me, that the main point of the article was to once again "cry out against the war". What liberals and especially liberal media don't seem to understand is that all sane people are against war it is just that some believe there are things worth fighting for and others don't or at least don't believe in the current cause for war.
Do people really need to have the idea that war is bad spelled out to them? That seems to be what this article is doing. They hit you with a headline and a few paragraphs of support for this idea and then follow that up with some facts, if anyone is still reading.
Shouldn't we want to know
August 16, 2007 - 11:37 ET by Dan The Man 2Shouldn't we want to know if this is true
And why do we want to know if it is true, or more to the point why should the American public at large want to know?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Wow you must be
August 16, 2007 - 11:41 ET by LeonWow you must be joking.
The American public at large should want to know b/c many of them have family or friends that are currently active duty soldiers. This could be an issue that anyone of them might be faced with.
You can't be serious.
These army suicide
August 16, 2007 - 11:51 ET by TruthMongerThese army suicide victims were obviously de-moralized by the traitorous libs over their relentless drumbeat of lies about Iraq and George Bush...
They would have like to have known the facts too I'm sure...
"Suicide rates between 2003
August 16, 2007 - 13:22 ET by"Suicide rates between 2003 and 2006 in Operation Iraqi Freedom are higher than average Army rate; 16.1 v 11.6 per year per 100,000." Jerry Harben. US Army Medical Command.
"Suicide rate among all vets is about twice the national average for non vets." Michael Koplin: Suicide Prevention Co ordinator for the VA Medical Center Salt Lake City.
Suicide is often under reported, because it is seen as shameful to some people. It is however, real and sad. To date, 118 of the US deaths in Iraq; or 3 %; have been suicide.
}}---> On a more somber note
August 16, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Cool ArrowA knew a guy from highschool who had it all. Beautiful wife, house, nice job.
Going to a jobsite one morning he lost an arm and a leg in a fiery vehicle rollover. Months later he died in a hunting accident.
Perhaps we aren't getting the whole story about these suicides, but maybe the numbers are accurate.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Point?
August 16, 2007 - 13:34 ET byPoint?
}}---> Sorry eyecare
August 16, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Cool ArrowI made the mistake of assuming readers herein could draw conclusions.
My bad.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
No mistake, Cool Arrow
August 16, 2007 - 13:46 ET by RJReaders, yes....eyecare, no....
}}---> Thanks, RJ
August 16, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Cool ArrowI was pretty sure of being incapable of nuance beyond the scope of this august body.
It's not September yet is it?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
counterpoint Check out my
August 16, 2007 - 13:47 ET by Jack Bauercounterpoint
Yes point.
August 16, 2007 - 22:50 ET by 4arrowYes point.
I knew a similar guy
August 16, 2007 - 13:41 ET by sarcasmoHad all that plus hyper-smart, but still in highschool so no job yet. He tried to drive home from his girlfriend's house while drunk, fell asleep at the wheel, and rammed a mahogany tree (which still stands) so hard his '79 Camaro's engine literally ended up in the back seat(!). I saw the car the next morning without knowing it was my friend's, and assumed the occupant had died from its condition and all the blood.
He somehow survived, though, but always seemed depressed -- probably due to the head injury -- and about a year later (following some great face-remodeling by one of Miami's best plastic surgeons which made him almost look the same as before) he killed himself with sleeping pills. Quite sad.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Not so fast
August 16, 2007 - 11:53 ET by KC MulvilleIf you read the original article, you see that the Army has already formed a (an?) hypothesis on what is driving the suicide rate increase. Basically, what they're saying is that a significant number of the suicides were by people who had already shown some sign of mental illness. Then, the stress of multiple deployments exacerbated their illness, probably past the breaking point. That's something you would expect.
It's one thing to acknowledge the reality that the war places terrible stress on the troops. Everyone agrees that the multiple deployments are painful. In that respect, I think the article is fair ... we all acknowledge that this war requires a lot of sacrifice from the troops.
However, that having been said, you can't draw any judgments about the legitimacy of the war, based on the fact that it's stressing the troops. Nor can you suggest that the Army is becoming dangerously suicidal. That's why you have to be careful how you report this. You don't want to draw conclusions based on this about anything broader.
I think the original article went right up to that line, but I'm not sure it crossed the line into unfair innuendo. Judgment call.
KC, I agree with you
August 16, 2007 - 12:03 ET by LeonKC,
I agree with you 100%. Your post is a great breakdown.
What I'm arguing against is the people that think this article is somehow anti-military.
I don't see it. Now, if they concluded this article with some sort of comment on the legitimacy of the war then it there would be something to complain about.
But they didn't. As far as I can see it's a presentation of facts with some of the key details, i.e. significant number of suicides were committed by people with prior mental illness, etc.
Agreed
August 16, 2007 - 12:34 ET by KC MulvilleWith one minor caveat: The AP has a history here. They're not as bad as Reuters, but they've crossed the line before. I fully sympathize with readers who expect them to cross it again.
On the other hand, the AP report itself was little more than slapping a headline onto a Pentagon press release. I had the same questions that D.S. Hube offered. How many of the 71 were home from deployment? Were they active duty suicides, or did the total include retired vets who had been deployed? Etc. Those seemed to be obvious questions about the facts presented, and I would have expected a reporter to followup and investigate them.
I mean, if you're going to be a reporter, the least you can do is ask a few questions ...
Leon: Interesting
August 16, 2007 - 12:43 ET by BDLeon:
Interesting passages: more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan
Since demographically about a quarter of the army's field units and thus personnel have been in theater in the past year, it is to be expected.
99 confirmed suicides among active duty Soldiers during 2006, up from 88 the previous year and the highest number since the 102 suicides in 1991 at the time of the Persian Gulf War
This would also fit if you look at the army's size during the years in question. Larger standing armies will call for a like increase in suicides.
As a control group, they should look at the suicide rate for those soldiers in Korea and Germany.
BD, Yes a larger army
August 16, 2007 - 12:47 ET by LeonBD,
Yes a larger army will call for a like increase in suicides.
Which is exactly why this article is looking at SUICIDE RATE.
Sure, But statistically
August 16, 2007 - 15:08 ET by BDSure,
But statistically 99 out of the current force of approximately 486,000 is frankly, meaningless when you look at an increase from the previous year of 88.
Couple this with a mobilization increase of a large portion of the 326,000 Guard and reservists and you have an AMAZINGLY Small number of suicides on a yearly basis.
Basically you are forced to deduce causation of the 11 extra suicides in comparison.
Statistically it is sadly meaningless.
The data set could
http://www.windsofchange.net
August 16, 2007 - 15:17 ET by BDhttp://www.windsofchange.net/images/PUB_US_Military_Deaths_1980-2004_lg.jpg
HMmmm.... looks like things are getting BETTER in the Bush Administration.
BD, Nota Bene: From the
August 16, 2007 - 11:42 ET by LeonBD,
Nota Bene:
From the article:
"In addition, there was a significant relationship between suicide attempts and number of days deployed" in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby countries where troops are participating in the war effort, it said. The same pattern seemed to hold true for those who not only attempted, but succeeded in killing themselves."
}}---> You must've missed it Leon
August 16, 2007 - 11:23 ET by Cool ArrowYesterday, Rush Limbaugh pointed out that 99.9% of people who die (all causes) had consumed carrots within a year or so of dying.
A much smaller number of these victims had smoked cigarettes within a year of dying.
The logical conclusion, then, is that consumption of carrots is more hazardous even than nicotine.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Mark Twain
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
How is that the logical
August 16, 2007 - 11:27 ET by LeonHow is that the logical conclusion?
I'm not following your rationale.
Did the carrots somehow lead to the death?
I don't get it.
}}---> Again, Leon
August 16, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Cool ArrowNothing is more important than life
Holes in donuts are nothing
Holes in donuts are therefore more important than life.
It's my story and I can make it say anything I want it to.
It's your life and you can choose selective ignorance anytime you wish.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
50% of all people die
August 16, 2007 - 13:28 ET by50% of all people die within 3 months of their birthday.
More importantly, why is unCool Affrow here?
}}---> Eyecare
August 16, 2007 - 13:36 ET by Cool ArrowI have investigated your data and concluded them to be accurate.
I find 6 sigma correlation somewhere around the 6 month interval.
~unCool Affrow~
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
CA
August 16, 2007 - 13:48 ET by MightyMouthHow do you explain that 100% of people die within 12 months of their birthdays?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
}}---> Statistical certainty
August 16, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Cool ArrowI do know one person born on Feb 29th. Some anomalies are inexplicable.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Okey dokey...
August 16, 2007 - 14:03 ET by MightyMouthAs with Barry Bonds, asterisk duly noted for "within*".
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
But they don't; that's the whole point.
August 16, 2007 - 16:52 ET by100% die within 6 months of their birthday; not 12.
}}---> eyecare
August 16, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Cool ArrowScroll up 4 or 5 boxes and you will see exactly that observation. and a couple of posts after that you can read that Feb 29th does not occur every year.
Sorry I have to explain all this to you. You're really looking slow.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
So the statement "people
August 16, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Dan The Man 2So the statement "people die within 12 months of their birthdays" is not true? I say both are true to the extent someone is not born on Feb 29 and in that case it would be longer. You should not worry about your eyes because your logic is faulty.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
}}---> beat me to it dan
August 16, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Cool ArrowI was just coming back with that. I don't know why we are even bothering to address eyecare's attack on our little fun
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
cool -- I read a study a
August 16, 2007 - 13:44 ET by Jack Bauercool -- I read a study a couple of years back that discovered more people died in hospital between 8pm to 6am the next day.
So if you find yourself in hospital after 8pm, make sure you check yourself out. It could save your life.
"Take it away, Leon, take it
August 16, 2007 - 16:59 ET by Del Dolemonte"Take it away, Leon, take it away!"- Bob Wills, 1936
Just curious, Leon-what war were we fighting 26 years ago?
You might want to look at this link
August 24, 2007 - 21:55 ET by well99http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/Death_Rates.pdf
Leon the facts may be right
August 16, 2007 - 11:12 ET by Dan The Man 2Leon the facts may be right but ghow they are read and the headlines are what is troubling. Why couldn't the lead read the number of suicides of deployed soldiers is down. Of course to understand you must fight your Trolish upbringings.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan, Where does it say in
August 16, 2007 - 11:17 ET by LeonDan,
Where does it say in the article that suicides of deployed soldiers is down?
I don't see that anywhere. I must just be missing it, so kindly cut and paste it if you can.
You need to go to the
August 16, 2007 - 11:35 ET by Dan The Man 2You need to go to the source Leon. The facts not obscured by the article.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Ok Dan, So just as I
August 16, 2007 - 11:39 ET by LeonOk Dan,
So just as I suspected, you're saying you have no idea and you just made up that claim to fit your argument.
If you'd read the article (which I would have assumed you did since you feel the right to comment on it) you would notice that the AP received the report prior to its release, officially making it impossible for me (or you for that matter) to go to the 'source'.
So where did find your claim that suicides among deployed soldiers are down? Feel free to admit you misread or were just plain wrong. It's ok to make stuff up in a moment of debate desperation.
Leon, you are pretty stupid
August 16, 2007 - 14:58 ET by Dan The Man 2Leon, you are pretty stupid but you are obscuring what I did say
"Leon the facts may be right but ghow they are read and the headlines are what is troubling. Why couldn't the lead read the number of suicides of deployed soldiers is down. Of course to understand you must fight your Trolish upbringings."
Now show me where I said anwhere that the article said that suicides of deployed soldiers is down?
You fell hook line and sinker into a trap. We need to look at the data and you say we cant. Then you go on a tangent about me saying the article said so and I said nothing of the sort.
But my statement was just as good as the artilcle headlines, both were misleading and you fell for both. But you wanted facts from me and not the article?
So what does all this mean, nada, except that you are a guillible Troll.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dirty little secret is that
August 16, 2007 - 11:01 ET by BDDirty little secret is that deployed soldiers ALWAYS have a higher suicide rate than soldiers at home.
Even soldiers deployed to very NICE places have a higher rate due to associated stressors. (Dear John situations, alone at Christmas etc)
I wonder if they ever did a story that compared soldiers of the same age demographic against college students, Peace Corps volunteers, or any other group located far from their homes.
No BD. That would confuse
August 16, 2007 - 11:33 ET by bassndudeNo BD. That would confuse the issue and take the emphysis off the military and place it on the individuals. Cant have that.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
emphysis
August 16, 2007 - 13:31 ET by"emphysis" sounds like a skin disease. You are polluting an important topic.
You are polluting an important topic.
August 16, 2007 - 13:39 ET by MightyMouthAnd you're not by pointing out spelling mistakes?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
eyecare, in reality,
August 16, 2007 - 14:46 ET by bassndudeeyecare, in reality, "emphysis" is liberal bait. Seems like I caught one. Perhaps I should always emphasize when I have a hook out.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hey Bass do you have a guide
August 16, 2007 - 15:01 ET by Dan The Man 2Hey Bass do you have a guide service available?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
LOL, Dan....no, but when I
August 16, 2007 - 15:03 ET by bassndudeLOL, Dan....no, but when I retire, I will have then. I will have more time for trolling...:-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
BD, They constantly
August 16, 2007 - 11:36 ET by LeonBD,
They constantly release studies examining college students' suicide rates and the causal factors related to going to college (i.e. being alone, away from home, tough class load, etc.).
They do these studies with the intent of addressing the problems that lead to suicide in order to limit the number of suicides in the future. Seems like a great practice to me.
It's strange, but when they release those studies I don't ever hear people complaining that the MSM is anti-college students. So why is it different when the research/article deals with soldiers?
They headline it diffrently
August 16, 2007 - 11:50 ET by bassndudeThey headline it diffrently leon. They present the facts. As in the murders commited by the deranged student not so long ago, the media went looking for excuses for the beast. Home life, father, mother, uncles and aunts, neighbors, people that never spoke to him. Any excuse to make it ok. When was the last time you heard of a soldier going off on a killing spree among all his fellow soldiers? Then killing himself? The fact is they cover students and soldiers diffrently. Most soldiers who commit suicide, would have done the same, in or out of the military.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, The articles I see
August 16, 2007 - 12:00 ET by LeonBass,
The articles I see have similar headlines to this one (all I did was Google, college suicide):
1) College campuses grapple with escalating suicide rates
2) UNH reflects on rising college suicide rate - News
3) MIT, Harvard have highest suicide rates; Cornell U. not as high as believed
4) Indian teens have world's highest suicide rate - 02 April 2004 ... (not college I know, but similar - shows msm covering indian teens the same way they cover the troops - with this article are they being anti-indian teens?)
5) Utah Ranks High in Suicide Rates - Feature
All of these headlines seem pretty similar to me. So how is the soldier headline different from any of these above which i found witha simple google search?
What? Only one "highest"
August 16, 2007 - 12:09 ET by bassndudeWhat? Only one "highest" out of all those, and none saying highest in 26 years? No lies? Im agast. Seems rising would rate at least one "highest in 16 years" when it was really only 6 years.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
It makes me wonder if the
August 16, 2007 - 12:35 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt makes me wonder if the defeatism coming out of Congress and the media is in any way related to the suicide rate.
"Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! There's still plenty of meat on that bone. Now you take this home, throw it in a pot, add some broth, a potato, baby you've got a stew goin'!" -- Carl Weathers
Army Suicide Rate Highest in 26 Years
August 16, 2007 - 11:46 ET by wlcWhat am I missing?
"Army Suicide Rate Highest in 26 Years
"...up from 88 the previous year and the highest number since the 102 suicides in 1991 at the time of the Persian Gulf War. ..."
That is 16 years not 26.
What are you missing? The
August 16, 2007 - 11:48 ET by LeonWhat are you missing?
The word 'Rate'
Suicide Rate is different that Number of Suicides.
They present the numbers
August 16, 2007 - 11:52 ET by bassndudeThey present the numbers leon. What is it that you dont grasp here?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Oh....I did miss that.
August 16, 2007 - 12:13 ET by wlcOh....I did miss that. Thanks.
However, I would still like to know how it relates to prior years - besides the average of the 26 years - and the rate for the general population (as mentioned by mattm).
MSM suicide rates
August 16, 2007 - 12:23 ET by TruthMongerThe main point of this phenomenon is that the MSM is not only killing troops in the field - but they get a few bonus dead from de-moralization and suicide...
That's all that matters here...
Thanks again MSM!
Your loving pals,
Osama, Hugo, Fidel, Kim Jong Dong, etc, etc...
I wonder - do you suppose we might be able to celebrate MSM suicide rates going up any time soon with all the fanishing circulation and dropping ratings?
TM -
August 16, 2007 - 12:25 ET by drillanwrThanks for saying that ... Saved me from coming back and posting it myself upon further reflection ... ;^ )
happy to help - the leon's
August 16, 2007 - 15:06 ET by TruthMongerhappy to help - the leon's around here love to obfuscate - DNC SOP
Another Thing
August 16, 2007 - 11:58 ET by mattmAnother thing they don't mention is how this compares to the general suicide rate. From what I've heard over the years, suicide is increasing across the board, not just in the military - probably due to the moral decline of society in general.
For A.P. to leave these things out of their article could easily be construed (by anyone who has the ability to think) as a deliberate attempt to smear the military, the current deployments and the current commander in chief.
What The Media "Forgets" To Report
August 16, 2007 - 21:12 ET by stratmanI was just about to post on your topic of suicides in the general population and discovered you had touched on the topic.
Indeed, perspective is needed and required when dealing with staistics. As a whole, one might think the military would have higher rates of suicide due to the violent and stressful nature of the work and environment.
But, how do military suicides rates compare with the general population? Surely more people commit suicide while in the military. The answer is NO. The suicide rates of the general population of the USA, when adjusted for age groups and sex, are larger than that found in the military. So, you have a lower risk of committing suicide if you are in the military.
It would also be nice for the media to detail how our military compares with other countries concerning suicide rates. It so happens at least one study on this found that military suicide rates were demonstrably lower than the general population of a number of industrialized countries, including the USA, even when adjusted for age and sex.
Concerning the general US population, suicide is more prevalent in the Mountain and Western regions of the US. Californians and Texans do NOT commit suicide at increased frequency compared to the reast of the country, a fact probably dispelling myths on either side of the political spectrum. Florida is an exception in the East/Midwest, I'm assuming because the state has a preponderence of elderly population with the highest rate of suicide of any age category. Lastly, is it any wonder that the paradise of Hawaii is not a suicidal haven?(http://webappa.cdc.gov/cdc_mxt3/NationByState.asp?POI_SELECT=1989-1998&STATE_CAUSE_SELECT=SUIC9698_AGEADJ&COLOR_SELECT=Default+Colors+%283+colors%29&x=11&y=6)
To see death rates including various data concerning suicide for the nation click here. To see how individual states stack up against national parameters click here.
Another factor in the equation could be socioeconomic and educational issues when studying suicide data. Changes of socioeconomic issues (downward) have been reported as a risk factor for suicide as has lower educational level acheivement. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16279300&dopt=AbstractPlus) Could our all voluntary military, reported as better educated, be a part of the reason prevalence of suicide in the military is lower than in the general US population? Could the camaraderie and pre-enlistment screening (sociological factors) be another reason for the lower suicide prevalence? Could it be that military training may also modulate the impulsivity involved in suicide and attempted suicides? (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/9/1688)
Even the AP article states that 71 out of 99 suicides were by people not deployed to "war", whatever that means geographically and/or combat-wise. Most suicides occurred outside of the "war", substantiating the accepted fact that suicidal causality is multifactorial. Military suicide isn't always because of fear and anxiety about dying in combat. In fact the preponderance of military suicides occured in "safe" areas outside of "war" zones.
And the article is in contradiction to a CBS News report on January 14, 2004 on which year has the lowest suicide prevalence. The current AP article states a low of 9.1 per 100,000 in 2001. The CBS News report says a low of 7.7 per 100,000 in 2002. Now, I trust a CBS "News" report about as far as I could carry Michael Moore, but "someone's got some 'splaining to do".
The article also presents nebulous data:
Not surprisingly, these methods and their overall prevalence mirror the general population concerning suicide methodology. But a few additional facts might also have been nice. In one study looking at military suicides from 1980-1992, firearms were used 61% of the times by males and 55% by females, with the Army and white males (of any age or branch of service) at highest risk. (Hey Charlie Rangel, maybe we should go back to conscription in order to fix the racial bias of suicide in the military.) Now compare suicide by firearm in the military with that by New York City citizens, 92%, and one could conclude that New Yorkers should join the military to prevent suicide by firearm. (Hey Charlie Rangel, you were right. You should be telling your constituents to join the military in order to save their lives!)
It was difficult finding data concerning psychiatric illness in the military that you can compare not only in those that do/do not commit suicide, but also data on psychiatric illness in the military in different eras encompassing both wartime and peace. One thing that probably has changed since the demise of conscription was the fact that fewer candidates are screened out as psychologically unfit prior to enlistment:
This is no doubt due to the fact that a draft relying on all the qualifying age groups in the general population, rather than an all volunteer military, will result in a higher number of psychiatric illnesses screened or later determined after enlistment. The all volunteer military candidate is psychologically more fit to begin with when looking at aggregate numbers.
What would additionally have been useful was to compare suicide rates/prevalence during Vietnam and World War II. Is an all voluntary military offer less risk for suicide than a conscripted military? Is the prevalence of psychiatric illness more or less in our current all volunteer military versus a conscripted military? Was the prevalence of suicide in the general population greater or lesser than the military during Vietnam and WWII? (Hey Charlie Rangel, are you listening?) Alas, our media does not inform us of these important facts when attempting to sway our opinion on a very difficult subject.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
There are suicide rates for
August 16, 2007 - 12:22 ET by drillanwrThere are suicide rates for all professions/walks of life.
As I understand it, there is a suicide rate for medical school students, especially females.
Back in the 1980s my younger sister was attending medical school. She called home to me one night, coldly gave me that information ... and then went eerily quiet ... only a struggled slight sob coming through the phone in the dead silence. I told her I was leaving immediately, to pack a bag, and I hung up the phone and my husband and I drove up to the school and picked her up, bringing her home with us for a couple days (thankfully she was NOT more than an hour+ from home ... which is why we insisted on our kids attending a college that was also not too very far from home). Forever grateful she had called home with her little cry for help ... Today she is a very successful doctor/surgeon with her own practice.
The stress level for anyone in such intense professions (including the military) can be crushing ... and individuals handle it differently. However, the big difference is my sister was able to step away from her situation, evaluate and re-group... she even had the ability/option to cut her losses and quit school.
When you sign on in the military you also sign away a certain percentage of your individual freedoms, and don't have the luxury of stepping away for a breather, or simply just quitting. Movies/TV shows have been written about this. Catch - 22 is an example. It was also reflected in the TV show M*A*S*H with the dress and high-heel wearing character Cpl. Klinger ... In both Catch - 22 and M*A*S*H it was remarked that yes, your crazy behavior would be grounds for the military releasing you, but you'd also be considered crazy if you weren't trying to appear crazy to get out ...
Having said that, I believe with this new and different type of enemy and war the military needs to rethink and revamp its method of treating mental and emotional issues among its ranks, especially those returning home from the war theater(s) ... MOST especially those who have been wounded or witnessed the wounding or deaths of others in their company, or long over-seas deployments. We owe it to these men and women who actually sign on to sacrifice their lives if called upon. We don't owe them vague media stories that suggest (insinuate) they are all egg-shell mental cases just waiting to crack. Every war has it's share of suicide ... and fragging ... While you respect and admire the military on whole, we often forget they are still individuals with different degrees of aptitude, mentality, scruples, and values. What might drive one person over the edge might just give another an ulcer ... or another a shoulder shrug and a string of curse words.
You don't stop fighting a war because some in the ranks have, for one reason or another, decided to "check out". And yes, that is the ulterior motive in stories such as these by a MSM that has an agenda that is becoming less and less hidden.
Bias?
August 16, 2007 - 12:53 ET by scottbhDrill, that was an excellent breakdown. I don't feel this particular article is anti-military, though the AP does have a history of portraying facts that way.
I am an Iraq war vet and can tell you first hand that the increased stress of battle, being away from loved ones, and a myriad of other life changes related to war cause many underlying small issues to become (perceived) big issues. On top of that, many who have not experienced it think that coming home makes everything just go away. In reality, at least in my experience and the soldiers I dealt with, after the initial jubilation of being back with family and friends and not getting shot at on a daily basis, the other every day problems still arise. Bills have to be paid, soldiers find out their spouse was cheating on them back home, PTSD, etc. Unfortunately, again, the numbers of those who had recently been deployed were not given. What I believe the article is saying is that the suicide rate has increased. It has. The reason the military does these studies is so they can take the appropriate actions to fix it. Every soldier who returns talks to a mental health specialist at least once soon after redeploying. Does this catch every future suicide case? No. But the article doesn't imply that the military is doing nothing about the problem. I'd give the AP a pass on this one. We should all continue to read critically and form our own conclusions based on FACTS.
Perfectly stated. Great
August 16, 2007 - 12:55 ET by LeonPerfectly stated. Great post!
Every soldier who returns
August 16, 2007 - 13:22 ET by drillanwrEvery soldier who returns talks to a mental health specialist at least once soon after redeploying.
Perhaps, reviewing your personal accounting (highly spot-on, BTW), the military needs to take into consideration at the very least a second mental health evaluation within a certain time frame after the first one upon returnn home from the war zone ... It gives time for the daily home BS to bring to the surface the PTSD, or other mental / emotional problems that were hidden by the initial return home joy and relief.
It's happening
August 16, 2007 - 14:04 ET by scottbhDrill, as I recall (though I have been back for over a year), there was a second follow-up about two months after we returned. I am not 100% sure if this is mandated or not. Who knows, maybe I was one of the crazy ones? The Army also trains it's leaders who have daily contact with soldiers to recognize signs of mental stress. Again, this may not be the most effective measure, but I truly believe the Army is doing the pretty darn good.
I would love to see if a civilian corporation faced with a similar situation, though unlikely, would do the same . After all, other than getting shot at, the only difference between Corporate America and the military is that no one in Corporate America will tell you to stop working to go home and see your family.
scottbh - Please forgive
August 16, 2007 - 17:02 ET by drillanwrscottbh -
Please forgive my lapse in manners: I cannot thank you enough for your service, most especially in this time of war and terror, to protecting and preserving our nation and her people. I only have the highest wishes for a very happy and productive life for you and your family. You've earned it.
G-d bless.
In 10 years of serving with
August 16, 2007 - 12:43 ET by BruzillaIn 10 years of serving with the Navy, I saw a lot of suicides and even more attempted suicides. The first I saw was a kid two bunks down from me in bootcamp. He missed home so much, and was so miserable, that he threw himself down a flight of stairs trying to break his neck but only resulted in a lot of bruising and sore ribs. The great Navy docs who treated him were nice enough to give him a bottle full of pain pills to make the poor suicidal guy feel better (real smart right?), which he promptly swallowed that night for attempt #2. He lived, but he was discharged after that.
Aside from him, every other suicide or attempt that I personally experienced stemmed from love, and I can't remember one that happened while we were deployed. All of them occured after we got home, and people found out that their spouse/significant other had been cheating on them, had left them, etc. The last suicide I had dealings with was a wife of a Chief Petty Officer (CPO) had been working at the CPO barrack, and had been sleeping around with a lot of her husband's peers, which was humiliating beyond belief. So he went to the barrack and shot himself.
So I'm not surpised that most suicides do not happen in the war zone. They happen after the person comes home and finds out what the spouse has been up to.
I concur
August 16, 2007 - 12:58 ET by scottbhBruzilla, I have to concur. A majority of the suicides I dealt with (including one while deployed) were caused in some way over "love". It's a bitch...
Suicide in the Military
August 16, 2007 - 12:57 ET by kdoliverFirst of call to shut up any trollers--I am a combat arms officer that has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Two out of three years were rather violent. For what ever reason (good parents?) I have the ability to mentally seperate my issues. As I tell people on a daily basis--Life is what it is. Why do you worry about it so much? If I can't control it I don't really worry about it. Here in the DC area women could take a lesson. I have never seen a group of people worry about things they can't control--military and civilian.
My brother is a clinical phychologist in the army and we use to argue over rather suicide was a disease or a weakness. Immediately following the invasion of Iraq he was at Fort Benning. The mental trauma cases he dealt with started to change his mind. What he saw after the ground war was a group of spoiled early 20s that had actually faced and seen death. It was no longer a video game. These people needed constant reassurance they were heros and great people. The older NCOs and Officers were not like that as a group. Was it the maturity that comes with age or was it being a different generation what is not fixated on ME!!! I don't know the answer to that--maybe a little both.
But I am willing to believe that these individuals (as a general rule) that made up this demographic, are under 30, come from either a broken home or one where they were spoiled and the next thing you know they are in battle. Life ain't as grand as it use to be and mommy and daddy failed to instill any courage to over come adversity.
Pressure does make people react in differernt ways and this is an individual issue. Strong families and real friends who are willing to help their family member is what is needed. You can't blame the military for the actions of individuals. There are plenty of methods of treatment with in the military and if the INDIVIDUAL is not willing to make that small "cry" for help--blame the media they have destroyed alot of the nobility that use to come for serving your country.
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
I have a lot of respect for
August 16, 2007 - 13:54 ET by BruzillaI have a lot of respect for military members who are in the combat arms roles. These are often people who join the military because they want to be in the military. They don't join to get training, they don't join because they think their service will help them get a post-service job... in my case, who has openings for guys who hunt submarines from airplanes? To do the job I did you had to really like being in the service 'cause you weren't getting set up for anything great after being discharged.
As for the other folks, those who are there for a single enlistment, who just want to get their training and get out, who have no concept of duty or service to country, I have nothing but contempt for... and that means you too Charlie Rangel. These are where you see a lot of suicides coming from as these folks are usually unemployed, aimless, kids who join the military because they can't think of anything else better to do with their lives. When they find out the duty sucks, the pay sucks, the work is long and hard AND you get to do it for little pay and while you have to leave your loved ones behind, they can't take it.
Army suicides...why is this a surprise?
August 16, 2007 - 13:54 ET by LionKingGenerally speaking, people that commit suicide are depressed. Why is anyone surprised that some in the military might be depressed with the constant bombardment of negativity coming from the MSM?
[IMO, the MSM, by and large, are guilty of TREASON!!!]
I think you are giving the
August 16, 2007 - 15:16 ET by scottbhI think you are giving the media way too much credit. A majority of soldiers know the media is against the war and will do what is necessary to take down Bush. Is it wrong? You bet, but I highly doubt soldiers are shooting themselves because Katie Couric does a BS news story or no-name AP reporter guy writes some opinion-filled piece of fiction.
Perhaps...
August 17, 2007 - 09:42 ET by LionKingI have been guilty of using hyperbole and sarcasm, but...remember, many of these soldiers are still just kids. Being soldier creates maturity in some areas, but not all.
[On the off chance that someone in the MSM might read our comments, I was hoping to give them food for thought at their potential role in this crisis with their negative propaganda.]
The more people, the higher the suicide rate.
August 16, 2007 - 15:02 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWhat's missing here is the fact that the numbers of people in the Army is also much higher since we are now engaged in a global conflict versus local conflicts 26 years ago.
I would say the numbers reflect that.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
I'm disgusted
August 16, 2007 - 17:24 ET bySo many of you so badly want this topic to not exist!
If I mention it, I'm a troll; a communist; a fascist; hell- even both at the same time, depending on who you ask.
If a soldier commits suicide, they don't exist. If they turn out to be gay, they don't exist. If they die in Iraq, they don't exist. (just ask their mothers) If they are injured and now crippled, (a massive number) they don't exist.
There is even a move to downgrade the number of surviving injured US service personel (about 40,000? (correct me)) because some were "psychological".
Come on!!! I know this isn't the US speaking. The US is way above that.
It's mean little twits who have to finish each comment with something meaningful like;
"Nuke 'em while yer plaayy yer banjo" or "Club a retard, and save a ;......." or : "it's better to rah rah rah".... "If you support the troops, but not...." etc etc
I support the troops. This was a serious topic; suicide by troops.
Many of you should be ashamed.
Go on then. Block me. I'm ashamed to be here anyway.
I've asked you before, eyecare
August 16, 2007 - 17:26 ET by RJ...but no response...does it hurt when you contort your brain that way? I'm actually quite serious. For example, does changing personas like that give you migraines?
Youcare?
August 16, 2007 - 17:32 ET by Cool ArrowIf you'll scroll up, I'm betting you can find a little light banter of your own initiated with a claim half of the people who die do so within 3 months of their birthday.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Check the times then, both
August 16, 2007 - 17:47 ET byCheck the times then, both of you.
It's been going on for hours, and yes, I have answered a few *%$@s with banter, hoping they would realise how stupid they sound.
Wrong site for that, clearly.
Are you two really coming back on here to say "MMNNN! SO THERE!!! HARRUMPPHH!!!" on the subject of suicide?
Well done.
Is your point of view that
August 16, 2007 - 18:06 ET by BDIs your point of view that US soldiers are victims? Pawns?
If so, it is not appreciated.
eyecare doesn't care
August 16, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Cool ArrowInitially my reaction was that I didn't know enough about the manipulation of the data to contribute a refutation.
I followed a line of logic that data can be misapplied to say just about anything you want it to.
After some thought I volunteered a story involving a friend who (may have) committed suicide after suffering a terribly disfiguring car accident. My implication being that some of the Army suicides may be of similar nature.
You, eyecare, either feigned stupidity at linking the anecdote or you, eyecare, actually were too stupid to make the connection when you immediately answered with a one word post: "Point?".
Given your refusal or inability to reason acutely, I chose to treat you as a troll.
You haven't convinced me otherwise with your newfound case of concern.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool, I'm pleased to
August 16, 2007 - 18:45 ET by BlondeCool,
I'm pleased to confer upon you my formerly held title of "resident troll kicker" here.
I've been trying to quit this bad habit for a long time, now....so it's all yours.
Well, except for Leon.
}}---> Honored m'Lady
August 16, 2007 - 18:47 ET by Cool ArrowDo I get dubbed with that big Valkyrie sword?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Absolutely. By the
August 16, 2007 - 18:52 ET by BlondeAbsolutely.
By the Valkyrie.
Can you hear the choppers and see Robert Duvall?
What a scene!
}}---> Duvall
August 16, 2007 - 18:55 ET by Cool ArrowI smell Napalm!
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
I think it's..... "I love
August 16, 2007 - 18:58 ET by BlondeI think it's.....
"I love napalm in the morning. It's the smell of.......VICTORY."
I absolutely love when they steal the colonel's surfboard. That's one of those movies I watch every time it's on.
I can definitely hear
August 16, 2007 - 19:33 ET byI can definitely hear banjos.
How can you love that movie when you love war so much?
damn, that's gotta hurt
August 16, 2007 - 19:36 ET by RJtwisting your little brain up in knots like that.....
}}---> As if eyecare
August 16, 2007 - 19:37 ET by Cool ArrowI loved "Silence of The Lambs" but it doesn't mean I eat human flesh.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
}}---> Again the banjos
August 16, 2007 - 19:41 ET by Cool ArrowAgain with the banjos.
Eyecare, do you have a Ned Beatty fetish?
I think you just squealed on yourself.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
When all your hootin an
August 16, 2007 - 19:54 ET byWhen all your hootin an hollerin calms down, I'm sure you'll be ready to say something!
}}---> You think eyecare?
August 16, 2007 - 20:04 ET by Cool ArrowYour proclivities are your own business. Please, keep it between yourself and consenting adults.
Beyond that, I guess, be safe.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
That comment was not
August 16, 2007 - 22:44 ET by 4arrowThat comment was not humouros twenty-five years ago.
Furthermore eyecare
August 16, 2007 - 18:39 ET by Cool ArrowAw shux
He done cut and run.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Dinga ding ding
August 16, 2007 - 19:37 ET byDinga ding ding ding....
Danga dang dang dang......
(Distant shot of canoe, and a bridge......)
He/she did not cut and run.
August 17, 2007 - 02:35 ET by 4arrowHe/she did not cut and run. Just did not want to waste pearls.
Sadly, I believe the desire
August 16, 2007 - 18:03 ET by BDSadly, I believe the desire to widely publicise this issue is based on a liberal belief that military personnel are nothing more than pawns and victims. Hence, those of us in the militarys automatic desire to NOT be seen in that light.
1.) The suicide rate of US troops is NOT significantly changing (99 vs 880 for a population approaching a half million personnel of a young demographic, is at worst of times, not a large percentage.) in fact I would say that there are many other career fields that have a more significant mortality rate for this.
2.) Believe it or not, a larger casualty producing factor for our sodliers today is the motorcycle. Why are liberals not pushing for a prohibition against them or at least more scrutiny by the media. Why do they not? Because that would not follow the pro-forma "Victims and Pawns' viewpoint that the liberal media are so enamored of.
"Pawns and Victims" is not
August 16, 2007 - 18:16 ET by"Pawns and Victims" is not what I would call soldiers. However, people I respect are sent to places by politicians I don't respect, to get killed.
1) I was never making an argument about whether soldiers are killing themselves more, or not. I provided some stats, as at today's date, but was mostly insulted by the fact that oxygen thieves were even debating the issue.
2) I'm sure you are right about the motorcycle. Even with the helmet laws, they are still the biggest killer of under 25s in most developed countries. In under developed countries where helmets aren't enforced, the death rates are just about though the roof.
So you do not respect the
August 16, 2007 - 18:27 ET by BDSo you do not respect the political leadership involved, and thus view the resultant casualties as victims. By the way, none of me or my troops have ever been sent anywhere "To get killed." in my case, my guys and I were tasked with finding the bad guys and having our side kill or capture them. Shades of George C Scott as George S Patton....
1.) Why would you be insulted that the "Oxygen theives" as you call them were debating the issue? I thought in todays society everything (oops, everything not PC at least) was open to debate. PC items (Global warming etc) apparently are NOT open to debate.
2.) You concurred with my second point, yet it surprises you that more stories have not been done about the motorcycle in the hands of US fighting men. Why is this? Because as previously stated it does not fit the desired political template of the press. US troops killing themselves by riding crotch rockets is not noticeable, but a tiny minority of suicide does because it fits the victim template.
As stated before, unlike librals, we are NOT victims.
BD-
August 16, 2007 - 18:29 ET by drillanwrBy the way, none of me or my troops have ever been sent anywhere "To get killed." in my case, my guys and I were tasked with finding the bad guys and having our side kill or capture them. Shades of George C Scott as George S Patton....
Thanks, man. G-d bless. <salute>
Nodda problem
August 16, 2007 - 18:33 ET by BDNodda problem
God is censored?
August 16, 2007 - 19:34 ET byGod is censored?
Eyecare defers answering my
August 17, 2007 - 08:49 ET by BDEyecare defers answering my two points above, only to ask about someone who wishes to not offend in the spelling of the deities name?
I guess I declare victory and will move on....
Aha!!!! Eyecare
August 17, 2007 - 09:34 ET by BDAha!!!! Eyecare replies!
Below is his comment followed by my reply.
From Eyecare:How it got this far, I can not imagine.It's true. I do not respect the political powers controlling this war.
I think GW Bush is an idiot, and most people are on my side.I'm sick of all this talk about how you don't respect the troops if you don't respect the mission. That is just shit. Anyone who believes that, will throw their neighbours' kids in front of enemy guns because of an idiot like GW Monkey.
Ironically, non of his kids are in the firing line! If his friends's kids are/were in the firing line, I'm sure that has been corrected, and look, non of Congress's kids are either!Amazing! What about rich kids? Oil kids? Your kids?.......Maybe you didn't get sent off to "get killed".
Plenty are now, though, in the new Vietnam.Shit on all of my opinions that you like, sir/madam. That is your right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From BD:
1.) Reference your respect of the military, I imagine you do respect the military, in the same pitiful way you respect special olympics athletes....
2.) Reference your notation that the current leadership does not have anyone serving in the military. What would you say if I were to tell you that the current military self identifies as 85% conservative?
Sooo, what does that mean? That means a conservative politician, father, mother or child is at least six times more likely to have a family member serving in the military than a liberal will. Personnally I am currently an O-5 in the US Army, have been two Iraq twice and my child is too young to serve in the military. If she decides to joint the Army like her old man in about 13 years that will be a great honor.
3.) You indicate that you believe that GWB is an idiot, but give no proof. Please tell me what would lead you to believe that this Harvard MBA acheiving, former Governor of Texas, two time presidential election winning, Commander in chief who has fought the GWOT with unprecedentedly low levels of loss of life is an idiot.
4.) Regarding your assessment that the current GWOT is "The new Vietnam". I must CONCUR with you that it is becoming the new Vietnam, but not militarily. If you study history you will find that the US Army had virtually destroyed the VC and decimated the NVA in 1973 when it was forced by the weebies in the US to withdraw. The NVA had to chill out and rebuild itself until 1975 when it attacked again, this time using the generational seed corn in its effort. Therefore the parallel between this war and that is that the liberals in the US are as usual the national self-loathers (Relentlessly non-ethnocentrics)as eager to surrender as they ever have been.
It is stunning to me that in this war we have people in congress saying the US Army is defeated after having only suffered 2,500 KIA in 5 years. STUNNING Cowardice in my view.
PMs are PMs where I come from
August 18, 2007 - 20:40 ET byForgive me for not understanding the protocol here on far right exremist sites! I thought private messages were there to be private messages. Silly me.
Fortunately, everyone can now see that nothing I said was particularly bad, especially compared to the scary ideas of BD.
I'm not ashamed of my feelings about GW Bush. He is the most dangerous man in the world. The only thing more dangerous is the fact that people voted for him.
And I proudly wear my new T shirt, delivered just the other day.....
"Families is where our nation finds hope. Where wings take dream."
"However, people I respect
August 17, 2007 - 10:56 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"However, people I respect are sent to places by politicians I don't respect, to get killed."
I believe someone said it yesterday, but apparently I need to remind you today:
Soldiers are not sent places "to get killed" they are sent places to do a job. Yes, the job is brimming with danger and hostilities, nevertheless every single person that is in the military today VOLUNTEERED for duty. If the "people [you] respect" volunteered not understanding that the life of a serviceman is one of personal sacrifice and our nation's defense comes first, then they are quite dim. If you respect them so much why can't you respect the fact that they signed up of their own choosing?
Do mining companies send people into mines to get killed? No, but it happens.
Do police chiefs send cops out to get killed? No, but it happens.
Do firefighters respond to calls to get killed? No, but it happens.
See where I'm going with this?
All of the things I mentioned are voluntary. If someone signs up for military service thinking they won't ever see combat/be deployed to a war zone, then they are not very bright and signed up for the wrong reasons.
How does the military's suicide rate compare with the general population's suicide rate (which BTW, the military's numbers are probably included in the CDC's suicide rate statistics)?
Why didn't the article talk about Air Force, Navy, or Marine suicides? They are deployed and see combat operations too.
"Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! There's still plenty of meat on that bone. Now you take this home, throw it in a pot, add some broth, a potato, baby you've got a stew goin'!" -- Carl Weathers
* Great Speech
August 16, 2007 - 17:55 ET by rob6677I know one soldier in particular that would frown on this sort of anti-military blabber!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
Which part is anti military
August 16, 2007 - 18:01 ET byWhich part is anti military blabber?
I admire anyone who is a soldier.
* eyeknow!
August 17, 2007 - 03:33 ET by rob6677The comment you just made!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
move post
August 16, 2007 - 18:34 ET by Cool ArrowReposted where pertinent
Government and citizens
August 16, 2007 - 21:05 ET by 4arrowGovernment via citizens need to pay military men and women more than a living wage. Does anyone here remember the tragic story of the young lad, son of an American soldier Dad and an Irish (right from Ireland) Mother. The boy killed himself because there was not enough food to go around for his siblings, so he ended his life. This story was reported once and then no more was heard.
Anyone?
Choose to ignore eh?Pay
August 16, 2007 - 23:00 ET by 4arrowChoose to ignore eh?
Pay the troops!
More than is paid to Hollywood sluts.
We're watching.
}}---> 4arrow - bot mailer?
August 17, 2007 - 04:58 ET by Cool ArrowHas anyone noticed 4arrow's posts read like one of those catch-all spam subject lines designed to draw your attention to low prices on enhancement drugs?
4arrow, Arguing for Free is two doors down at MontyPython.Com
Here are the answers to your last 2 posts.
I don't remember any story about an American GI/Irish wife who have a kid who commits suicide to feed family. You really swallow a hook deep don't you?
I chose to ignore it because if something interests me, I can research it myself rather than ask you to do it. So, research it yourself and come back with something that makes sense.
Pay the troops? Are you claiming they aren't being paid? I don't think so
Pay them more than Hollywood sluts? I have no idea how much you pay "hollywood sluts" as that is generally a private transaction.
From what I can glean from the thought fragments you manage to post, you are a Nanny State crybaby.
"Mommy, we've still got money. Look at all these checks in your checkbook"
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Yep cool -- he's a real odd
August 17, 2007 - 05:04 ET by Jack BauerYep cool -- he's a real odd one. Maybe he's a trained monkey.
Same Old Spin
August 17, 2007 - 02:06 ET by Sua Sponte 75This is just like the spin they put on the incidents in which a husband had murdered his wife (flashback to Bragg incidents) and the MSM trying to spin the fact that these guys were so hardened and mental that these incidents occured. What they failed to mention is that in these incidents, only a few had actually been deployed and out of those only a couple had actually been involved in direct action. They also fail to mention that these individuals had a long history of family problems well before hand. Many, many troops die every year and none of them are combat related, many die in a combat zone due to non-combat related incidents (which is rarely if ever noted by the media). Of course the article is not "anti-military" in a sense, but yet again another avenue of which to undercut the military and BDS. Anything and everything that happens in the world is the administrations fault, as if there were no war going on that would mean there would never again be military related deaths somehow. People just don't wake up one morning and decide to take their own lives, there has been a history with them. This article is a prime example of not neccisarily lying, however at the same time not revealing the entire story. To me and others, that's pretty much the same thing as lying.
"Sorry folks, the park is closed, the moose out front should have told you"
Our military men and women
August 17, 2007 - 02:59 ET by 4arrowOur military men and women should earn more than the candyasses who report on them and the "comedians" who passive/agressively put them down.
}}---> "should" is unrealistic
August 17, 2007 - 05:02 ET by Cool ArrowI'll bet if you were king of the forest things would be different, huh.
"Each according to his ability" sounds good. I say we try that, huh?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~