What the hells going on. 17 of our soldiers committed suicide. On morning talk shows. There were estmated 24 in all of WW II did this. But were talking about one bitchen war WWII. Why in the hell in this walk over would our men be doing this. Our leader ship in the lower ranks better be looked at.
17 Suicides In Iraq
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
my brother knew 3 guys who killed themselves in bootcamp a few months back.. our generation is soft..
the men who fought in WWII grew up during the depression..
people then were hard.. they were survivors.
how much has changed
the men who fought in WWII grew up during the depression..
people then were hard.. they were survivors.
how much has changed
If you looked into the hearts of the soldiers...9 out of 10 are in the service for the money...not to serve the US. They'd care less...they want a a free ride to school (like I did). They dont wanna be there, and a day to them feels like forever (like for me). They have been lied to and now their lives are turned upside down. So trust me, 200+ shouldnt surprise you. In fact, Im surprised the number is that LOW.
That is interesting. I guess the question in my mind is why did they commit suicide? Are there any reasons other than being emotionally unstable that accounts for most suicides in general?
Fear of death or injury are emotions contradictory of suicide candidates?????
------Hellah always interested in your views as it is one few on site opinions we get.
I can't think of any war where 9 out of 10 wouldn't rather be home with their family's instead of stuck far away in life threatening situation.
While your generation and my generation has fought it's skirmishes I think back to what the generation before us encountered when they stormed the beaches knowing 60% would not make it back and my experiences pale in comparison.
I know there are those that will say that was different,but the bottom line--in world war 2 we had 2,403 americans killed on american soil(Pearl Harbor), and after adding up those on the planes,in the towers and pentagon on 9-11 you can just about triple that.
So do not think your time spent there was in vain. I and many americans appreciate and am thankful for your efforts.
Fear of death or injury are emotions contradictory of suicide candidates?????
------Hellah always interested in your views as it is one few on site opinions we get.
I can't think of any war where 9 out of 10 wouldn't rather be home with their family's instead of stuck far away in life threatening situation.
While your generation and my generation has fought it's skirmishes I think back to what the generation before us encountered when they stormed the beaches knowing 60% would not make it back and my experiences pale in comparison.
I know there are those that will say that was different,but the bottom line--in world war 2 we had 2,403 americans killed on american soil(Pearl Harbor), and after adding up those on the planes,in the towers and pentagon on 9-11 you can just about triple that.
So do not think your time spent there was in vain. I and many americans appreciate and am thankful for your efforts.
cant argue with that 
yea most guys prolly kill themselves due to not handeling it. I know some said that they would rather die then to deal with the heat...i didnt know if they were serious or not. And yes, my generation has bigger pussies then any generation in the past. We were raised with TV, McDonalds, and Nintendo.
I always have and always will be proud of past soldiers who have fallen in the name of freedom....thanks
yea most guys prolly kill themselves due to not handeling it. I know some said that they would rather die then to deal with the heat...i didnt know if they were serious or not. And yes, my generation has bigger pussies then any generation in the past. We were raised with TV, McDonalds, and Nintendo.
I always have and always will be proud of past soldiers who have fallen in the name of freedom....thanks
Last edited:
Yes that's interesting statement. another reason many are in the service Hellah10 is they need a job. When we lose all the jobs we have last 3 years. Hey you got a family to feed. It's better then not haveng one. That number 200 has to be off. Man I thought 17 was high. If it's true over 200 then we dam sure have leader ship problems someplace. I believe are friend DTB would agree.
I mean this so called war is only 7/8 months old.
I mean this so called war is only 7/8 months old.
Blitz said:
The same lie I have recieved....
No GI Bill...
What they told me was..
"Specialist, you seem to be over qualified to recieve this bill. Your more valuable to us then to any 4 year college"
what a crock of shit. Over qualified? Sure I have 2 MOS's and my wings...but fawk that...I think an infantry person is more valuable. Anyhoo...I bitched and bitched and bitched...and finally they gave me like 3 grand. Enough for 1 lousy semester.
But to these guys, I think its more then that...cuz they all had plans for when they come home. Most of them were told that they will be returning in 6 months or 9 months...and now, they have been their longer then what they have told them. Yea sure you can say deal with it, its the army....but what about your life? What about those guys who are married? Every camp I visited, there were 2 or 3 "Dear John" letters everyday - now army or no army...fawk that, my wife dumping me cuz Im 6000 miles away? Im sorry, but I would put my family and education before anything. But thats just me...All my drill sergeants ever said was "this country isnt worth dieing for, but stand proud privates"
Hellah Are you serious they say your not entitled to GI Bill. I am curious as to what has changed since I got out. Everyone was entitled with out exception. Hmmm that is interesting and would definately give me a case of the red ass.
DJV Blaming the suicide issue on anyone or thing other than the person doing so is mute. Whether the guy goes off to college or military or anyone the ratio of Dear Johns will not vary.
It is not the issues of life committing the suicides it is how the person handles them and reacts. Make sense?
DJV Blaming the suicide issue on anyone or thing other than the person doing so is mute. Whether the guy goes off to college or military or anyone the ratio of Dear Johns will not vary.
It is not the issues of life committing the suicides it is how the person handles them and reacts. Make sense?
That's what a drill Sergeants said. He should be shot. All mind ever said was God And Country. I believe mind was correct. I mean no leader like a Sergeant should speek like that. I ended up as a E6. And noway would I ever talk like that. You lead or get the hell out of the way.
djv said:
Holy bandit, call Ripley's I agree with djv
- Sound to me like poor leadership, if troops are bitching they are happy. In regards to the suicide....well I agree with the soft statements. I did a hitch during some pretty interesting times, granted I never saw combat but did spend over 300 days in the field the first two years I was in. I guess times have really changed, in the unit I was in we all wanted that unit patch on the right arm:shrug:
These guys with the families should of thought of the possibility of long deployment's before they signed up or re-uped. I do have sympathy for them, but it seems to me a lot of them liked the bennies of being in the reserves until they were called to do what they are actually there for...
yea i was shocked when i heard it. but someone pissed him of. This Drill was special forces, ranger, was in teh airborne..panama, the desert...yada yada...he had 2 years left till he retired...i think he was just sick of it. i always kept my mouth shut...never said word. i was one of those privates that made sure the drill didnt know my name by heart. ya make alot of friends that way
DTB I dont want to blame. Im just shocked at that number after 8 months. And some of the company commanders and even lower such as platoon sergeants. They should be aware or see something that is telling enough to say something. This 200 has to be wrong. I just have to much faith in mankind. Heck 17 seemed high.
Once again, Democrats, to divert the public's attention from their persistent obstruction in the war on terror, are falsely accusing Republicans of challenging their patriotism.
The flap concerns a 30-second Republican TV ad showcasing Democratic resistance to the president's efforts to defeat international terrorism. The ad shows clips of President Bush's last State of the Union address. In the first he says that with just one vial or canister in the wrong hands this country could experience horror like never before.
In a later clip, President Bush is shown pointing out that his opponents want to wait until the terrorist threat to us is imminent before taking action. They would prefer to retreat and put our national security in the hands of others, he says. A graphic then encourages people to support President Bush's policy of preemptive self-defense.
Democrats, including Senator Tom Daschle, started screaming bloody murder about the unfairness of the ad. You see, it's OK for Democrats to lie about Republicans wanting to starve schoolchildren, but it's wrong for Republicans to tell the truth about the Democrats' policies of appeasement toward terrorists and nations supporting them.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Daschle said, "It's wrong. It's erroneous, and I think that they ought to pull the ad. We all want to defeat terrorism." But "to chastise and to question the patriotism of those who are in opposition to some of the president's plans I think is wrong."
What? Where in the ad did President Bush question the Democrats' patriotism? He said nothing about that. He merely stated accurately their opposition to his policy of preemption and his decision to strike even without the approval of every nation on the planet.
Just what about those statements is wrong, Senator Daschle? If you are ashamed that President Bush is accurately characterizing your endless opposition, and if you think it makes you and your colleagues look unpatriotic, then perhaps you should consider changing your policies. But don't blame President Bush for pointing out the folly of your policies. And don't issue disingenuous preemptive political strikes against Republicans claiming they've questioned your patriotism when they haven't. But if that shoe fits and you don't like the way it looks -- that is, if you find it politically unstylish -- by all means, take it off.
Despite the Democrats' indignant protests about their patriotism, President Bush isn't making the charge that they are unpatriotic. But he is saying that their policies regarding the war on terror are reckless, foolish and contrary to our national security interests.
You see, when it comes to the War on Terror, Democrats want to have it both ways. They want to appear supportive of our troops and the cause, but they insist on criticizing and undermining President Bush every step of the way.
Early on, Democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table before they would reluctantly sign on to a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Being astute observers of the public mood, they climbed on board when they understood that the political winds were blowing strongly in favor of preemptive action against Saddam.
Before the invasion, they tried desperately to backpedal and make excuses, from charges of "unilateralism" to "imminent quagmire," obviously fearing that Bush's popularity as a wartime president would be nearly impossible to shake.
In the first phase of the war, they continued to whine, from repeated concerns about quagmires again to broken supply lines due to a precipitous ground war. Upon our decisive victory they began efforts to discredit it, from saying the Iraqis weren't welcoming us to complaining about stolen museum property.
During our laborious and thankless task of helping the Iraqi people to establish self-rule amidst terrorist-spawned resistance, they have chosen to focus their energies on criticizing the president for his alleged lack of a plan, instead of offering constructive assistance.
Over and over, they have given a little, then taken it back. Instead of "leaving politics at the water's edge," they have made partisanship their highest priority at the expense of the national interest.
Democrats would love nothing more than to intimidate Republicans from discussing their intrinsic weakness on national defense issues. In a time when our national security is under direct assault they can't afford to bear the dovish image they usually wear so proudly.
Nothing is more legitimate than for Republicans to highlight their opponents' dangerous policies in the war on terror. Instead of withdrawing the ads, Republicans should produce dozens more and saturate the airwaves.
The flap concerns a 30-second Republican TV ad showcasing Democratic resistance to the president's efforts to defeat international terrorism. The ad shows clips of President Bush's last State of the Union address. In the first he says that with just one vial or canister in the wrong hands this country could experience horror like never before.
In a later clip, President Bush is shown pointing out that his opponents want to wait until the terrorist threat to us is imminent before taking action. They would prefer to retreat and put our national security in the hands of others, he says. A graphic then encourages people to support President Bush's policy of preemptive self-defense.
Democrats, including Senator Tom Daschle, started screaming bloody murder about the unfairness of the ad. You see, it's OK for Democrats to lie about Republicans wanting to starve schoolchildren, but it's wrong for Republicans to tell the truth about the Democrats' policies of appeasement toward terrorists and nations supporting them.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Daschle said, "It's wrong. It's erroneous, and I think that they ought to pull the ad. We all want to defeat terrorism." But "to chastise and to question the patriotism of those who are in opposition to some of the president's plans I think is wrong."
What? Where in the ad did President Bush question the Democrats' patriotism? He said nothing about that. He merely stated accurately their opposition to his policy of preemption and his decision to strike even without the approval of every nation on the planet.
Just what about those statements is wrong, Senator Daschle? If you are ashamed that President Bush is accurately characterizing your endless opposition, and if you think it makes you and your colleagues look unpatriotic, then perhaps you should consider changing your policies. But don't blame President Bush for pointing out the folly of your policies. And don't issue disingenuous preemptive political strikes against Republicans claiming they've questioned your patriotism when they haven't. But if that shoe fits and you don't like the way it looks -- that is, if you find it politically unstylish -- by all means, take it off.
Despite the Democrats' indignant protests about their patriotism, President Bush isn't making the charge that they are unpatriotic. But he is saying that their policies regarding the war on terror are reckless, foolish and contrary to our national security interests.
You see, when it comes to the War on Terror, Democrats want to have it both ways. They want to appear supportive of our troops and the cause, but they insist on criticizing and undermining President Bush every step of the way.
Early on, Democrats had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table before they would reluctantly sign on to a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Being astute observers of the public mood, they climbed on board when they understood that the political winds were blowing strongly in favor of preemptive action against Saddam.
Before the invasion, they tried desperately to backpedal and make excuses, from charges of "unilateralism" to "imminent quagmire," obviously fearing that Bush's popularity as a wartime president would be nearly impossible to shake.
In the first phase of the war, they continued to whine, from repeated concerns about quagmires again to broken supply lines due to a precipitous ground war. Upon our decisive victory they began efforts to discredit it, from saying the Iraqis weren't welcoming us to complaining about stolen museum property.
During our laborious and thankless task of helping the Iraqi people to establish self-rule amidst terrorist-spawned resistance, they have chosen to focus their energies on criticizing the president for his alleged lack of a plan, instead of offering constructive assistance.
Over and over, they have given a little, then taken it back. Instead of "leaving politics at the water's edge," they have made partisanship their highest priority at the expense of the national interest.
Democrats would love nothing more than to intimidate Republicans from discussing their intrinsic weakness on national defense issues. In a time when our national security is under direct assault they can't afford to bear the dovish image they usually wear so proudly.
Nothing is more legitimate than for Republicans to highlight their opponents' dangerous policies in the war on terror. Instead of withdrawing the ads, Republicans should produce dozens more and saturate the airwaves.
Who gives a chit about some lieing BS add. Both parties do it get use to it. You better worry about why our men are taking there own lives. Much more important than Bush's add. Witch I did see and think it stinks. Why not a add about his acomplishments. He must have some. He spends money faster then any liberial I ever seen.
Typical Republican BS. Just because some of us believe he is barking up the wrong tree in Iraq doesn't make us any less patriotic than him. If we are to believe him the terrorists are coming INTO Iraq from other countries. So why don't we go after them where they breed instead of helping them breed more?
