DISILLUSIONMENT LEADING TO US TROOP SUICIDES

According to that article



Maybe, if that's a valid criteria ... but if it is, then, according to these stats, from The Center for Disease Control:





we oughta get everybody out of New Mexico and Montana first.

To be fair, if weighted to comparable demographics, military folks seem quite a bit less likely than their civilian counterparts to bump themselves off:

Your stab at logic reminds me of the friend I have in Syracuse, NY.

When I talk to him at Christmas and it's 10' outside and they've already had 5 feet of snow, I ask him how he stands it.

He replies, "Well, it's minus 10 in Nome today."

Whatever.

There's a flaw in the logic of pointing out that military suicides are statistically lower, to a significant degree, than civilian suicides among the general population, in refutation of an alarmist spin article? I fail to see how facts which undermine a hyperbolic argument can be considered logical flaws. The hype in that article just don't cut it. Ain't no there there, no matter how much gullible or partisan press it gets.

We get plenty of snow and cold here in the northwoods of Wisconsin. Sometimes its colder here than in Nome.

While tragic, military suicides are nothing new, especially when you consider that many go into the military when they have problems coping in civilian life. And it is also true that military suicides are somewhat fewer than you find among the general population.

Despite the prevalence of mainstream media reports of doom and gloom re military morale, the testimony I've heard from returning soldiers and airmen simply doesn't support that.

Consider:

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/7775826.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

This report is that morale is high among enlisted personnel; lower among reservists but command is considering how to remedy some issues reservists have due to their reserve status. It relates to a poll in the last 60 days.

and also:

The Military Morale Myth
by James Dunnigan
November 2, 2003
Discussion Board on this DLS topic Despite the large number of reservists and National Guard troops mobilized for Afghanistan and Iraq, troops are staying in uniform. The Army National Guard, which has had the largest proportion of troops called up, has so far only lost ten percent of troops to attrition (not re-enlisting) among units returning from overseas. The normal rate of attrition, for all National Guard units, is 17 percent. What is probably keeping the re-enlistment rate up is efforts by the army to get reservists off active duty, and making plans to limit the active duty time in the future. Last week, for example, the number of reservists on active duty fell another 1,289, to 157,605. But that number is going up in the next few months, as units are called up for training, and movement to Iraq to replace reservists coming home. Meanwhile, the number of new recruits for the active army, and the army reserve and National Guard, continue match needs. For the fourth year in a row, the army met its annual goal for new recruits. In the past year, 74,132 men and women enlisted (against a goal of 73,800.) The army reserve for 27,365 (against a goal of 26,400.) A number of things are at work here. First, it's important to remember that American troops don't hesitate to gripe when things are rough. It's an ancient military tradition. But once out of danger, morale makes a remarkable (and pretty predictable) come back. And then there is the unemployment issue. Many (the army isn't saying how many, and they probably don't know) troops were unemployed when they were called up. All of a sudden they were employed again, although if the unemployment rate continues to go down, going on active duty will be even more unpopular. But the high unemployment rate, and uncertain economy, causes troops to stay in the reserves, and on active duty. Finally, there's patriotism. There is an enemy out there trying to kill Americans. While this is hardly World War II, we did have another Pearl Harbor and many of the troops have not forgotten September 11, 2001.

When I took statistics in college, there was a book that was required reading. It was called, "How to Lie With Statistics". It showed how spinmeisters can present statistics in certain ways so that the truth is either obscured, or turned on its head.

Titus, IMO, in your zeal to present Bush in the most unfavorable light, you have used statistics in a manner that is misleading, at best. For people who understand what has been attempted, the credibility of your thesis has not strengthend, but weakened, your case.

In case people are unaware of your agenda on this forum, I quote from your profile:

Rage
I wish these guys would kill their commanders instead of commiting suicide or come back to the US kill Right Wingers.

Gender, age & many other factors are not being taken into consideration here. US males (the bulk of military personnel in Iraq, of course) commit suicide at very roughly 4 times the rate that US females do.

PDF file from the WHO: Suicide rates (per 100,000), by gender, USA, 1950-1999

Re: DISILLUSIONMENT LEADING TO US TROOP SUICIDES


This is old and, more to the point, insignificant, news.

There was a brief media frenzy about a suicide "epidemic" in Iraq a while back. The frenzy was caused by a spike in suicide rates that lasted for a few weeks. Upon further investigation, it turned out to be a statistical blip.




Even if what you wrote above is true, I am not sure it follows that we should "bring out troops home."

We started this assbackwards invasion and we have a moral, if not legal, obligation to see it through as best we can, no matter how many Americans are sacrificed in the process.

"Titus, IMO, in your zeal to present Bush in the most unfavorable light...."Phoenix

My thread used PENTAGON statistics -- hardly partisan, and yes, I am absolutely committed to seeing Bush defeated in November. What Phoenix doesn't comprehend is the difference between being politically engaged and having an "agenda."

But no one will ever mistake Phoenix for a great thinker on matters political. After all, this is what she opined on her thread, "Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: 'the most important issue is national security. I think that Bush has a good handle on that.'

This preposterous remark intentionally ignored the fact that there have been more al-Qaida attacks since her hero, George W. Bush, declared his "War on Terrorism." Phoenix, who despite efforts to appear non-partisan, quite clearly has her own agenda and that agenda is to backhandedly portray Bush favorably.

Perhaps on day, after she's learned the differences between being politically engaged and having an "agenda," she will share with everyone why she's being disingenuous about her own behavior? :wink: [/color]

I am not aware of any Al Qaeda attacks in the United States since the President declared war on terrorism. Can you point them out, so I can rectify my ignorance? I also thought the current administration was doing a good job with national security.

Where did I write there have been al-Qaida attacks in the USA since 9/11?

I did not.

But, there have been al-Qaida attacks around the world since 9/11, including Bali, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and of course, Madrid, Spain.

Please don't try and put words in my mouth -- it will fail everytime.

How pathetic

Titus, there is no disputing your "Pentagon Statistics". What is unsupportable however are the absurd connotations placed on them by those of your particular partisan bent. While The Left has some very good ideas, and offers some very workable, in some cases even preferable, alternatives to the status quo, the overall manner in which they choose to poltically engage serves in the main to alienate the Electorate at Large. Stidencey, hyperbole, unsupported allegations, conspiracy theories, vituperation, recrimination, and general rabble-rousing may feel good, but managing the affairs of a nation is not about feeling good, it is about getting the job done. I'm sure you and others will have plenty of opportunity to feel good and enjoy yourselves while more discerning, responsible folk continue to go about getting the job done. A large part of which job, of course, being the securing and assuring the right of, and providing the means whereby, such as you who complain about the way the job is done while offering no real-world-practical alternative method of accomplishing what needs accomplishing, or indeed even recognizing what needs to be accomplished, may freely so entertain yourselves. It would appear The Democrats have learned little from The Dean Meltdown, but rather are well on the way to repeating the debacle on grander scale. The tactics employed by The Opposition greatly benefit the cause of The Current Administration. Cool. Keep it up ... that's the one job you guys, particularly as here personified by yourself and Pistoff, among equally notable others, are doing really well.

Yeah, but we that's because we pissed them off....oh wait....who pissed them off before 9/11? Hmmmm....why would they strike us on 9/11 if we didn't stir the hornets nest til after 9/11...hmmmm...could it have been their plan all along to be international terrorists? Hmmmm....

If the current news pans out--all the evidence isn't in yet--President Bush will likely be exhonerated for sidestepping corrupt UN officials and doing what he (and virtually every member of Congress) thought best at the time. There are growing rumors, not of U.S. origin, that high level UN officials took substantial kickbacks from Saddam Hussein in return for looking the other way while oil proceeds were illegally diverted.



So we are in Iraq. The 'anybody but Bush' crowd would now have us cut and run. After all that has been our pattern in recent history: if it is costly or scary or difficult, we just pick up our toys and go home. Nothing would please the al-Qaida more and the more they believe they can make that happen, the more they will ratchet up their terrorist activities.

I honestly believe if the American resolve was at the level it was immediately following 9/11, most of the terrorists would have already given up and would have crawled back into their holes. Fortunately the majority still do support the cause and the President.

What I hear first hand from troops returning from Iraq is that our military supports the cause and the President too.

Just because there was an attack in Bali doesn't mean the US administration isn't doing a good job with national security. Bali's national security is outside the scope of US control.

Phoenix was right.

tarantula:

1. Phoenix is irrelevant.

2. Bali is in Indonesia and one of Bush's so-called coalition members in his "War on Terrorism." Therefore, an al-Qaida attack in Indonesia is an attack on the entire coalition. That's how coalitions work.

3. The thrust of this thread is about the high number of sucides of AMERICAN troops serving in Iraq. At least try to stay on topic.

".....doing what he [Bush] (and virtually every member of Congress) thought best at the time." foxfyre

Congress was presented with a large body of false and sexed up intel on Iraq and Saddam having WMD -- none of which have been found a year on -- and linking Iraq to 9/11 which it was not.[/color]

<sound of applause>

You're doin' great, Titus. There is comfort to be drawn from your consistency. Those who favor The Right appreciate your efforts.