1
   

US Soldiers on Speed?

 
 
frolic
 
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 02:25 am
When did the 3th Infantry ever sleep on their way to Bagdad?
Why are the US soldiers so easy on the trigger?
Why are there so many Blue on Blue(friendly fire) incidents?
Why are so many civilians killed by accident?

The answer is "go pills"(Amphetamines, a prescription drug, are known on the street as uppers or speed)

Here a story of what happened in Afghanistan. four Canadian soldiers were killed because a pilot was high on speed.

Quote:
'Go Pills'

The Air Force calls the amphetamines it distributes to pilots "go pills." They were quietly reintroduced after being banned in 1992 by the then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak. "In my opinion, if you think you have to take a pill to face something that's tough, you're in the wrong business," McPeak said.

There were reports during the Gulf War of American pilots becoming psychologically addicted to the "go pills" and their use now seriously concerns many leading drug addiction experts.

Dr. Robert DuPont, a former White House drug czar and one of the country's leading drug addiction authorities, says he was stunned to learn about the Air Force's use of amphetamines. "This is speed. This is where we got the phrase, speed kills," he said.

DuPont, who contends the "go pills" can be highly addictive, said, "It's a frightening concept to me from my experience in dealing with amphetamines to have this be a routine activity."

One Air Force pilot told us, "We all carry them as a bit of insurance."

Controllers in an AWACS plane overhead told Schmidt to hold his fire, but, convinced he and Umbach were under attack, Schmidt opened fire.

"Bombs away. Cranking left. Lasers on. Shack," Schmidt said on the tape.

But DuPont's characterization of heavy amphetamine use suggests the "go pill" policy may be playing with fire. He said, "People who get strung out on amphetamines are, are usually crazy. They're paranoid, they stop eating. … Their judgment is impaired and they do very bad things. … They are among the sickest of all drug addicts."


Unfit to Fly Without Pills?

Yet not only is the Air Force making the amphetamines widely available to combat pilots, it also has informed them they could be considered unfit to fly certain missions if they don't voluntarily take the amphetamines.

"A combat sortie that's seven or eight or nine hours is very challenging. You have highs and lows," said Gen. Daniel Leaf, a two star general and former combat pilot, who has been assigned to defend the use of the "go pills." He says the pills are only prescribed in small, controlled doses.

"The American public should be very concerned if we were not providing every opportunity to counter the demonstratedly fatal potential impact of fatigue," Leaf said.

But amphetamines, no matter the dose, are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to combat fatigue, and are listed by the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Schedule Two narcotic, in the same category as cocaine.

Leaf said the amphetamines are not used for recreation. He described them as a "medical tool."

"Our medical community has carefully evaluated their use, deemed it appropriate. I agree. I believe they're effective. I believe they're well-administered," he said.

But that's not what Schmidt and Umbach said they found when they arrived at their post in Kuwait. According to their defense lawyers, the two pilots were told by superiors they could be found unfit to fly the mission unless they took the pills.

Dave Beck, Umbach's civilian attorney, said, "They will be marked, they will be known. Their careers will basically be over."

Beck said, "What's happened in this case is that blame has been fixed at the lowest level, the pilots.

Capt. Matt Skobel, Umbach's military lawyer, said pilots need the pills in order to complete their difficult missions. "These missions were at the limit of the pilots' physical and mental endurance. And these pills were required to allow them to do it," Skobel said.

Pilots simply sign up on a clipboard for six "go pills" at a time and are told to use them as needed. But Umbach says he knew from his civilian job that such pills were strictly banned for commercial airline pilots.

But use them he did, along with his wingman Maj. Schmidt, on their April 17 night mission over Afghanistan, about an hour before tragedy would strike, according to Schmidt's defense lawyer Charles Gittins.

"An hour after he took the pills … he would have been feeling the maximum serum level in his blood," Gittins said.

It was then, under the full influence of the amphetamine pills, that the two pilots spotted weapons fire near the Kandahar air base, as can be heard on the cockpit tapes obtained by 20/20.

"I've got some men on a road with a piece of artillery firing at us. I'm rolling in self defense," Schmidt can be heard saying on the tape.


Copyright © 2002 ABC News Internet Ventures.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,650 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 05:12 am
Why not put crack addicts on the front line? they can say up for hours at a time.
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 06:26 am
frolic:
When you're 18 years old, you're high on life. You don't need crack, uppers etc.

What's the point of degrading our brave fighting men and women, with these kinds of posts?
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 07:02 am
New Haven wrote:
frolic:
When you're 18 years old, you're high on life. You don't need crack, uppers etc.

What's the point of degrading our brave fighting men and women, with these kinds of posts?


Who is degrading the 'brave' fighting men ?
Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach are facing up to 64 years in prison?
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 07:31 am
New Haven wrote:
frolic:
When you're 18 years old, you're high on life. You don't need crack, uppers etc.

What's the point of degrading our brave fighting men and women, with these kinds of posts?


New Haven. You have the same defensestrategy as the Ostrich.

http://www.nzavs.org.nz/ld50parl1.jpg

Whenever there is danger they stick their head in the sand. This way, to them, the danger is gone because they dont see it anymore. Your reaction is just the same. You stick you head in the sand not to see the problems. But its better to stay alert and see what happens arround you. Four people are dead and the live of these pilots is ruïned because of some stupid pills.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 12:33 pm
I gotta join the rest here New Haven.

This doesn't degrade our young boys, this degrades the senior officers allowing this to happen as it should.

These guys have heard "just say no" since the womb, are brought up to believe speed freaks are scummy criminals who belong behind bars, and then are given this same speed so they can continue to "serve their country" long past the time they are able to do effectively or safely.

Any dick on the street knows that sleep deprivation + speed =psychotic behavior.

What do you think would have happened to these soldiers had they refused the speed and said "Hell no, I'm not taking this ****, it's bad for you"?

These guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place and it needs to stop. No amount of spin makes this degrading to our soldiers.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 04:25 pm
Just because Frolic asserts that our soldiers are taking "go pills" doesn't make it so. What evidence is there that soldiers now serving in the Iraq Theater of Operations are taking "speed"? Frolic seems to rest his accusation on a Friendly Fire accident in afghanistan sometime back. The American Air Force pilot had taken a "go pill" prescribed by the flight surgeon to offset exhaustion of a very long mission. If I remember correctly the board of enquiry determined that the "pill" played no significant roll in the friendly Fire incident. The Navy doesn't issue the "go pills", and no one has ever accused the ground forces of having a policy to supply "speed" to our soldiers.

So. Frolic, will you please supply the source of the information you've led this thread off with?

Quote:
When did the 3th Infantry ever sleep on their way to Bagdad?
Why are the US soldiers so easy on the trigger?
Why are there so many Blue on Blue(friendly fire) incidents?
Why are so many civilians killed by accident?


They took their sleep where they could find it; in their vehicles and during those periods when their units were "off line". In combat, our body's chemistry changes -- attention becomes more focused, and the body tends to "reject" the idea of exhaustion. Young men can handle those stresses pretty well, especially if they are in good physical condition. Old men like us, need our sleep.

U.S. soldiers are NOT easy on the trigger. What do you have to prove such an assertion? I believe that our troops have shown remarkable restraint. Even when fired upon, they're withholding fire when civilians are at risk. War criminals use churches, hospitals, and schools to attack our soldiers, but only rarely do our troops return fire as they are permitted to under the rules of war. U.S. troops are highly disciplined, and they are not just "shooting up the town".

There are probably fewer Friendly Fire incidents in this campaign than in any in the last hundred years. Precision munitions, and the extraordinary care taken in their delivery makes the risk of FF much lower than in earlier conflicts. Given the number of missions, and the amount of munitions expended, the numbers of casualties is remarkably low.

We can not know at present how many civilian casualties have occurred. I expect that when the dust clears we will find that the number of civilian casualties will also be remarkably low. Many of the civilians who have been injured, or killed, may well have been the victims of Iraqi forces. AA fired into the air, does come back to earth and civilians are made casualties. Iraqi security forces have murdered civilians to coerce them into carrying out orders to fight against coalition forces. Tactics like using human shields, or siting their military assets in, or close to civilian neighborhoods, must also account for many civilian casualties. Those civilian casualties are the responsibility of saddam and the Ba'athist regime, not the United States.

Why is it Frolic that you hate the United States so much?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 04:31 pm
Asherman - the some time ago is only a few months.

The evidence that non-U.S. media is presenting is that the use of amphetamines in the U.S. air force continues unabated, and is continued to be of benefit.

I'd suggest that concern for the physical and mental well-being for the armed forces is in no way an indication of hatred for the U.S. I know that I don't hate Americans, but am greatly concerned about the treatment of the military and military families.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 04:34 pm
btw, I posted on this subject (the use of amphetamines in the U.S. air force) several months ago. I am not going to go and do the research again, but the evidence that the air force provided the pills was very clear - in fact, it seemed to be a matter of some pride at one time.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 05:03 pm
Ehbeth,

I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force still prescribes "go pills" as an effective means of enhancing mission performance. I didn't say that the practice didn't exist, nor that it was abandoned. All I said is that (if memory serves) it was not a significant factor in the earlier FF incident. The Navy denied ever using drugs to enhance Navy and Marine pilot performance, and no one -- except Frolic -- has ever accused the Army or Marine Corps of routinely providing performance enhancing drugs to our soldiers. If fact, even Frolic doesn't come right out and make an accusation, he/she only implies it in a sly way.

Unless you agree with all the anti-American sentiments that characterize Frolic's posts, then my question about "hating America" wasn't directed to you. If Frolic has ever here posted anything that wasn't anti-American, I've missed it.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 05:04 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Asherman - the some time ago is only a few months.

The evidence that non-U.S. media is presenting is that the use of amphetamines in the U.S. air force continues unabated, and is continued to be of benefit.

I'd suggest that concern for the physical and mental well-being for the armed forces is in no way an indication of hatred for the U.S. I know that I don't hate Americans, but am greatly concerned about the treatment of the military and military families.


I'll take your word that the reason for your attention on this matter is the health of the troops. However, the caustic, constantly insulting tone of Frolic toward our military belies other motivations.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 05:05 pm
Why must anyone who disagrees with anything the US is doing or present a viewpoint that suggests we are not the New Jerusalem but merely a country that also does it's dirt once in awhile, be labeled as an America hater?

Some people complain about things in our country because they love it and would like to see it stay the greatest country on Earth instead of erode away.

Unfortunately this "America Hater" knee jerk reaction to anything even remotely off the Fox News/Ari Fleisher beaten path allows for nothing but friction and is counterproductive to anything other than renaming potatoes and politicizing professional sports.

Of course I'm just a hedonistic Bear. Cool :wink: Drunk
0 Replies
 
cobalt
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 05:18 pm
I must be a hedonistic blue bear, lol!

There has been many, many stories in US media as well as "alternative media" as to the use of speed with our military on the front lines! In particular, I saw a CNN broadcast covering this topic and interviewed a soldier who worked in a tank at the front! Since these folks were working so many hours round the clock and could not leave their tank, they had to face the issues of the digestive process in full as well as acknowledge that they did take speed (there was a euphemism applied, but it was obvious when the reporter summarized the report).

I think that if it were "proven" that soldiers and pilots took speed to stay 'alert' then the US government would pull out all the stops to try to convince the public it was NOT supplied nor a POLICY of the leaders. As in the case of "friendly fire", the troops are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of suddenly being sacrificial lambs should such drug use be questioned.

For instance, some vets returning from Nam who succumbed to schizophrenia and worse mental disorders were said to have that because they took "illegal" drugs. There was such an effort to deny the causation by psychological shocks and by condoned use of drugs, let alone the administration of "experimental drugs" to personnel. It is / was hard to get some of the GI benefits and VA care because the government did wish to chalk the victim's problems to their own drug use, even if it was merely high quality hashish...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 07:45 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Why must anyone who disagrees with anything the US is doing or present a viewpoint that suggests we are not the New Jerusalem but merely a country that also does it's dirt once in awhile, be labeled as an America hater?

Some people complain about things in our country because they love it and would like to see it stay the greatest country on Earth instead of erode away.

Unfortunately this "America Hater" knee jerk reaction to anything even remotely off the Fox News/Ari Fleisher beaten path allows for nothing but friction and is counterproductive to anything other than renaming potatoes and politicizing professional sports.

Of course I'm just a hedonistic Bear. Cool :wink: Drunk


Balance is the key, BPB. There are Knee-jerks from both sides of the different arguments. It is, as you point out, inappropriate and myopic to label anyone who questions government policy as America-haters. By the same token, it is ignorant to label anyone who isn't absolutely rabidly against everything American as a neo-fascist. My own personal perspective is a little unique, I think. I cringe at the actions and apparent motives of the present administration; I see them as anti-humanity, and fraught with secrecy and greed. At the same time I hesitate to throw out the baby with the bathwater by thinking of all agents of the government as evil, probably out of loyalty to people I live and work with, and know to be no monsters.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 11:09 pm
I have also been accused of being anti-American because I don't like the US government. I was born and raised in the US and have many many American friends, so I resent it very much when I'm labeled as being anti-American.

I agree with Frolic and I am not anti-American. Drugs and weapons don't mix.

I would also like to add that ehBeth is right in saying that this incident was not long ago. A few months is not a long time.
0 Replies
 
cobalt
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 11:17 pm
"what goes around comes around"....hmmmmmm

I'd love to see the zealous so-called Patriots suddenly tripped up themselves. You see, the main point of most Patriots is the very same thing that George Bush (senior said in 1971) "a suspect would not be a suspect unless they were guilty".

Anti-American? Dissent IS patriotic! To question and expect answers is participation in the democratic process. If we do not question, what are Americans? Ah me, I forget how easy it would be to be later seen by "history's perspective" that the Americans as a whole would in the future be compared to the citizens of Germany who found themselves under a Fuehrer with a steamroller as his preferred method of maintaining support!
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2003 03:03 am
Quote:
If Frolic has ever here posted anything that wasn't anti-American, I've missed it.


I think you mix anti-American with Anti unilateralism and anti-White House Hawks.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2003 07:51 am
Montana wrote:
I have also been accused of being anti-American because I don't like the US government. I was born and raised in the US and have many many American friends, so I resent it very much when I'm labeled as being anti-American.


If you love America then you Will back the government. If you don't support the establishment, then you are unpatriotic, a communist, against freedom, and no doubt a terrorist.

Obviously, that's bollocks. But it's a view that seems to be creeping more and more into the culture. I just posted a message on a different forum about this. I think patriotism is being corruptly used as a modern day witch hunt.

Patriotism is a good thing in the sense that it gives us a feeling of belonging, and that it's nice to feel a part of something good we are contributing towards. But perversely, patriotism increases voting apathy (if the president says so, then i guess it's okay by me...), and can be used to slander people who oppose the state.

Is it true that French Fries are called 'Freedom Fries' over there now? I thought that was ajoke at first. Now, it seriously worries me.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2003 04:10 pm
Asherman wrote:
If Frolic has ever here posted anything that wasn't anti-American, I've missed it.

Well, if the posting of Frolic is not anti-American, then it is happens to be anti-Israeli... Well, it seemsto be a part of the psychological war being conducted against the USA and the pro-American regimes throughout the world.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2003 04:51 pm
steissd wrote:
Asherman wrote:
If Frolic has ever here posted anything that wasn't anti-American, I've missed it.

Well, if the posting of Frolic is not anti-American, then it is happens to be anti-Israeli... Well, it seemsto be a part of the psychological war being conducted against the USA and the pro-American regimes throughout the world.


I'm not against the state of Irsael. Israel is a fact and we cant turn back time. I'm against countries that, under the cover of selfdefense, gained land and occupy foreign countries, at least parts of it. And never turn it back. I'm not challenging the right of self defense of Irseal. But its almost the only country in modern history that enlarged by the means of war.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » US Soldiers on Speed?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 04:27:31