HillerMyLife

I never thought about it that way. Still, its hard to argue for using more resources when using less will suffice just the same. I don't disagree with the science so much, just the need to state it out loud. Someday Never Comes

Stating that using fewer resources will result in less CO2 emissions is kind of stating the obvious isn't it? Unless this is a joke, I think the real question is how long did it take them to come to that conclusion? Someday Never Comes

This is the truthiest post I've ever read in this forum. Someday Never Comes

Godwins law in the second post, FTW. Someday Never Comes

Ok I think I understand what you meant. I was just stuck in the context of the thread and was thinking perhaps you thought that merited an award. I was merely saying that if it did(merit an award) than make a separate award, don't hand out Purple Hearts. But I agree with what you said 100%, all combat veterans need to be screened for evidence of PTSD and followed up on, and the ones who are having a lot of difficulty need to get as much treatment and help as they need. Its an investment in society and it is owed to veterans. Someday Never Comes

If I missed a joke I'm sorry, but you begged the question "What about stress related deaths" and used the Falkands veterans as an example. If you didn't want me to infer what I did, what was it you were getting at? Someday Never Comes

Thats true, but the amount of times its been awarded for its original intent(3?) is far outnumbered by the times its been awarded for wounds received in action. I'm pretty sure its remained mostly unchanged since the 30's. To me it seems pretty clear that PTSD and physical wounds are different enough that the current wording covers this, and thus makes it a non issue. One is obviously apparent immediately and the other is not. Its not that I think people suffering from PTSD are any less deserving of attention and benefits, I just think that the Purple Heart is reserved for our brothers and sisters who left some BLOOD on the battlefield, and that it should stay that way. Someday Never Comes

If you are asking if guys that off themselves(because of stress) should get it, then I still say no. Someday Never Comes

I'm not sure where you're from but neither you nor most people in this thread have any idea what the hell they are talking about. The Purple Heart already has clear cut parameters for receipt, this subject isn't up for speculation. My opinion?? If they want to create a new award, then the Pentagon can knock themselves out but they shouldn't be so eager to modify something with that much history behind it. Last I checked stress doesn't quite stack up with "killed or wounded in action". Someday Never Comes

I can't claim her as a close friend the way many here can, but from my perspective she was great. I met her a couple years ago in the parking lot(at Perris naturally) as I was scrambling to figure out how to get my car started with daylight almost gone. She was more than willing to help(though she didn't know if she had jumper cables!) and had a wonderful sense of humor about the whole thing. After that we'd share a smile and hello when we crossed paths at the DZ or tunnel. It really is the little things in life that make differences. I will miss her and the presence she brought with her. Someday Never Comes

Putting a bullet in a terrorist takes one man out of a fight. Winning the "hearts and minds" of a village takes a hundred potential terrorists out of the fight. We can kill as many as we want, they'll keep building new ones. We need to destroy the factory, and that factory is made of poverty, ignorance, hopelessness, and fear. Thanks Dan. Concisely put. VR/Marg I have a feeling we will disagree on this subject so I'll keep this brief. Terrorist behaviors have no place in society, they are unacceptable. I understand the conditions you've described however, I don't think forcing our way of life is the solution either. If I(or anyone) is faced with someone who wants to harm them or those they love, "hearts and minds" is off the table. Only difficult decisions are left. Someday Never Comes

No problem and thanks for the reading list. I think you were being ironic in your mention of length for the sake of brevity though... With regards to technology I think the key question that needs to be asked is why are these groups of people having such success with what would be considered out of date weapons? In other words in a game of rock,paper, scissors how the hell are RPG's and AK-47's beating close air support, superior communications, and powerful armor? Improper usage thats how. To answer your first question, no I don't believe that we need a completely different set of tools to accomplish this mission. At worst we only need to add a few tools to the box to get this thing done. The difference between killing modern terrorists and killing a conventional enemy(say the Nazi's) is only that the terrorists are better at hiding from our technology. The defeat of both types of enemies involves putting bullets in them. One group has proven to have effective tactics against that and that is why they are still in existence. Rather than look to new technologies for success we need to take a good long hard look in the mirror and question what it is that is holding us back. One piece of technology that I can think of offhand is ECM tecnology against IED's. No doubt this has saved lives but it hasn't come without its drawbacks, chiefly that it also interferes with our own communications systems. I've experienced this first hand. I've also had the unique opportunity to witness that these systems actually do block signals to hidden IED's, and that turning off ECM to communicate with command has its own way of 'revealing' these weapons. This is an example of technology that allows us to take the proverbial one step forward but also has the capability to take us 2 or more steps back just as quickly. I never wanted new technologies to deal with my specific set of goals in my specific area. Technology was never as neccessary as the trust of my command, and the willingness to let the experienced guys take the lead in the training structure and occasionaly in the field. Yes we can blow shit up like no one else but just because you can doesn't mean you should. Its akin to using a bulldozer to build a sandcastle. Yeah you CAN do it that way, but there is probably a better way that costs less. With relation to SSTR I think its only neccesary AFTER we have done enough collateral damage to where we have to do something to fix it. The garden example holds well here as well. Whats more expensive and time consuming: Plucking the weeds out ,or spraying poison on the entire garden and then having to give each of the different vegetables a different supplement to counter the poison? I'd rather do things right once and be done than have to try half a dozen different strategies and analyze which one works best. As usual the best method is prevention. Finally I don't think that focusing our training efforts more on COIN will be to the detriment of our traditional fighting capabilities. In my limited experience we welcomed a straight up fight, not only because we had trained to do that as well, but also because it would have been something tangible in the war on terror instead of patrolling around for days, occasionally getting blown up, and even rarer still actually detaining/killing someone worth a damn. Someday Never Comes

Fellow veteran or someone who thinks they know what they are talking about?? I honestly can't tell. Pretty sure the last guy to get a MOH was from my old unit and he didn't live to tell his story of getting shit on. Most I've the guys I know(since we're using personal anecdotes) haven't had similar experiences with the VA, if anything they are getting hooked up more than any previous generation of vets. I do agree with the hero rhetoric though...people DO forget. Someday Never Comes

I don't know if you intended it as such or not, but I think your concluding comment is just as relative -- if not moreso -- to much of the discussion in the "Should the US Negotiate with the Taliban?" thread. The US military excels at traditonal military operations. We have the best military in the world and the most sophisticated equipment. Traditional military operations and sophisticated weaponry are unlikely to yield success in asymmetric warfare. Especially the kind of long term success needed to reduce radicalization and foster stability in places like Iraq, Afganistan, the Islamic Maghreb (e.g., Algeria), or other parts of Africa (e.g., Tanzania - al Shabab & Al-Ittihad al-Islami and Uganda). ... prior thoughts on SSTR and here. We don’t do SSTR well, and we don’t train (most) of our uniformed military to do SSTR. VR/Marg Actually I wasn't really thinking of that thread in particular when I made the comment; it was more or less a frustrated observation on the current state of the military and how some policies implemented by the military actually go against making progress, which in the end makes the job harder and drives away good servicemen. Here is an example. A typical Marine rifle company goes through a deployment cycle, comes back to the states, most vets get out and new guys come in to replace them. That also happens at the "office" level of the company; new captain, new SNCO's, new management style. The office level staff have no combat experience or deployment experience, which by itself isn't a problem because obviously everyone can't come to the fight with combat experience. The problem is when that office staff can't or won't listen to its vets of the past deployment; their experiences, their ideas for training new riflemen, basically what worked and what didn't. And so newly reorganized company goes in for 7-12 months of conventional combat training, usually tacking on some sort of urban training right before the deployment when it is too late. And the small unit leaders(the good ones anyway) end up having to train their guys on what worked and what didn't without any support from their leaders, almost behind their backs. The real issue isn't that traditional operations and high tech weapons won't work against terrorists and terrorism, but rather that traditional IDEAS won't work. Having a well equipped, well trained military should NEVER be a disadvantage and using it as an excuse for failure is disgusting(not directly aimed at you NG). The problem isn't that we are too good or too big or too whatever. Its that we don't have enough leaders in the military that understand what the real mission is, nor the smarts to effectively use the men they have been charged with to accomplish it. SSTR is now fast becoming the new mission and as you said most of the military doesn't do it well. Again I say that we have become distracted from our actual mission which is getting rid of terrorists. Its akin to spraying poison on the entire garden because of weeds. Doing that would just poison the entire population and not be in line with the goals of the garden. Pluck the weeds out and allow the rest of the plants to flower. Someday Never Comes

Retention rates are down in all the services in all the ranks. Certainly company level leadership (SNCO's and 03's) are an integral part to maintaining a strong military but when small unit leadership suffers (squad leaders, team leaders) the entire machine suffers. LCPL's and NCO's "getting out" because their leaders aren't willing to work with them, because they're sick of watching their buddies die or suffer massive injuries, or because some feel the Iraqis don't really want to be a free nation and are content to suck on Americas tits are all reasons IMO that the military is facing these issues. The command exists to make sure the men they are charged with can succeed. If they are getting in the way of that(your experience may vary) then no one should be suprised when ALL quality men(not just SNCO's and officers) choose to move on to civilian lives. We were supposed to be killing terrorists and instead we ended up babysitting a nation that says they don't want us there, but can't go on without us. Someday Never Comes