I wonder why...
 

Alcohol abuse by GIs soars since '03
By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
The rate of Army soldiers enrolled in treatment programs for alcohol
dependency or abuse has nearly doubled since 2003 — a sign of the
growing stress of repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan,
according to Army statistics and interviews.

Soldiers diagnosed by Army substance abuse counselors with alcoholism or
alcohol abuse, such as binge drinking, increased from 6.1 per 1,000
soldiers in 2003 to an estimated 11.4 as of March 31, according to the
data. The latest data cover the first six months of the fiscal year that
began in October.

"We're seeing a lot of alcohol consumption," Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the
Army's vice chief of staff, told top officers during a briefing on the
Army's growing number of suicides.

In a statement to USA TODAY, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, expressed concern. "I'm sure there are many factors for
the rising numbers (of enrollments) ... but I can't believe the stress
our people are under after eight years of combat isn't taking a toll,"
he said.

Likewise, Marines who screen positive for drug or alcohol problems
increased 12% from 2005 to 2008, according to Marine Corps statistics.
In addition, there were 1,060 drunken-driving cases involving Marines
during the first seven months of fiscal 2009, which began in October,
compared with 1,430 cases in all of fiscal 2008.

In an interview last week, Marine Corps Sgt. Maj. Carlton Kent said
alcohol abuse is an indication of the stress, particularly with the
ongoing cycle of combat deployments. "Alcohol can tie into a lot of
things, and we're just keeping a close eye on it," Kent said.

Mullen and Chiarelli said the U.S. needs to reduce the overall number of
deployed troops as planned to ease the strain.

Concerns about alcohol abuse led Chiarelli to issue a memo in May urging
commanders to treat and, where necessary under Army rules, punish
soldiers who test positive for substance abuse or fail blood-alcohol
tests. During a visit to six Army installations this year, Chiarelli
said, he found hundreds of cases where soldiers who failed those tests,
in some cases more than once, were not treated for the problem or
processed for possible discharge, as required by Army regulation.

Enrollments in drug abuse treatment programs have remained largely
unchanged in the Army during the war, rising from 3.7 per 1,000 in 2003
to an estimated 4.2 as of May.

The most common drug detected is marijuana, says Marsha Drain, deputy
director for policy for the Army Substance Abuse Program.

Chiarelli said top staff officers might not properly deal with the
problem because of a need to "keep their numbers up" for combat deployments.

Chiarelli said identifying and treating substance and alcohol abuse will
help improve the Army's mental health care and curb suicides, which
reached a record 142 cases in 2008. There have been 82 confirmed or
suspected suicides this year among active-duty, compared with 51 for the
same period in 2008.

Lt. Col. George Wright, an Army spokesman, said the good news is that
the alcohol statistics show more soldiers are seeking help.

But the Army statistics, based on enrollments in a drug and alcohol
counseling program, also may underestimate the scope of the problem,
since they are based on soldiers who are either referred for counseling
by a commander or who voluntarily enroll. A 2007 Pentagon study said
soldiers may refrain from seeking help because current Army rules
require that their commanders automatically be notified.

I wonder why...
 

Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.

"HK" wrote in message
...



Alcohol abuse by GIs soars since '03
By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
The rate of Army soldiers enrolled in treatment programs for alcohol
dependency or abuse has nearly doubled since 2003 — a sign of the growing
stress of repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Army
statistics and interviews.

Soldiers diagnosed by Army substance abuse counselors with alcoholism or
alcohol abuse, such as binge drinking, increased from 6.1 per 1,000
soldiers in 2003 to an estimated 11.4 as of March 31, according to the
data. The latest data cover the first six months of the fiscal year that
began in October.

"We're seeing a lot of alcohol consumption," Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the
Army's vice chief of staff, told top officers during a briefing on the
Army's growing number of suicides.

In a statement to USA TODAY, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, expressed concern. "I'm sure there are many factors for
the rising numbers (of enrollments) ... but I can't believe the stress our
people are under after eight years of combat isn't taking a toll," he
said.

Likewise, Marines who screen positive for drug or alcohol problems
increased 12% from 2005 to 2008, according to Marine Corps statistics. In
addition, there were 1,060 drunken-driving cases involving Marines during
the first seven months of fiscal 2009, which began in October, compared
with 1,430 cases in all of fiscal 2008.

In an interview last week, Marine Corps Sgt. Maj. Carlton Kent said
alcohol abuse is an indication of the stress, particularly with the
ongoing cycle of combat deployments. "Alcohol can tie into a lot of
things, and we're just keeping a close eye on it," Kent said.

Mullen and Chiarelli said the U.S. needs to reduce the overall number of
deployed troops as planned to ease the strain.

Concerns about alcohol abuse led Chiarelli to issue a memo in May urging
commanders to treat and, where necessary under Army rules, punish soldiers
who test positive for substance abuse or fail blood-alcohol tests. During
a visit to six Army installations this year, Chiarelli said, he found
hundreds of cases where soldiers who failed those tests, in some cases
more than once, were not treated for the problem or processed for possible
discharge, as required by Army regulation.

Enrollments in drug abuse treatment programs have remained largely
unchanged in the Army during the war, rising from 3.7 per 1,000 in 2003 to
an estimated 4.2 as of May.

The most common drug detected is marijuana, says Marsha Drain, deputy
director for policy for the Army Substance Abuse Program.

Chiarelli said top staff officers might not properly deal with the problem
because of a need to "keep their numbers up" for combat deployments.

Chiarelli said identifying and treating substance and alcohol abuse will
help improve the Army's mental health care and curb suicides, which
reached a record 142 cases in 2008. There have been 82 confirmed or
suspected suicides this year among active-duty, compared with 51 for the
same period in 2008.

Lt. Col. George Wright, an Army spokesman, said the good news is that the
alcohol statistics show more soldiers are seeking help.

But the Army statistics, based on enrollments in a drug and alcohol
counseling program, also may underestimate the scope of the problem, since
they are based on soldiers who are either referred for counseling by a
commander or who voluntarily enroll. A 2007 Pentagon study said soldiers
may refrain from seeking help because current Army rules require that
their commanders automatically be notified.

I wonder why...
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk at
home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

Eisboch

I wonder why...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk at
home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

Eisboch




Well, well, well. Nothing like going for the "easy" answers that don't
touch upon the problems of endless deployments, the lies that took them
into war, the fear of reporting they are suffering from emotional
problems, the lack of treatment available for alcohol or drug abuse.

Typical right-wing hide your head in the sand bull****.

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:31:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

I'm not demeaning their sense of duty, but, as I have said before, we are
asking too much of too few. Five and six combat tours, just ain't a
healthy stress level on our young men and women. Wars should be a
national endeavor, not left to the few.

I wonder why...
 

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:31:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

I'm not demeaning their sense of duty, but, as I have said before, we are
asking too much of too few. Five and six combat tours, just ain't a
healthy stress level on our young men and women. Wars should be a
national endeavor, not left to the few.


The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.

I wonder why...
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

Eisboch


Well, well, well. Nothing like going for the "easy" answers that don't
touch upon the problems of endless deployments, the lies that took them
into war, the fear of reporting they are suffering from emotional
problems, the lack of treatment available for alcohol or drug abuse.

Typical right-wing hide your head in the sand bull****.


Key operative in my statement was "And".
There are many reasons for morale going south. Extended tours, combat
experiences are major parts of it. Lack of support and critism for doing
their job by some back at home simply add salt to the wounds.

I am getting sick of your generalizations of what constitutes being
"right-wing". To you it means anyone who hasn't adopted your liberal views
and opinions. It's ironic that you think everyone else has their head
stuck in the sand. When was the last time yours saw day-light?

Eisboch

I wonder why...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.

And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

Eisboch

Well, well, well. Nothing like going for the "easy" answers that don't
touch upon the problems of endless deployments, the lies that took them
into war, the fear of reporting they are suffering from emotional
problems, the lack of treatment available for alcohol or drug abuse.

Typical right-wing hide your head in the sand bull****.


Key operative in my statement was "And".
There are many reasons for morale going south. Extended tours, combat
experiences are major parts of it. Lack of support and critism for doing
their job by some back at home simply add salt to the wounds.

I am getting sick of your generalizations of what constitutes being
"right-wing". To you it means anyone who hasn't adopted your liberal views
and opinions. It's ironic that you think everyone else has their head
stuck in the sand. When was the last time yours saw day-light?

Eisboch




There are very few "back home" who criticize the troops, and who do not
support efforts to supply and pay the troops and take care of their
physical and mental needs in the field and when they return home. That's
a red herring and you know it. Support of the "mission" in Iraq and
those who came up with it is an entirely matter. Most Americans have
seen for themselves the utter stupidity and dishonesty of Bush's war
against Iraq, and many feel as if we were manipulated into it by a
scheming administration that got nothing right.

It isn't necessary to generalize as to what constitutes today's "right
wing."

I wonder why...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

Eisboch

Sad to say, history does repeat. We should have the ultimate respect for
out service men and women. They have a lot more courage than we in chairs
at home. They truly are the finest of the breed.

I wonder why...
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

Eisboch

Well, well, well. Nothing like going for the "easy" answers that don't
touch upon the problems of endless deployments, the lies that took them
into war, the fear of reporting they are suffering from emotional
problems, the lack of treatment available for alcohol or drug abuse.

Typical right-wing hide your head in the sand bull****.

But that is a leadership issue, not a rank and file issue. So attack the
leaders, not the people who would defend us. Attack the Obama's, congress
and senate for keeping it going. They should either step it up to win or
pull out. These half assed political wars just get good soldiers killed for
nothing.

I wonder why...
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.

And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

Eisboch
Well, well, well. Nothing like going for the "easy" answers that don't
touch upon the problems of endless deployments, the lies that took them
into war, the fear of reporting they are suffering from emotional
problems, the lack of treatment available for alcohol or drug abuse.

Typical right-wing hide your head in the sand bull****.

But that is a leadership issue, not a rank and file issue. So attack the
leaders, not the people who would defend us. Attack the Obama's, congress
and senate for keeping it going. They should either step it up to win or
pull out. These half assed political wars just get good soldiers killed for
nothing.



You must have missed the three million posts of mine that "attacked" the
criminal Bush-Cheney regime. Obama inherited 1000 dumptruck of **** from
the criminal Bush-Cheney regime, and it is going to take some time for
him to empty most of them.

For a Canadian, you sure seem overly interested in U.S. politics. Why is
that?

I wonder why...
 

HK wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:31:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

I'm not demeaning their sense of duty, but, as I have said before, we
are asking too much of too few. Five and six combat tours, just ain't
a healthy stress level on our young men and women. Wars should be a
national endeavor, not left to the few.


The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.

I think they should reinstate the draft too. But this time don't let
sissies like Krause fall through the cracks. I don't know how Krause's
mommy got him out of it because there isn't anything I can see that
would legitimately get him off. She probably paid off some government
official to keep her precious boy out of harm's way.

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:40:09 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:31:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. Happening again.

I'm not demeaning their sense of duty, but, as I have said before, we are
asking too much of too few. Five and six combat tours, just ain't a
healthy stress level on our young men and women. Wars should be a
national endeavor, not left to the few.

Thunder my friend, I cannot express to you how much I appreciate that
comment.

You are spot on.

If we're gonna do it, let's do it and get it over with.

If not, get the hell out and leave their sandbox for them to play in.

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:21:54 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:45:59 -0400, HK wrote:

The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.


I agree we should have the draft but I am not deluded that it would
keep old men from sending young men off to war.

As for the original post, I suspect this has more to do with the fact
that they actually do have treatment for alcoholism these days. The
military was a collection of functioning alcoholics (using the current
definition) in the 60s when I was there. There wasn't much else to do
off duty but drink in Norfolk.
You were either on duty, on Gramby street or sleeping it off in your
rack. That assumed you weren't drinking government subsidized beer in
the EM club.

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic

I wonder why...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:45:59 -0400, HK wrote:

The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.


I agree we should have the draft but I am not deluded that it would
keep old men from sending young men off to war.

As for the original post, I suspect this has more to do with the fact
that they actually do have treatment for alcoholism these days. The
military was a collection of functioning alcoholics (using the current
definition) in the 60s when I was there. There wasn't much else to do
off duty but drink in Norfolk.
You were either on duty, on Gramby street or sleeping it off in your
rack. That assumed you weren't drinking government subsidized beer in
the EM club.

Beer wasn't so much as subsidised, it was tax free.

I wonder why...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic

Yabut we drank twice as much of the swill.

Eisboch

I wonder why...
 

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:01:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

Yabut we drank twice as much of the swill.

Well, that explains a lot. :)

Ommmmmmmmmmm........

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:04:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:29 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic

That was true in Bainbridge NTC, but not in Norfolk.
We gut the same cans of beer you got in town.

As Eisboch said, you just drank more, so it didn't matter anyway.
I always did my drinking downtown, but in the states I didn't get
hammered too often.
Only EM club I went to was either Little Creek or Oceana.
Can't remember. And only once, since I smashed my car up on the way
back to D&S Piers. Couldn't go any more when I got out of jail.
No car.

When I was at the AOQ in Gitmo 1968 (IBM trip) they had a beer machine
right in the building. (25 cents a can)

Gitmo was a hellhole to me. Barred window busses to get to the club,
and not a broad anywhere. Enough to make you give up drinking right
there.

--Vic

I wonder why...
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:04:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:29 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic
That was true in Bainbridge NTC, but not in Norfolk.
We gut the same cans of beer you got in town.

As Eisboch said, you just drank more, so it didn't matter anyway.
I always did my drinking downtown, but in the states I didn't get
hammered too often.
Only EM club I went to was either Little Creek or Oceana.
Can't remember. And only once, since I smashed my car up on the way
back to D&S Piers. Couldn't go any more when I got out of jail.
No car.

When I was at the AOQ in Gitmo 1968 (IBM trip) they had a beer machine
right in the building. (25 cents a can)

Gitmo was a hellhole to me. Barred window busses to get to the club,
and not a broad anywhere. Enough to make you give up drinking right
there.

--Vic
Busses? I guess you never got to ride the cattle cars to the club next
to the air strip??

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:41:51 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:04:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:29 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic

That was true in Bainbridge NTC, but not in Norfolk.
We gut the same cans of beer you got in town.

As Eisboch said, you just drank more, so it didn't matter anyway.
I always did my drinking downtown, but in the states I didn't get
hammered too often.
Only EM club I went to was either Little Creek or Oceana.
Can't remember. And only once, since I smashed my car up on the way
back to D&S Piers. Couldn't go any more when I got out of jail.
No car.

When I was at the AOQ in Gitmo 1968 (IBM trip) they had a beer machine
right in the building. (25 cents a can)

Gitmo was a hellhole to me. Barred window busses to get to the club,
and not a broad anywhere. Enough to make you give up drinking right
there.

--Vic

Forgot to note - jarheads all over the place.
Talk about hell....

I wonder why...
 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:46:54 -0400, Jim24242
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:04:21 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:29 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic
That was true in Bainbridge NTC, but not in Norfolk.
We gut the same cans of beer you got in town.

As Eisboch said, you just drank more, so it didn't matter anyway.
I always did my drinking downtown, but in the states I didn't get
hammered too often.
Only EM club I went to was either Little Creek or Oceana.
Can't remember. And only once, since I smashed my car up on the way
back to D&S Piers. Couldn't go any more when I got out of jail.
No car.

When I was at the AOQ in Gitmo 1968 (IBM trip) they had a beer machine
right in the building. (25 cents a can)

Gitmo was a hellhole to me. Barred window busses to get to the club,
and not a broad anywhere. Enough to make you give up drinking right
there.

--Vic
Busses? I guess you never got to ride the cattle cars to the club next
to the air strip??

Yeah, we called the busses cattle cars, but maybe others won't get it.
Never saw the airstrip. Maybe too many bars on the bus windows.
Think I remember seeing the guard towers on the border.
And a lot of trees.
The more I forget about Gitmo, the better.
Only there once for a couple days, a stop on a shakedown cruise.
We were always on port/starboard watches away form Norfolk, so I
only got ashore once.

--Vic

I wonder why...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:29 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:21:54 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:45:59 -0400, HK wrote:

The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.


I agree we should have the draft but I am not deluded that it would
keep old men from sending young men off to war.

As for the original post, I suspect this has more to do with the fact
that they actually do have treatment for alcoholism these days. The
military was a collection of functioning alcoholics (using the current
definition) in the 60s when I was there. There wasn't much else to do
off duty but drink in Norfolk.
You were either on duty, on Gramby street or sleeping it off in your
rack. That assumed you weren't drinking government subsidized beer in
the EM club.

Yeah, but all I could get was 3.2.

--Vic

That was true in Bainbridge NTC, but not in Norfolk.
We gut the same cans of beer you got in town.

When I was at the AOQ in Gitmo 1968 (IBM trip) they had a beer machine
right in the building. (25 cents a can)

I can remember the beer being dirt cheap out of vending machines on Canadian
warships..... maybe in the late 70s.
I don't know what they pay on ship now.

I wonder why...
 

On Jun 21, 8:45*am, HK wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:31:26 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. *Happening again.

I'm not demeaning their sense of duty, but, as I have said before, we are
asking too much of too few. *Five and six combat tours, just ain't a
healthy stress level on our young men and women. *Wars should be a
national endeavor, not left to the few.

The draft should be reinstated, with no exemptions but for the
physically or seriously mentally challenged. That alone would put a
chill on political warmongering, because the parents of the future
draftees would want a tad more proof than the Bush Admin provided before
they sent their kids off to die for the Republican Party.

I noticed you didn't mention "age" as an exemption, Herr Krause. That
means you would be 1-A that is, unless you claimed being "seriously
mentally challenged" in which that would definitely keep you out.

I wonder why...
 

On Jun 21, 9:17*am, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
om...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.

And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. *Happening again.

Eisboch

Well, well, well. Nothing like going for the "easy" answers that don't
touch upon the problems of endless deployments, the lies that took them
into war, the fear of reporting they are suffering from emotional
problems, the lack of treatment available for alcohol or drug abuse.

Typical right-wing hide your head in the sand bull****.

Key operative in my statement was "And".
There are many reasons for morale going south. *Extended tours, combat
experiences are *major parts of it. *Lack of support and critism for doing
their job by some back at home *simply add salt to the wounds.

I am getting sick of your generalizations of what constitutes being
"right-wing". * To you it means anyone who hasn't adopted your liberal views
and opinions. * It's ironic that you think everyone else has their head
stuck in the sand. * When was the last time yours saw day-light?

Eisboch

There are very few "back home" who criticize the troops, and who do not
support efforts to supply and pay the troops and take care of their
physical and mental needs in the field and when they return home.



Exactly Herr Krause. Therefore you place yourself in a far minority.

I wonder why...
 

On Jun 21, 9:25*am, HK wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
om...
Eisboch wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
Probably has a lot to do with sending them to wars that we at home don't
have what it takes to win.

And Monday morning quarterbacks critics that sit all comfy at their desk
at home demeaning their motives, intelligence, education and sense of
duty.

Happened before. *Happening again.

Eisboch
Well, well, well. Nothing like going for the "easy" answers that don't
touch upon the problems of endless deployments, the lies that took them
into war, the fear of reporting they are suffering from emotional
problems, the lack of treatment available for alcohol or drug abuse.

Typical right-wing hide your head in the sand bull****.

But that is a leadership issue, not a rank and file issue. *So attack the
leaders, not the people who would defend us. *Attack the Obama's, congress
and senate for keeping it going. *They should either step it up to win or
pull out. *These half assed political wars just get good soldiers killed for
nothing.

You must have missed the three million posts of mine that "attacked" the
criminal Bush-Cheney regime. Obama inherited 1000 dumptruck of **** from
the criminal Bush-Cheney regime, and it is going to take some time for
him to empty most of them.

For a Canadian, you sure seem overly interested in U.S. politics. Why is
that?

Your President-elect Obama refuses to terminate the wars. So who is
guilty, Herr Krause? Those who start conflict? Or those who refuse to
end it?

I wonder why...
 

I wonder why...
 

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:27:58 -0400, HK wrote:

I'm surprised you guys couldn't find much to do in Norfolk in your
off hours besides drink, what with all the great beaches and babes so
close by.

You must have never been in Norfolk with a GI haircut.

"Dogs and sailors, keep off the grass"

The only good thing was most of the time the cops would give you to
the shore patrol so you wouldn't get a record.
If a Marine MP took you back to the ship, you usually skated as long
as you remembered to salute the colors and quarterdeck. I did see a
jarhead get sent packing because he didn't and the OD told
me to lay below and get some sleep. (a minor uniform violation,
undress blues in town)

They roll up the sidewalks at 5:00 PM in Norfolk. And, Virginia Beach
has a distinct disaffection for young sailors and Marines and others in
the service.


Well, maybe if they behave like you do, eh?

We go to Virginia Beach for a week every year, and see many young
sailors walking up and down the main drag. Lots of them are with
girlfriends, wives, et cetera. Virginia Beach probably is quite
different from when you went down there with your drunken friends. There
are navy personnel everywhere.

The city has spent a lot of money the last decade cleaning up,
rebuilding, and extending the boardwalks, waterfront areas, and Atlantic
Avenue and beyond. Traffic on Atlantic at night is much lighter because
of certain controls put in place and the buses that run almost its
entire length every couple of minutes. The beaches are cleaned every night.