Source: CBS

Category: Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

16 Responses to “Invisible Wounds of War”

  1. shaolin69 says:

    Sorry, but if you sign up to go to war and kill a bunch of people in a hostile environment, when you’re shooting at the locals, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they might shoot back and you might get hurt. I wonder how many soldiers had brain damage before going to war?

    • theexpertisin says:

      The is as distasteful a comment as I have seen on this site.

      • MikeNY says:

        Here’s what I find distasteful: a society or “civilization” that that has been constantly and thoughtlessly at war for my entire adult life, and that reflexively brands as a “hero” absolutely anyone who goes to foreign soil to wage war on, to kill, a foreign people.

        I find that distasteful, and immoral.

  2. Clif Brown says:

    Human beings, once in an armed force, are considered part of a tool for use by national leaders. Only in the most dire situation should war be considered, yet we now have experienced “wars of choice”. The human body is a fragile bag of tissue no matter how well protected. The cases shown are heartbreaking, but also to be remembered are the many who do battle with no hope of even evacuation, let alone treatment and the huge number of civilians injured or killed, a characteristic of 20th/21st century wars. Let those at the top who are bellicose step to the front line of battles they propose.

  3. irondoor says:

    War is one of the most critical of human endeavors, as it exists solely for survival against an unacceptable outcome; the potential death of yourself, your family, and your tribe. It has been in existence since the beginning of mankind and will continue as long as mankind is on this earth. Nothing can stop it; not pleading, not shame, not votes in a Congress, not by Presidential edict, and most certainly not by passivity or unilateral disarmament.

    Railing against “those at the top” or politicians is a waste of time. The best approach is to elect or appoint men who are expert at war-winning strategies and equip then with the best trained and best equipped military available. The only thing your enemies will respect is overwhelming force, overwhelmingly applied without mercy.

    I understand that most on this blog will despise these comments. I deplore the facts of human life that makes them both necessary and unavoidable.

    • whatdoiknow says:

      “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.” (Jesus of Nazareth, ca. 32 AD)

      He nailed it.

    • lefty gomez says:

      Inevitability of war is absolute nonsense. The Iraq war could have been avoided if Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney, etc… had thought less highly of themselves. Their choice to go to war was tragic for everybody involved. Had it been avoided, 500,000 people would still be alive.

      Bush, etc… wanted to be the American army liberating Paris. Instead, they were Napoleon invading Egypt.

      I admit it. It’s been ten years and I’m still angry.

  4. Moe says:

    We’d have far fewer wars if our fearless leaders who declared them were also required to lead us into battle.

  5. RW says:

    The military draft had the virtue of putting the skin of a lot more people into the game so wars were perhaps better considered than they have been the past forty years but even back then it was necessary to distinguish the tool from the hand(s) that wielded it.

    The flipside is that some things become more visible and so a dual problem is now revealed: (a) The hand(s) that wield the tool have often been careless, lacking in sound judgement (or grossly self-serving), and (b) the tool itself is beginning to break under the strain of continuing abuse.

    Speaking personally I regard war as only legitimate in last resort and despise warmongering but I’ll let ‘ol Fred do the honors there: Dulce et Decorum Est: If Someone Else Has to Do It.

  6. ilsm says:

    Money, and media, sell the “wars”, the human costs is borne by the “all volunteer force”, a limited demographic.

    There is a lot of money being made in these “wars”, the alternative to these “wars” would cut dividends.

    “If we would just take the profit out of war, there wouldn’t be any” Woody Guthrie

    Bastiat said wa and spending for war , which is waste, is only justified by the alternative being worse.

    The media sells “supporting” war……………. as patriotism, but very few rush off to show what they would pay for their zeal.

  7. Arequipa01 says:

    I found this article to be very revealing of the true nature of the US Federal Govt:

    http://www.newsherald.com/news/government/va-researcher-quits-over-burn-pit-studies-1.145419

    “Coughlin said anything that linked the burn pits to lung problems in military personnel was to be left out of the study.
    “My direct supervisor, Aaron Scheniederman, told me to ignore information on asthma or bronchitis,” Coughlin said.
    Coughlin said he was harassed and threatened with repercussions to his professional career if he continued to push for the burn pit impact to service members be added to the study.”

    Why anyone would willingly join the US armed forces is beyond me. Your choices are be a criminal or be a victim or both.

  8. DTouche says:

    Insulting those people that give you the ability to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an exceedingly rare privilege enjoyed by few throughout history.

    Perhaps those that put their capital at risk and complain about losses (even though losses are rare these days thanks to the same government that starts said wars) should consider what it is like to put your life on the line for a modest material reward. We veterans might not always amount to much when comparing W-2s to the Financial Class, but our contributions secure the ability of the Financial Class to enjoy their special relationship with our Treasury and Federal Reserve.

    If you really want to starve the Military Industrial Complex and neuter the country, stop making money and paying taxes. Until you starve the beast, save your criticism of those that bleed for the country and your benefit. After all, your income and lifestyle support the outcomes you hate.

    Lead from the front, not the rear.

    • Arequipa01 says:

      “save your criticism of those that bleed for the country and your benefit.”

      As soon as the US invaded Mexico under false pretenses, it embarked on the course of empire. Those who ‘have bled’ for the country whether wittingly or not have served the interests of the bankers and rentiers. I find Smedley Butler’s comments on war much more compelling than your views, and truth be told your work in the service of a thuggish operation is not impressive to me.

      It is counterfactual to believe that the US military’s actions in the past hundred years or more- let’s go back to 1898- has not protected or improved the ‘freedom’ of anybody but the very tippity toppity of the pyramid. The fundamental premise that animates your worldview is that ‘by doing evil we can achieve good’. I know you believe this, down to your very core, fervently. Doesn’t make it right. It’s just the Lucifer Principle in action.

      • DTouche says:

        14.5% (~990 Million people, USA-Canada, Western Europe, South Korea, Japan, Chile, Puerto Rico, Australia, New Zealand etc) of world population has seen incredible advances in living conditions and opportunity due to American “Imperialism”. Clearly only the 1% benefit from our global military influence.

        I’ll take the Monroe Doctrine and what has followed over the Spanish Empire or Bolivarian Revolutionaries any day.

        Keep benefiting yourself through and supporting the very system you despise Arequipa. Otherwise disconnect your umbilical cord and divorce yourself from the system that supports you should you prefer philosophical fidelity over personal gain.

        I prefer deterrence through strength. Actual conflict is much harder on us Lucifers at the tip of the spear than it is for those commenting from their tablets at home. That being said, our life and the nation that guarantees our opportunity is worth protecting at any cost. Too bad our political class prefers to shed our blood and treasure to effect their own ill advised agendas. Tis better to dictate terms than to be dictated terms.

        Cheers

  9. victor says:

    Genetics and Anthropology 101 teach us about an anxiety/aggression gene present in humans. Organized warfare along with religion and trade/exchange morphed into more complex institutions when the first settled societies emerged some 15,000 years ago. And the American soldier William Tecumseh Sherman said it best: War is hell.

  10. DTouche says:

    Population of countries subject to or influenced by US Empire Domination:
    USA: 330 Million
    Canada: 35 Million
    Western Europe: 397 Million
    Australia: 26 Million
    New Zealand: 4.5 Million
    South Korea: 50 Million
    Japan: 127 Million
    Chile: 17 Million
    Puerto Rico: 4 Million

    Total: ~990.5 Million People/Subjects

    World Population: 7 Billion

    990.5 Million/7 Billion= 14.5% of the world

    It appears that 14.5% of the world population has benefited greatly from the US Military and our “Imperialism”. From the top 1% all the way to the bottom 99% quality of life in our empire is dramatically better than the opportunities afforded the rest of the world through their own Political Economies.

    So the tippity top of our pyramid has benefited 14.5% of the world’s population (more through globalization, even though I have concerns about that). Pray tell when and where such a widespread Imperial benefit was given to so many people by past Empires?

    At any rate if you really know what I think then I am free to do the same. Do you really prefer the traditional Spanish Empire over the Monroe Doctrine?

    Force is best when it intimidates foes into submission. Force when used extracts the highest price on those that are compelled to exert it.

    Cheers