jmcquown wrote:

> This brought tears to my eyes. I remember when my father returned from
> his second tour in VietNam. It wasn't a surprise but I was only 8 years
> old and I was thrilled to see him get off that plane. No matter what
> anyone thinks of any war, god bless the troups. Thanks, Stu.


I can imagine how happy you were to see him home safely after being away
for so long. Soldiers these days are lucky that deployments tend to be
shorter. My father joined the air force in 1940 and was shipped over to
England in the spring of 1941. He was over there for two years before he
could come home, and he would have had to stay longer had he not been
shot down over Denmark and managed to escape back to England. He was
given a one month leave and had to sail back.

His parents didn't know that he was coming home. The last they had
heard, he was still in Sweden and waiting to get back to England. He
didn't bother to call when he arrived in the city and just showed up
unannounced. His parents were thrilled.

My uncle was in the army and was shipped overseas in 1941. He fought his
way through North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Holland. He came home to
find that his wife had left him for another man. Four years of being
away from home and enduring hardships and privation... plus being shot at.

It's interesting that guys like this endured the horrors of war for
extended periods and came back, picked up where they left off and led
normal lives. Soldiers these days live with a much higher level of
comfort, have a much better chance of survival and spend relatively
short periods of time on deployment. They can communicate with their
families by telephone and email. Yet, a high percentage of them come
back claiming of post traumatic stress,even among those who aren't on
the front lines.

On Jun 3, 1:41*am, Dave Smith > wrote:

> It's interesting that guys like this endured the horrors of war for
> extended periods and came back, picked up where they left off and led
> normal lives.


You better really think about that, before you say it.

"Normal lives"...... I don't think so.



> Soldiers these days live with a much higher level of
> comfort,


When was the last time you were deployed to Iraq, or Afghanistan?


> have a much better chance of survival and spend relatively
> short periods of time on deployment. They can communicate with their
> families by telephone and email.


It's the electronic age.



> Yet, a high percentage of them come
> back claiming of post traumatic stress,even among those who aren't on
> the front lines.


I agree.

I find it hard to stomach people, such as certain Merchant Navy
persons, passing themselves off as "combat veterans".
It's really quite disgusting that they do it.

On 6/2/2010 10:41 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> This brought tears to my eyes. I remember when my father returned from
>> his second tour in VietNam. It wasn't a surprise but I was only 8
>> years old and I was thrilled to see him get off that plane. No matter
>> what anyone thinks of any war, god bless the troups. Thanks, Stu.
>
>
> I can imagine how happy you were to see him home safely after being away
> for so long. Soldiers these days are lucky that deployments tend to be
> shorter. My father joined the air force in 1940 and was shipped over to
> England in the spring of 1941. He was over there for two years before he
> could come home, and he would have had to stay longer had he not been
> shot down over Denmark and managed to escape back to England. He was
> given a one month leave and had to sail back.
>
> His parents didn't know that he was coming home. The last they had
> heard, he was still in Sweden and waiting to get back to England. He
> didn't bother to call when he arrived in the city and just showed up
> unannounced. His parents were thrilled.
>
> My uncle was in the army and was shipped overseas in 1941. He fought his
> way through North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Holland. He came home to
> find that his wife had left him for another man. Four years of being
> away from home and enduring hardships and privation... plus being shot at.
>
> It's interesting that guys like this endured the horrors of war for
> extended periods and came back, picked up where they left off and led
> normal lives. Soldiers these days live with a much higher level of
> comfort, have a much better chance of survival and spend relatively
> short periods of time on deployment. They can communicate with their
> families by telephone and email. Yet, a high percentage of them come
> back claiming of post traumatic stress,even among those who aren't on
> the front lines.
>
Some very large differences Dave. Back then the troops had a clearly
defined enemy who was in uniform, mostly. Nowadays most of the enemy are
dressed in civilian clothing, blend in well with the surrounding
population and there are clearly defined rules of engagement, often
causing troops to take chances they shouldn't have to take.

In WWII and Korea PTSD was called combat fatigue but was basically the
same syndrome. My eldest brother-in-law was a Navy medic assigned to the
USMC, he was in almost continuous battle from early 1942 until he was
wounded severely enough to be pulled out of battle the day before VJ
Day. My sister didn't get to see him until mid-1946 and he wasn't
discharged to go home until early 1947. He had what we used to call a
Section 8 discharge. He was jumpy at loud noises, very protective of
family, to the extent he would throw his wife and daughter on the ground
and cover them with his body if he heard anything resembling a gunshot
sound. He was a good man who died at age 61 from chronic alcoholism and
too many cigarettes, he died two months after being diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer, brought on by booze and smoking according to the doctors.

I see young troops coming back here with many of the same symptoms, a
different war, a different generation, many of the same problems. God
Bless Our Troops and their families, both have a tough time.

George Shirley > wrote:

>Some very large differences Dave. Back then the troops had a clearly
>defined enemy who was in uniform, mostly. Nowadays most of the enemy are
>dressed in civilian clothing, blend in well with the surrounding
>population and there are clearly defined rules of engagement, often
>causing troops to take chances they shouldn't have to take.

Maybe the enemy finally got around to reading the history
of the American Revolution.



Steve

"George Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/2/2010 10:41 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> This brought tears to my eyes. I remember when my father returned from
>>> his second tour in VietNam. It wasn't a surprise but I was only 8
>>> years old and I was thrilled to see him get off that plane. No matter
>>> what anyone thinks of any war, god bless the troups. Thanks, Stu.
>>
>>
>> I can imagine how happy you were to see him home safely after being away
>> for so long. Soldiers these days are lucky that deployments tend to be
>> shorter. My father joined the air force in 1940 and was shipped over to
>> England in the spring of 1941. He was over there for two years before he
>> could come home, and he would have had to stay longer had he not been
>> shot down over Denmark and managed to escape back to England. He was
>> given a one month leave and had to sail back.
>>
>> His parents didn't know that he was coming home. The last they had
>> heard, he was still in Sweden and waiting to get back to England. He
>> didn't bother to call when he arrived in the city and just showed up
>> unannounced. His parents were thrilled.
>>
>> My uncle was in the army and was shipped overseas in 1941. He fought his
>> way through North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Holland. He came home to
>> find that his wife had left him for another man. Four years of being
>> away from home and enduring hardships and privation... plus being shot
>> at.
>>
>> It's interesting that guys like this endured the horrors of war for
>> extended periods and came back, picked up where they left off and led
>> normal lives. Soldiers these days live with a much higher level of
>> comfort, have a much better chance of survival and spend relatively
>> short periods of time on deployment. They can communicate with their
>> families by telephone and email. Yet, a high percentage of them come
>> back claiming of post traumatic stress,even among those who aren't on
>> the front lines.
>>
> Some very large differences Dave. Back then the troops had a clearly
> defined enemy who was in uniform, mostly. Nowadays most of the enemy are
> dressed in civilian clothing, blend in well with the surrounding
> population and there are clearly defined rules of engagement, often
> causing troops to take chances they shouldn't have to take.
>
> In WWII and Korea PTSD was called combat fatigue but was basically the
> same syndrome. My eldest brother-in-law was a Navy medic assigned to the
> USMC, he was in almost continuous battle from early 1942 until he was
> wounded severely enough to be pulled out of battle the day before VJ Day.
> My sister didn't get to see him until mid-1946 and he wasn't discharged to
> go home until early 1947. He had what we used to call a Section 8
> discharge. He was jumpy at loud noises, very protective of family, to the
> extent he would throw his wife and daughter on the ground and cover them
> with his body if he heard anything resembling a gunshot sound. He was a
> good man who died at age 61 from chronic alcoholism and too many
> cigarettes, he died two months after being diagnosed with pancreatic
> cancer, brought on by booze and smoking according to the doctors.
>
> I see young troops coming back here with many of the same symptoms, a
> different war, a different generation, many of the same problems. God
> Bless Our Troops and their families, both have a tough time.

Amen! Yours and ours too!


--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

George Shirley wrote:

>> It's interesting that guys like this endured the horrors of war for
>> extended periods and came back, picked up where they left off and led
>> normal lives. Soldiers these days live with a much higher level of
>> comfort, have a much better chance of survival and spend relatively
>> short periods of time on deployment. They can communicate with their
>> families by telephone and email. Yet, a high percentage of them come
>> back claiming of post traumatic stress,even among those who aren't on
>> the front lines.
>>
> Some very large differences Dave. Back then the troops had a clearly
> defined enemy who was in uniform, mostly. Nowadays most of the enemy are
> dressed in civilian clothing, blend in well with the surrounding
> population and there are clearly defined rules of engagement, often
> causing troops to take chances they shouldn't have to take.


While it's true that the enemy soldiers were more clearly defined, there
were still a lot of civilian casualties during the war. It was total war
and once the battle started they poured the fire on and didn't worry a
heck of a lot about civilians caught in the crossfire. FWIW, there were
more civilian killed in Normandy than Allied soldiers. Air raids and
artillery flattened a number of cities.


> In WWII and Korea PTSD was called combat fatigue but was basically the
> same syndrome. My eldest brother-in-law was a Navy medic assigned to the
> USMC, he was in almost continuous battle from early 1942 until he was
> wounded severely enough to be pulled out of battle the day before VJ
> Day. My sister didn't get to see him until mid-1946 and he wasn't
> discharged to go home until early 1947. He had what we used to call a
> Section 8 discharge. He was jumpy at loud noises, very protective of
> family, to the extent he would throw his wife and daughter on the ground
> and cover them with his body if he heard anything resembling a gunshot
> sound. He was a good man who died at age 61 from chronic alcoholism and
> too many cigarettes, he died two months after being diagnosed with
> pancreatic cancer, brought on by booze and smoking according to the
> doctors.

But as I said, the soldiers in WWII were overseas for a long time. They
were sent over to England for additional training, and once the fighting
started they were at or near the front lines until the war ended. Your
brother in law likely saw a lot more fighting and for a much longer
period of time than the soldiers of today.


> I see young troops coming back here with many of the same symptoms, a
> different war, a different generation, many of the same problems. God
> Bless Our Troops and their families, both have a tough time.

It is tough. There is no doubt about that. They need all the help they
can get. They deserve it.

BTW.... the latest issue of Canadian History Magazine (formerly "The
Beaver") featured an article about shell shock.

Peter wrote:

> When was the last time you were deployed to Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Where do you think I am RIGHT NOW, moron?



> I find it hard to stomach people, such as certain Merchant Navy persons,
> passing themselves off as "combat veterans". It's really quite disgusting
> that they do it.

What's really disgusting is the cowardice shown by that Lucas guy, who
feigned an injury to get out of military service at a young age, and who
collects a fraudulent pension because of it.

Bob

George Shirley > wrote in
:


> In WWII and Korea PTSD was called combat fatigue but was basically the
> same syndrome.


Combat fatigue, battle fatigue....... during WW1 it was called
"cowardice" and people were shot/executed because of it.

As a Section Commander in the Infantry in the 80's, we were taught to look
for the symptoms of "battle fatigue" in our troops.
It wasn't till the "Pony Soldiers", 1RAR, came home from Somalia in '93
that the diagnoses of PTSD was first used for Aussie troops. That was the
trip that they lost Shannon McAliney who was accidentaly shot and killed
while on patrol.




> My eldest brother-in-law was a Navy medic assigned to the
> USMC, he was in almost continuous battle from early 1942 until he was
> wounded severely enough to be pulled out of battle the day before VJ
> Day. My sister didn't get to see him until mid-1946 and he wasn't
> discharged to go home until early 1947. He had what we used to call a
> Section 8 discharge. He was jumpy at loud noises, very protective of
> family, to the extent he would throw his wife and daughter on the ground
> and cover them with his body if he heard anything resembling a gunshot
> sound. He was a good man who died at age 61 from chronic alcoholism and
> too many cigarettes, he died two months after being diagnosed with
> pancreatic cancer, brought on by booze and smoking according to the
> doctors.
>


A 10 part 'mini' series called "The Pacific" just finished up here last
night.

It was all the more poignant for the fact that it was based on real
people, some still alive.

It seemed, at the end, that the guys who went through the worst of it, all
died a lot earlier than those that didn't.


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


A good friend would drive 30 miles at 2:00 am to bail you out of jail.
A best friend, however, would be sitting in the cell next to you saying
"Man, that was f******n Awesome!"

On 6/2/2010 1:31 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> George > wrote:
>
>> Some very large differences Dave. Back then the troops had a clearly
>> defined enemy who was in uniform, mostly. Nowadays most of the enemy are
>> dressed in civilian clothing, blend in well with the surrounding
>> population and there are clearly defined rules of engagement, often
>> causing troops to take chances they shouldn't have to take.
>
> Maybe the enemy finally got around to reading the history
> of the American Revolution.

More like the The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

PL away from home wrote:
> On Jun 3, 1:41 am, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> It's interesting that guys like this endured the horrors of war for
>> extended periods and came back, picked up where they left off and led
>> normal lives.
>
>
> You better really think about that, before you say it.
>
> "Normal lives"...... I don't think so.


I do. That is why I said it.
>
>
>> Soldiers these days live with a much higher level of
>> comfort,
>
>
> When was the last time you were deployed to Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Is that supposed to refute what I said?
They have food, water, bedding, transport. Soldiers on the front line in
WW I were in wet trenches for weeks at a time. They were sometimes only
yards away from rotting corpses. They were lucky to have a shower once a
month. Their uniforms and quarters were usually infested with lice. They
endured artillery barrages on a regular basis. The guys on the line in
WWII weren't any better off. They were poorly fed, often poorly clothed
and were lucky to have a shower once a month. Their chances of survival
were better than those in WWII because they had better medical
facilities and antibiotics. The guys who fought in North Africa were
sent to Sicily, then to Italy, and after more than a year of almost
daily combat many of them were then sent to Normandy and then fought for
almost a another year.
>
>
>> have a much better chance of survival and spend relatively
>> short periods of time on deployment. They can communicate with their
>> families by telephone and email.
>
>
> It's the electronic age.
>
>
>
>> Yet, a high percentage of them come
>> back claiming of post traumatic stress,even among those who aren't on
>> the front lines.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> I find it hard to stomach people, such as certain Merchant Navy
> persons, passing themselves off as "combat veterans".
> It's really quite disgusting that they do it.

Why? Sailing in convoys across the North Atlantic and being under attack
by UBoats was no picnic. If a clerk manning a desk and who was never
sent overseas, or members of some rear echelon support units who were
never on the front line can be a veteran, why not the guys who braved
the ocean and wold packs? The US Merchant Marine had a higher percentage
of casualties than any of the other services, more than 4 times that of
the Navy and about 16 times that of the Coast Guard.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:27:39 -0500, George Shirley wrote:

> On 6/2/2010 10:41 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

>>
>> It's interesting that guys like this endured the horrors of war for
>> extended periods and came back, picked up where they left off and led
>> normal lives. Soldiers these days live with a much higher level of
>> comfort, have a much better chance of survival and spend relatively
>> short periods of time on deployment. They can communicate with their
>> families by telephone and email. Yet, a high percentage of them come
>> back claiming of post traumatic stress,even among those who aren't on
>> the front lines.
>>
> Some very large differences Dave. Back then the troops had a clearly
> defined enemy who was in uniform, mostly. Nowadays most of the enemy are
> dressed in civilian clothing, blend in well with the surrounding
> population and there are clearly defined rules of engagement, often
> causing troops to take chances they shouldn't have to take.

....or 'shell shock' in WWI.

but another difference is than in world wars one and two, the reasons we
were there were pretty compelling. unlike, say, vietnam, iraq I and II,
and afghanistan.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:31:03 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> George Shirley > wrote:
>
>>Some very large differences Dave. Back then the troops had a clearly
>>defined enemy who was in uniform, mostly. Nowadays most of the enemy are
>>dressed in civilian clothing, blend in well with the surrounding
>>population and there are clearly defined rules of engagement, often
>>causing troops to take chances they shouldn't have to take.
>
> Maybe the enemy finally got around to reading the history
> of the American Revolution.
>
> Steve

sneaky *******s.

your pal,
blake