US military suicide rate hits one per day

[BigBallinStalin]

@Woodruff, notyou2, and whoever


1) So, why did they not expect to be doing what they doing right now? Were they perhaps misled?


2) Or is it mainly because they think the US Guard/Reserves hardly ever go to war, and if they do, they don't do the heavy lifting (which doesn't seem to be the case)?

If (2), then would that constitute as fraud?

[2dimes]

So you're saying their branch of service, the government or perhaps both, is committing what sounds like fraud by misleading them?

Did BBS just call me "notyou2, and whoever"? If you could see me I suspect I look upset about that.

[spurgistan]

Pretty sure BBS was just racist against Canadians.

[jonesthecurl]

What happened to making your kids "army strong"? Wasn't that supposed to be a good thing?

[Woodruff]

]

But... the ads make it sound so easy!

Indeed.

Of course, it's not the actual physical work that's the problem, really. That sort of thing doesn't really lead much to suicide, outside of psychological battlefield scars. It's the separation, and all of the problems that causes (primarily marital and parental).

I would think the physical work would have many benefits including making them healthier psychologically.

Yes and no. Typically, killing other people doesn't make for a healthier psyche.

[Woodruff]

@Woodruff, notyou2, and whoever
1) So, why did they not expect to be doing what they doing right now? Were they perhaps misled?

The Guard and Reserves, by the US military's own doctrine, do not routinely deploy. In particular, the National Guard is just that...to guard our nation, not to be used as an offensive force.

So I honestly don't believe it's a case of being misled, but rather a case of misappropriation and misuse of our forces out of desperation because we spread ourselves far too thin.

2) Or is it mainly because they think the US Guard/Reserves hardly ever go to war, and if they do, they don't do the heavy lifting (which doesn't seem to be the case)?

No, I don't at all believe this is the case. See above.

If (2), then would that constitute as fraud?

Irrelevant. As I mentioned previously, the three branches (active duty, Guard and Reserves) are essentially being used as equals, rather than to perform the functions they were designed to fulfill.

[Woodruff]

Did BBS just call me "notyou2, and whoever"? If you could see me I suspect I look upset about that.

It's probably because of that big damn Hook 'Em Horns thing you're holding up. Damn Texans want to run everything.

[Woodruff]

What happened to making your kids "army strong"? Wasn't that supposed to be a good thing?

In the Air Force, we used to say "Army Strong...but odor isn't everything.".

[2dimes]

]

But... the ads make it sound so easy!

Indeed.

Of course, it's not the actual physical work that's the problem, really. That sort of thing doesn't really lead much to suicide, outside of psychological battlefield scars. It's the separation, and all of the problems that causes (primarily marital and parental).

I would think the physical work would have many benefits including making them healthier psychologically.

Yes and no. Typically, killing other people doesn't make for a healthier psyche.

Um, by physical work I was kind of thinking, digging, moving things, running with your rifle over head, etc. but I guess killing could be physical work too.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Woodruff, notyou2, and whoever
1) So, why did they not expect to be doing what they doing right now? Were they perhaps misled?

The Guard and Reserves, by the US military's own doctrine, do not routinely deploy. In particular, the National Guard is just that...to guard our nation, not to be used as an offensive force.

So I honestly don't believe it's a case of being misled, but rather a case of misappropriation and misuse of our forces out of desperation because we spread ourselves far too thin.

If the Guard is being used for purposes which it was not intended, and its recruits were told, "Hey, you're only going to be used for domestic security," then how is it not fraud to use the Guard for a purpose other than clearly stated at the time a recruit signed the contract?

Is there some caveat I'm missing, e.g. "USG: your job description is X, Y, and Z, but we might disregard that and routinely send you abroad; therefore, you can't sue us, the contract is not null and void, and haha, piss on you." ??

[BigBallinStalin]

So you're saying their branch of service, the government or perhaps both, is committing what sounds like fraud by misleading them?

Did BBS just call me "notyou2, and whoever"? If you could see me I suspect I look upset about that.

You Canadians all look the same.

[jonesthecurl]

So you're saying their branch of service, the government or perhaps both, is committing what sounds like fraud by misleading them?

Did BBS just call me "notyou2, and whoever"? If you could see me I suspect I look upset about that.

You Canadians all look the same.

You Canuck be serious.

[Woodruff]

@Woodruff, notyou2, and whoever
1) So, why did they not expect to be doing what they doing right now? Were they perhaps misled?

The Guard and Reserves, by the US military's own doctrine, do not routinely deploy. In particular, the National Guard is just that...to guard our nation, not to be used as an offensive force.

So I honestly don't believe it's a case of being misled, but rather a case of misappropriation and misuse of our forces out of desperation because we spread ourselves far too thin.

If the Guard is being used for purposes which it was not intended, and its recruits were told, "Hey, you're only going to be used for domestic security," then how is it not fraud to use the Guard for a purpose other than clearly stated at the time a recruit signed the contract?

Is there some caveat I'm missing, e.g. "USG: your job description is X, Y, and Z, but we might disregard that and routinely send you abroad; therefore, you can't sue us, the contract is not null and void, and haha, piss on you." ??

It's not a caveat, it's the overriding function that the military can do whatever they damn well please with you, so long as it isn't illegal. They don't call it "signing your life away" for nothing. That function isn't hidden by the recruiters, though it's certainly not something they routinely brag about.

As another example...You can go into the military with what is called a "guaranteed specialty", but if you happen to fail out of that specialty, the military has the option of cross-training you into something else they need. Some guarantee.

[Army of GOD]

]

But... the ads make it sound so easy!

Indeed.

Of course, it's not the actual physical work that's the problem, really. That sort of thing doesn't really lead much to suicide, outside of psychological battlefield scars. It's the separation, and all of the problems that causes (primarily marital and parental).

I would think the physical work would have many benefits including making them healthier psychologically.

Yes and no. Typically, killing other people doesn't make for a healthier psyche.

Clearly you've never played Grant Theft Auto.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Woodruff, notyou2, and whoever
1) So, why did they not expect to be doing what they doing right now? Were they perhaps misled?

The Guard and Reserves, by the US military's own doctrine, do not routinely deploy. In particular, the National Guard is just that...to guard our nation, not to be used as an offensive force.

So I honestly don't believe it's a case of being misled, but rather a case of misappropriation and misuse of our forces out of desperation because we spread ourselves far too thin.

If the Guard is being used for purposes which it was not intended, and its recruits were told, "Hey, you're only going to be used for domestic security," then how is it not fraud to use the Guard for a purpose other than clearly stated at the time a recruit signed the contract?

Is there some caveat I'm missing, e.g. "USG: your job description is X, Y, and Z, but we might disregard that and routinely send you abroad; therefore, you can't sue us, the contract is not null and void, and haha, piss on you." ??

It's not a caveat, it's the overriding function that the military can do whatever they damn well please with you, so long as it isn't illegal. They don't call it "signing your life away" for nothing. That function isn't hidden by the recruiters, though it's certainly not something they routinely brag about.

As another example...You can go into the military with what is called a "guaranteed specialty", but if you happen to fail out of that specialty, the military has the option of cross-training you into something else they need. Some guarantee.

Okay, that makes sense, but would you mind helping me clarify something?

Earlier, you stated that "[the Guard and Reserve are] doing things they really shouldn't have expected to be doing, in my opinion."

Is it the case that (a) these recruits failed to expect this extra-normal activity, or (b) do you mean that they severely underestimated the risk of carrying out extra-normal activities?

If (a) is the case, then why did they fail to expect this? (Once again), were they misled? Did the recruiters downplay the possible risk of doing something extra-normal, or were the recruiters even aware of this possible future for these recruits?

[Woodruff]

@Woodruff, notyou2, and whoever
1) So, why did they not expect to be doing what they doing right now? Were they perhaps misled?

The Guard and Reserves, by the US military's own doctrine, do not routinely deploy. In particular, the National Guard is just that...to guard our nation, not to be used as an offensive force.

So I honestly don't believe it's a case of being misled, but rather a case of misappropriation and misuse of our forces out of desperation because we spread ourselves far too thin.

If the Guard is being used for purposes which it was not intended, and its recruits were told, "Hey, you're only going to be used for domestic security," then how is it not fraud to use the Guard for a purpose other than clearly stated at the time a recruit signed the contract?

Is there some caveat I'm missing, e.g. "USG: your job description is X, Y, and Z, but we might disregard that and routinely send you abroad; therefore, you can't sue us, the contract is not null and void, and haha, piss on you." ??

It's not a caveat, it's the overriding function that the military can do whatever they damn well please with you, so long as it isn't illegal. They don't call it "signing your life away" for nothing. That function isn't hidden by the recruiters, though it's certainly not something they routinely brag about.

As another example...You can go into the military with what is called a "guaranteed specialty", but if you happen to fail out of that specialty, the military has the option of cross-training you into something else they need. Some guarantee.

Okay, that makes sense, but would you mind helping me clarify something?

Earlier, you stated that "[the Guard and Reserve are] doing things they really shouldn't have expected to be doing, in my opinion."

Is it the case that (a) these recruits failed to expect this extra-normal activity, or (b) do you mean that they severely underestimated the risk of carrying out extra-normal activities?

If (a) is the case, then why did they fail to expect this? (Once again), were they misled? Did the recruiters downplay the possible risk of doing something extra-normal, or were the recruiters even aware of this possible future for these recruits?

I would guess A, given your limited terminology. They didn't expect to be doing something that was outside of the bounds of what the Guard and Reserves are supposed to be doing, and there isn't really any reason why they should expect that. The recruiters, I would hope, also wouldn't be expecting to be doing something that was outside of the bounds of what the Guard and Reserves are supposed to be doing. As I stated quite clearly earlier, I don't at all believe it was a case of being misled, so much as being misused. Perhaps if you'd read what I'm typing instead of continuing to ask the same questions over and over as if you think I'll fall into some sort of a troll trap, you'd understand.

[spurgistan]

I think BBS might actually not be trolling. I actually think he mostly agrees with what you're thinking. I've been wrong before, but spurgreferee thinks that this Simpsons video sums up what both of you are saying. Also, learn Spanish.
http://youtu.be/-N4AK8ekqV4