panic
RichD
for their survival properties.
Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
perception. Fine.
But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
urgent, thinking freezes. How in the world can this
possibly be advantageous? Why would such behavior
be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
--
Rich
Free Lunch
<r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Ha!
Yeah, using technology is definitely deprecated under the influence of
too much adrenaline.
Boikat
You almost had me for a second. I was suspicious with the" ok,
satanists..." opening, but the "..completely vindicates Ray M" was the
clincher. :P
Boikat
John Vreeland
I do not think you can be a Satanist and and atheist, Ray. Unless you
have a peculiar definition of "atheist" all your own. Actually,
Satanists are a subset of Christians, since without Jesus, Satan does
not exist. At least not in the sense you are using it.
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
Nathan Levesque
> for their survival properties.
It's more of a 'Survival to reproduce' property.
> Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> situation? �You experience the adrenaline dump,
> which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> perception. �Fine.
>
> But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> urgent, thinking freezes. �How in the world can this
> possibly be advantageous? �Why would such behavior
> be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
You're suggesting that unless everything is maximally advantageous
that natural selection doesn't make sense? Are you at all familiar
with sexual selection?
> I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
> and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
You'd also be being ignorant. Try doing so basic research on a topic
before you try this again.
Confidence more often begets Ignorance than knowledge.
Glenn
"Nathan Levesque" wrote
>
> Are you at all familiar with sexual selection?
>
VoiceOfReason
> ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> for their survival properties.
I take it you're referring to people, religious or otherwise, who had
a decent enough education to understand science? You may want to look
up the definition of "satanist."
> Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> perception. Fine.
>
> But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> urgent, thinking freezes.
Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much better at
thinking and acting while under great stress and danger. Soldiers in
combat are one example.
> How in the world can this
> possibly be advantageous? Why would such behavior
> be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
It's not. Dull-witted soldiers don't live long.
> I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
First, your incorrect assertion doesn't prove Darwin or evolution
wrong.
Second, the rightness or wrongness of evolution or any other science
has no bearing whatsoever on the existence or nonexistence of any
deity or deities.
> and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
Your argument is invalid, and Ray is a still a buffoon.
Friar Broccoli
> ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> for their survival properties.
>
> Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> perception. Fine.
>
> But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> urgent, thinking freezes. How in the world can this
> possibly be advantageous? Why would such behavior
> be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
Perhaps, in most emergencies, immediate action has more survival value
than thought.
> I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
> and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
Under what circumstances would thought assist Ray?
*Hemidactylus*
The worst thing is GAS, PTSD and anxiety disorders. These are, in the
"eyes" of natural selection, acceptable shortcomings (=side effects)
given the overall advantages of fight or flight, especially for our less
leisurely ancestors. From my personal experience a moderate amount of
physical (mostly aerobic) exercise reduces stress and anxiety. Hit the
elliptical or stationary bike and you might burn off stress with calories.
And without a level of stress, you would be dead. But anxiety and stress
could be a reason people self-medicate with alcohol, or get prescribed
Valium or Xanax.
Just remember the gentle advice of Marcus Welby, MD and try decaf ;-)
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
You do realize Satan is the divinely appointed superintendent of a
garbage dump outside Jerusalem? This place existed before Satan switched
jobs from being the Eden snake and Job's tormentor (= God's prosecutor).
How much of Satan's role is extra-biblical? And could Satan be assumed
to be red with horns? Why? Pitchfork? Fire? Brimstone?
Maybe early proto-Christians viewed their detractors as human refuse
deserving of being burned to death in a garbage dump outside the sacred
city.
--
*Hemidactylus*
J. J. Lodder
> ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> for their survival properties.
>
> Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> perception. Fine.
Real life survival of particular individuals is irrelevant
from an evolutionary perspective.
It's the long term average that counts,
Jan
Roger Shrubber
That's poorly worded at best.
Real life survival of particular individuals indisputably
contributes to long term average reproductive success.
In the part you snipped, the reference was to compromised
intellectual capacity. The question then arises as to in
what situations "think first, act later" is preferred to
"act quick, act decisively".
There's that cliche joke about not having to outrun the
bear, just having to outrun your compatriots - but it
applies to multiple situations. Who knows, perhaps there's
even a compounding effort to select for those who were
thinking ahead and already decided what reaction was
needed in the event of a crisis (the where of the flight,
or the how of the fight).
The OP's analysis is seriously deficient but your retort
doesn't really parse.
Ron O
My take is that most animals have panic responses, but they have
instincts (hardwired behaviors) that kick in. Essentially they do not
have to think. Instinct can be a disadvantage. Deer in the
headlights behavior may have been a good solution to meeting the
unexpected when predators may have been baffled by the response and
the deer was more nimble than the predators and they could evade when
the attack eventually came, but it doesn't do the deer any good when a
car is going 60 miles an hour and doesn't pause for a moment waiting
for the deer to do something.
In humans our instincts have been attenuated. Culture and being able
to think about a problem have relaxed selection on those types of
behaviors. Human babies still have some of the instincts for nursing,
but do human mothers have the instincts to sever the umbilical cord by
chewing it through like a cat or a dog? Learned behavior has taken
over. You can't expect all of our instincts to work the way that they
should when relaxed selection allows for the instincts to be corrupted
and lost over time. Just think how easy it would be to disrupt a
behavior like chewing through the umbilical cord. It is a complex
behavior that ends up with a specific result, but how many things can
go wrong?
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:5dad6f5f-99d3-4f46...@o9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
> > But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
> > At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> > urgent, thinking freezes.
>
> Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much better at
> thinking and acting while under great stress and danger. Soldiers in
> combat are one example.
They've been trained.
We used to have a military draft in this country, meaning that a good
cross-section of American men entered the service. Regardless of their
innate abilities, they all had to be trained to control their fears
while in combat.
-- Steven L.
John Vreeland
This view of Satan is mostly Christian. The dualilstic idea came from
late Jewish pre-Christian antiquity (the Pharisees and Essenes were
dualistic, but not the Sadducees) perhaps originally from
zoroastrianism. Jesus seems to have been immersed in the dualism of
his time, which we have inherited, as did the christian gnostics.
Even though modern Jewry seems to have inherited the pharisaical
traditions (the Sadducees and Essenes were slaughtered), it has no
"devil worship" that I know of. Instead they have the mystical "Name
of God" cabalic nonsense that impresses weak minds.
You have already noted that in Job the Devil is not the Enemy of God
(and is certainly not in Hell) but simply a lesser being who questions
Job's obedience. In Job Satan always seemed to me to be a neighbor who
was arguing with God about the quality of a certain vegetable in his
garden.
"Your tomato plant is truly magnificent, but that is only because you
use too many pesticides.
"Well then, I leave you to wash away the pesticides and see if the
insects eat it.
"Your tomato plant is magnificent, and still produces a few tomatoes
even though the bugs eat it, but if it were not for this fine weather
it would be dead and withered.
"Well then, you may erect a shade over the plant to prevent the sun or
rain from falling upon it and we shall see if it whithers and dies.
& etc. I always felt as if that one tomato plant was not particularly
valuable to God because he had so many others.Certainly he does not
seem to care very much about Job's children, whom God orders
slaughtered, though God replaces them with new ones later on. So much
for the sanctity of human life.
Mike Lyle
I heard Gen. Schwarzkopf on BBC Radio 4's _Desert Island Discs_
explaining that he wasn't a brave man. He proceeded to prove the
assertion to his own satisfaction by describing how one of his men in
Viet Nam walked into a minefield and was wounded: as the commander, he
had to go in and get the kid out, even though he was so scared that
his legs froze at every step. Send us all some of that kind of
"non-bravery" if we ever need it!
--
Mike.
Dana Tweedy
> ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> for their survival properties.
I'm not a satanist, but on average natural selection tends to favor traits that offer some kind of advantage in reproductive success. Survival is one advantage, as dead organisms don't reproduce.
>
> Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> situation?
One either survives, or one does not.
> You experience the adrenaline dump,
> which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> perception. Fine.
In humans, that's part of the "flight or fight" reaction. Of course, not every life and death situation provokes such a reaction. If you choose to eat a poisonous berry, or not, doesn't often produce a flight or fight reaction.
>
> But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
Some people do, many do not.
> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> urgent, thinking freezes.
Again, some people do, some don't. What's needed in an emergency situation is often quick reaction, not long thought out response.
> How in the world can this
> possibly be advantageous?
Again, an instant reaction may be more useful than a long thought out plan. If you are threatened by a big cat, leaping into a tree more often is going to be more advantageous than sitting down and planning out an escape route.
> Why would such behavior
> be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
You are making some false assumptions here. Think it over for a bit, and the answer will most likely come to you.
>
> I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
> and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
God's existence, (something I believe) is irrelevant to the fact of human evolution. Ray believes in some kind of petty, vindictive, and violent supernatural being. His beliefs are not vindicated by faulty assumptions on your part.
If this is a troll message, just add me to the catch.
DJT
>
> --
> Rich
RichD
> > > But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
> > > At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> > > urgent, thinking freezes.
>
> > Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much better at
> > thinking and acting while under great stress and danger. Soldiers in
> > combat are one example.
>
> They've been trained.
>
> to control their fears while in combat.
True, but I have in mind a brain freeze, a paralysis,
distinct from fear.
The point, for this discussion, is that fear is
perfectly rational, a sensibly selected trait.
But brain lock is not, it's clearly pernicious.
--
Rich
RichD
> > ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> > for their survival properties.
>
> I take it you're referring to people, religious or otherwise,
> who had a decent enough education to understand science?
Notice how close is 'satanist' to 'scientist'? Think
that's a mere coincidence?
> You may want to look up the definition of "satanist."
"One who believes in science."
- Ambrose Bierce
> > Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> > situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> > which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> > perception. Fine.
>
> > But in addition, you go into brain lock.
> > At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> > urgent, thinking freezes.
>
> Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much
> better at thinking and acting while under great stress and
> danger. Soldiers in combat are one example.
That's right - AFTER intense training, SOME of
them learn to handle stress. Which means you
concede that men innately DO NOT handle it.
This is the best part of Usenet - watching my debate
pseudo-opponents make my case for me.
> > I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
>
> First, your incorrect assertion doesn't prove Darwin or
> evolution wrong.
Incorrect?
As noted, you concede the correctness; inadvertently,
which makes it all the more sincere.
> Second, the rightness or wrongness of evolution or any other
> science has no bearing whatsoever on the existence or
> nonexistence of any deity or deities.
If Darwin was wrong, Yahweh stiil doesn't exist?
I find this dubious.
> > and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
>
> Your argument is invalid, and Ray is a still a buffoon.
But he's OUR buffoon -
--
Rich
Burkhard
> ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> for their survival properties.
>
> Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> perception. Fine.
>
> But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> urgent, thinking freezes. How in the world can this
> possibly be advantageous? Why would such behavior
> be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
Shakespeare has pretty much sussed this one;
"And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprise of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action."
If chased by a really big cat, fast action rather than meticulous
planning is often (mind, not necessarily always) better.
VoiceOfReason
RichD wrote:
> On Aug 28, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > > ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> > > for their survival properties.
> >
> > I take it you're referring to people, religious or otherwise,
> > who had a decent enough education to understand science? �
>
> Notice how close is 'satanist' to 'scientist'? Think
> that's a mere coincidence?
I think this has take a turn for the humorous.
> > You may want to look up the definition of "satanist."
>
> "One who believes in science."
> - Ambrose Bierce
I couldn't find that quote -- cite? But I did find many others, like:
"You don't have to be stupid to be a Christian, ... but it probably
helps."
Funny guy, that Ambrose. :-)
> > > Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> > > situation? �You experience the adrenaline dump,
> > > which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> > > perception. �Fine.
> >
> > > But in addition, you go into brain lock.
> > > At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> > > urgent, thinking freezes.
> >
> > Only if you're the panicky type. �Some people are much
> > better at thinking and acting while under great stress and
> > danger. �Soldiers in combat are one example.
>
> That's right - AFTER intense training, SOME of
> them learn to handle stress. Which means you
> concede that men innately DO NOT handle it.
Not so. That was one example. Regardless of training, some people
are much better at dealing with emergencies than others. Since "I
don't have to be faster than the tiger, I just have to be faster than
you," breaking into a sprint slightly faster than you gives me a
better chance of sharing the breathtaking tale with my offspring.
Obviously, it makes far more sense in an emergency to act quickly
rather than stand there and think about it. Our "fight or flight"
instinct is an emotional reaction. The amygdala, often called the
emotional center of the brain, is involved in that fight or flight
instinct. Interestingly, we know from study of the brain that
emotional reactions are processed before rational thought. It only
makes sense that we have evolved to act first, think later in
emergency situations.
> This is the best part of Usenet - watching my debate
> pseudo-opponents make my case for me.
Hope springs eternal...
> > > I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
> >
> > First, your incorrect assertion doesn't prove Darwin or
> > evolution wrong.
>
> Incorrect?
> As noted, you concede the correctness; inadvertently,
> which makes it all the more sincere.
Yes, incorrect, as explained above.
> > Second, the rightness or wrongness of evolution or any other
> > science has no bearing whatsoever on the existence or
> > nonexistence of any deity or deities.
>
> If Darwin was wrong, Yahweh stiil doesn't exist?
> I find this dubious.
God(s) may or may not exist. The facts of science have no bearing on
that. It's like trying to assert that because French grammar is
correct, Japanese history must be incorrect.
> > > and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
> >
> > Your argument is invalid, and Ray is a still a buffoon.
>
> But he's OUR buffoon -
Any we appreciate his comedic contributions to our humble midst. :-)
Mark Isaak
> On Aug 28, VoiceOfReason<papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But in addition, you go into brain lock.
>>> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
>>> urgent, thinking freezes.
>>
>> Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much
>> better at thinking and acting while under great stress and
>> danger. Soldiers in combat are one example.
>
> That's right - AFTER intense training, SOME of
> them learn to handle stress. Which means you
> concede that men innately DO NOT handle it.
My impression is that the primary purposes of military training are (1)
to make people willing to follow orders, and (2) to make them willing to
kill other people.
I shall defer, though, to those with firsthand experience.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
RichD
> > you claim traits are competitively selected,
> > for their survival properties.
>
> It's more of a 'Survival to reproduce' property.
>
> > Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> > situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> > which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> > perception. Fine.
>
> > But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
> > Why would such behavior
> > be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
>
> You're suggesting that unless everything is maximally advantageous
> that natural selection doesn't make sense? Are you at
> all familiar with sexual selection?
Sexual selection. Sounds good.
That's why I ask questions, for edjicashun,
to learn from brainiacs like yourself.
Now let's see if I have it straight... a ho watches men
behave under stress, e.g. a submarine, having launched
the torpedo, has been tracked, and surrounded by
enemy destroyers. Depth charges exploding, all around!
Various crew members frozen, foaming, running around
like headless chickens. She picks out the one who
disintegrates most, throws herself upon him; "My
Prince Valiant, you make my ovaries vibrate, your
genes are the ones I want my offspring to carry!"
hey, when I look at this wacky world, and see
almost every lummox manages to hook up, it
seems reasonable -
> > I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
> > and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
>
> You'd also be being ignorant. Try doing so basic research
> on a topic before you try this again.
Basic research. Good idea.
I Googled "why is brain lock in crisis an evolution selected trait?"
And found nada.
Can you help me out, Perfessor?
> Confidence more often begets Ignorance than knowledge.
Right.
You sound pretty confident, so if I listen to you....
--
Rich
Stephen
Your whole idea of "brain lock in a crisis" is bogus. You're welcome.
[snip]
S.
--
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> On 8/29/11 7:46 PM, RichD wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, VoiceOfReason<papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> >>> But in addition, you go into brain lock.
> >>> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> >>> urgent, thinking freezes.
>
> >> Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much
> >> better at thinking and acting while under great stress and
> >> danger. Soldiers in combat are one example.
>
> > That's right - AFTER intense training, SOME of
> > them learn to handle stress. Which means you
> > concede that men innately DO NOT handle it.
>
> My impression is that the primary purposes of military training are (1)
> to make people willing to follow orders, and (2) to make them willing to
> kill other people.
(1) is correct and so is (2). "Make them willing to kill other people"
by being so unfair to them that they will become incredibly hateful,
taking it out on the enemy. That is the philosophy behind "boot camp
drill sergeant," to become like him toward the enemy. This is why the
drill sergeant picks on the weaklings. It aint personal. He knows that
the only way these will survive in battle is if they become hateful.
So he picks on them, hoping to make them as hateful as possible.
Ray
[....]
Richard Clayton
> On 8/29/11 7:46 PM, RichD wrote:
>> On Aug 28, VoiceOfReason<papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But in addition, you go into brain lock.
>>>> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
>>>> urgent, thinking freezes.
>>>
>>> Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much
>>> better at thinking and acting while under great stress and
>>> danger. Soldiers in combat are one example.
>>
>> That's right - AFTER intense training, SOME of
>> them learn to handle stress. Which means you
>> concede that men innately DO NOT handle it.
>
> My impression is that the primary purposes of military training are (1)
> to make people willing to follow orders, and (2) to make them willing to
> kill other people.
>
> I shall defer, though, to those with firsthand experience.
You're partly right. The first and foremost goal is to get people to act
as a TEAM; Basic gets a lot easier once your platoon figures this part out.
Second, they want to teach you the skills required to survive on the
battlefield. Ignorance and incompetence kill -- not just you, but your
whole platoon. That does include killing people; you probably won't WANT
to do it after BCT, but you'll certainly know how.
I suppose a distant third is winnowing out those who are simply unfit to
serve. There's no shame in this; soldiering (navying, marining,
airforcing) is not for everybody.
Conditioning obedience to authority? Well, maybe. Maybe not. There's a
venerable and respected military tradition, dating at least back to
ancient Roman times, of hating your entire chain of command... :)
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Richard Clayton
Just out of curiosity, Ray, have you ever enlisted in any military? I'm
puzzled where you got those ideas.
VoiceOfReason
Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 30-Aug-11 12:23 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 8/29/11 7:46 PM, RichD wrote:
> >> On Aug 28, VoiceOfReason<papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> But in addition, you go into brain lock.
> >>>> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> >>>> urgent, thinking freezes.
> >>>
> >>> Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much
> >>> better at thinking and acting while under great stress and
> >>> danger. Soldiers in combat are one example.
> >>
> >> That's right - AFTER intense training, SOME of
> >> them learn to handle stress. Which means you
> >> concede that men innately DO NOT handle it.
> >
> > My impression is that the primary purposes of military training are (1)
> > to make people willing to follow orders, and (2) to make them willing to
> > kill other people.
> >
> > I shall defer, though, to those with firsthand experience.
>
> You're partly right. The first and foremost goal is to get people to act
> as a TEAM; Basic gets a lot easier once your platoon figures this part out.
I can vouch for that. That's one thing our drill instructors
"drilled" into us in the Air Force, "Teamwork is everything,
dipshits!"
Another thing was ABSOLUTE attention to detail. Woe betide the man
whose drawer isn't set out perfectly with underwear EXACTLY 6 inches
wide! (In the Air Force, that actually made some sense. Since most
of them will end up as some sort of technician -- aircraft mechanic,
engine mechanic, missile technician, etc. -- you want to instill in
them the habit of following procedures to the letter.)
> Second, they want to teach you the skills required to survive on the
> battlefield. Ignorance and incompetence kill -- not just you, but your
> whole platoon. That does include killing people; you probably won't WANT
> to do it after BCT, but you'll certainly know how.
>
> I suppose a distant third is winnowing out those who are simply unfit to
> serve. There's no shame in this; soldiering (navying, marining,
> airforcing) is not for everybody.
I think that was part of it -- put a bunch of randomly selected
recruits that you know nothing about under extreme stress and watch
how they react. First, it teaches them that they can endure more than
they thought they could -- second, it shows which of them just can't
hack the demands of the job.
> Conditioning obedience to authority? Well, maybe. Maybe not. There's a
> venerable and respected military tradition, dating at least back to
> ancient Roman times, of hating your entire chain of command... :)
In my experience, recruits already recognize and accept authority
figures, though that is "somewhat reinforced" in basic training. :-)
(And yes, soldiers/sailors/airmen will always gripe anyway.)
--
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot..."
Tommy -- Rudyard Kipling
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Your issue, as phrased, says a person cannot have accurate ideas about
the military unless they spent time in the military.
Ray
Burkhard
Easy.Next time you use google omit the quotation marks, especially if
you are unsure if the phrase you use is correct.
Would give you n this case eg.:
Nesse RM.:Proximate and evolutionary studies of anxiety, stress and
depression: synergy at the interface. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1999 Nov;
23(7):895-903.
ibid: Evolutionary biology: a basic science for psychiatryWorld
Psychiatry. 2002 February; 1(1): 7–9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1489830/
(note: these are just some of the papers you find immediately, I do
not necessarily agree with the content myself, not being an
adaptionist)
And here one n a related issue that brings in the sexual selection
argument someone else brought up in this thread
http://cogprints.org/5014/1/2004_C.N.S_Five_Fs_of_FEAR--Freeze_Flight_Fight_Fright_Faint.pdf
Earle Jones
<467c6030-9916-4466...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
And your response says you were never in the military and you clearly
don't know a goddam thing about it.
earle
*
Rolf
That's not my experience, but America may be different. We just learned to
do as good a job as we could - sending explosive stuff in the direction of
the enemy.
Mike Painter
@r8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, r_dela...@yahoo.com says...
>
> ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> for their survival properties.
>
> situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> perception. Fine.
>
> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> possibly be advantageous? Why would such behavior
> be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
>
> and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
Perhaps you go into brain lock, but not everybody does and if they
survive that first time you are likely to do better the next time.
There are some herd animals where individuals freeze under such
conditions.
It fits well with evolutionary theory.
If animals have an easy kill they will not attack and possibly seriously
injure a large number of other animals.
Ray Martinez
> In article
> <467c6030-9916-4466-8c99-05b579c3f...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your response says you were never man enough to join or the weakling
who couldn't make it out of boot camp.
In addition: your rejection of the purpose of war time boot camp
indicates the very reason why most (if not all) wars since WW2 Vietnam
and the Balkans war were the last real wars fought. In these wars and
ones previous soldiers were trained to take orders (like Mark Isaak
said) and they were trained to be mindless hateful killing machines
(like I said). Commanding officers want their troops to butcher
civilians without hesitation and without mercy. In the three wars
mentioned this is exactly what we saw. The reason why a real war kills
civilians is because they could and do aid the enemy. Like it or not
(and I, like any other civilized person do not) war is about killing
anyone and everyone who could aid your enemy. This is why we failed in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I know a Vietnam vet who says he was trained to
be the mindless hateful killing machine that I spoke of. He admits to
killing men, women and children because he was ordered to do so for
the reasons I mentioned. Am I advocating genocide? No, of course not.
I am admitting the unpleasant facts of REAL war.
You can deny it all you want, but their are volumes upon volumes of
history books that confirm what I am saying.
Ray
RichD
> > > > Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> > > > situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> > > > which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> > > > perception.
>
> > > > be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
>
>
> > > on a topic before you try this again.
>
> > Basic research. Good idea.
> > I Googled "why is brain lock in crisis an evolution selected trait?"
> > And found nada.
>
Sure thing, bro, it's just my imagination of a figment.
PS Check the subject header - what does that word
mean, why does it exist?
Thank you for this amusing interlude.
> You're welcome.
--
Rich
RichD
> > At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> > urgent, thinking freezes.
>
> often quick reaction, not long thought out response.
>
> > How in the world can this possibly be advantageous?
>
> Again, an instant reaction may be more useful than a long
> thought out plan.
False dichotomy. It's not either/or.
Why can't you think clearly - at the moment when it's
most valuable - AND move fast? Why the necessity to
become thick as a brick?
Making a quick correct decision beats making a
quick random decision. Want to argue the opposing
side of this assertion? Be my guest -
> If you are threatened by a big cat, leaping into a
> tree more often is going to be more advantageous than sitting
> down and planning out an escape route
um, cats can climb trees. Speaking of brain lock -
--
Rich
Burkhard
> On Aug 29, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> > > urgent, thinking freezes.
>
> > What's needed in an emergency situation is
> > often quick reaction, not long thought out response.
>
> > > How in the world can this possibly be advantageous?
>
> > Again, an instant reaction may be more useful than a long
> > thought out plan.
>
> False dichotomy. It's not either/or.
> Why can't you think clearly - at the moment when it's
> most valuable - AND move fast? Why the necessity to
> become thick as a brick?
Why didn't evolution give us turbo jet engines that allow us to fly
away from danger at hypersonic speed?
>
> Making a quick correct decision beats making a
> quick random decision. Want to argue the opposing
> side of this assertion? Be my guest -
Apart from the issue of the desirable vs the possible from above:
random decisions are often difficult t predict by the other side. So
when running away and making quick turns, randomness or near
randomness is quite good as a strategy
RichD
> > But in addition, you go into brain lock, the foggy skull.
> > At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> > urgent, thinking freezes. How in the world can this
> > possibly be advantageous?
>
> "And thus the native hue of resolution
> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
> And enterprise of great pitch and moment
> With this regard their currents turn awry
> And lose the name of action."
Marvelous. I'm a big fan of the Bard, but
didn't know that one.
And in much the same spirit, another verse,
which clearly had this newsgroup in mind:
(and will tickle Señor Martinez no end)
"But man, proud man,
Dressed in a brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured.
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep."
--
Rich
Richard Clayton
Heh. Yeah, the Army's the same way. I've been known to annoy my partners
when they overlook something by saying "ATTENTION to DETAIL, killer! It
WILL save your life!" in a DI tone of voice...
>> Second, they want to teach you the skills required to survive on the
>> battlefield. Ignorance and incompetence kill -- not just you, but your
>> whole platoon. That does include killing people; you probably won't WANT
>> to do it after BCT, but you'll certainly know how.
>>
>> I suppose a distant third is winnowing out those who are simply unfit to
>> serve. There's no shame in this; soldiering (navying, marining,
>> airforcing) is not for everybody.
>
> I think that was part of it -- put a bunch of randomly selected
> recruits that you know nothing about under extreme stress and watch
> how they react. First, it teaches them that they can endure more than
> they thought they could -- second, it shows which of them just can't
> hack the demands of the job.
>
>> Conditioning obedience to authority? Well, maybe. Maybe not. There's a
>> venerable and respected military tradition, dating at least back to
>> ancient Roman times, of hating your entire chain of command... :)
>
> In my experience, recruits already recognize and accept authority
> figures, though that is "somewhat reinforced" in basic training. :-)
>
> (And yes, soldiers/sailors/airmen will always gripe anyway.)
>
> --
> "For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
> But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot..."
And once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you'll never be rid of the Dane...
Richard Clayton
I'd almost forgotten you're a sick enough human being to approve of
military forces targeting noncombatants. Thanks for reminding me. And
please, get help.
Richard Clayton
No, my issue, as phrased, wonders where you got your mistaken ideas. As
usual, your huffy refusal to answer inconvenient questions reveals far
more than a direct statement ever could.
Burkhard
To be fair to Ray, he didn't say he approves of it - in fact he said
he doesn't. As to the accuracy of his claim, well, it doesn't match my
own army experience, but then we were conscripts in peacetime.
Richard Clayton
> he doesn't. As to the accuracy of his claim, well, it doesn't match my
> own army experience, but then we were conscripts in peacetime.
He has said so in the past, regarding the way the US should deal with
Muslims in the "war on terror." I'd find the archived message in Google
Groups, but I suspect the Mysterious Post Deleter has already struck.
Earle Jones
<d2503985-bdaa-41f6...@x14g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> who couldn't make it out of boot camp...
*
Ray:
Oh, I made it out of boot camp all right.
On June 24, 1950 I was sitting alone in the base movie at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Someone tapped me on
the shoulder and said, "Come outside."
When we got outside he said to me, "Get your stuff together. There is a
war on. North Korea has invaded South Korea." I was 19 years old.
Two days later we flew from WP AFB to what is now Travis AFB near San
Francisco (my first visit to California.) Thence to Yerba Buena Island
(the Army's replacement depot from WWII.) Then to Fort Mason to board
the USS Private Joe Martinez (any relation? He won the Congressional
Medal of Honor in WWII.) Next stop -- a B-29 base in Okinawa, where I
spent the next two years living in a tent. The B-29s that were used to
bomb North Korea from 1950 through the cease fire in 1953 were based on
either Okinawa or at Yokota, Japan. I was scheduled to get out after
three years, which would have been the summer of 1951. A letter from
President Truman informed me that I would remain in the service for
another year, for the "convenience of the government." Staff Sergeant
Jones was honorably discharged in the summer of 1952.
Four years of my life in the US military. For this I received the GI
Bill, which paid my way through a degree in Electrical Engineering at
Georgia Tech. Then to Stanford for my Masters in EE. Then to the
business school for courses there. For the past 30 + years, I have been
a part of the Stanford community, working in their research organization.
I am now retired, living happily in Portola Valley, California, in the
hills behind Stanford University.
Cheers!
earle
*
Ray: Tell us about your service.
Robert Weldon
news:d2503985-bdaa-41f6...@x14g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
And with this post, Raytard proves that he knows nothing about military
training.
Nathan Levesque
Why are you offering up an example where the individual would not
survive to reproduce? It's a sad thing when a literate person tries
so hard to misunderstand things. Sexual selection is a fairly
straight forward example of where the selective pressures are not on
maximally advantageous combinations of genes. Peacock's are the
cliched example of that. It's called a counterpoint.
Now that we've established that evolution is not predicated on your
notions of selection we can move on.
> hey, when I look at this wacky world, and see
> almost every lummox manages to hook up, it
> seems reasonable -
>
> > > I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
> > > and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
>
> > You'd also be being ignorant. Try doing so basic research
> > on a topic before you try this again.
>
> Basic research. Good idea.
> I Googled "why is brain lock in crisis an evolution selected trait?"
> And found nada.
Bravo, you did one google search. That's some super duper research
alright!
> Can you help me out, Perfessor?
I'm not a neurologist, for all we know it's a byproduct of some
obscure physiology of the brain. Try looking up fight or flight
response. Some creatures stand perfectly still when they're
frightened, some play dead. Isn't the advice for coming upon a bear
to get into the fetal position and play dead?
> > Confidence more often begets Ignorance than knowledge.
>
> Right.
> You sound pretty confident, so if I listen to you....
I didn't assert anything that wasn't plainly obvious to someone with a
cursory knowledge of TOE.
I also used caveots and asked a question.
If that's 'pretty confident' to you, I'd have to wonder if you're
afflicted with regular panic attacks.
sbalneav
> In article
> <d2503985-bdaa-41f6...@x14g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip for brevity>
>> Your response says you were never man enough to join or the weakling
>> who couldn't make it out of boot camp...
>
> *
> Ray:
>
> Oh, I made it out of boot camp all right.
>
> On June 24, 1950 I was sitting alone in the base movie at
> Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Someone tapped me on
> the shoulder and said, "Come outside."
>
> When we got outside he said to me, "Get your stuff together. There is a
> war on. North Korea has invaded South Korea." I was 19 years old.
Thanks, Earle, for two things:
1) My dad was reserve in the Canadian forces, during that time period, and
might have ended up serving in Korea, had not brave men and women such as
yourself been doing their jobs so effectively. Thanks for fighting hard
enough that my dad didn't have to. And thanks from me, for your service, as
well.
2) Thanks, also, for serving a steel-plated, battle-hardened, military-grade
spanking to Ray. Made me smile.
*Hemidactylus*
them out as his perception, which isn't far from the truth. Boot camp
often turns out killing machines, some of whom don't know when to turn
it off.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
As much as Ray typically pisses me off, I think you are right. He wasn't
saying this brutal aspect of war is a good thing.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
> I am now retired, living happily in Portola Valley, California, in the
> hills behind Stanford University.
>
> Cheers!
>
> earle
> *
> Ray: Tell us about your service.
>
services. I think the tendency is to pile on, which I do with Ray, but I
think he was pointing things out about the military, not all soldiers,
that are brutal truths. Need I point to My Lai? Or Abu Ghraib?
BTW I'm a hawk, though the Cheney administration has weakened my
position a bit.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
> On Aug 30, 9:23 am, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> On 8/29/11 7:46 PM, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 28, VoiceOfReason<papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But in addition, you go into brain lock.
>>>>> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
>>>>> urgent, thinking freezes.
>>
>>>> Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much
>>>> better at thinking and acting while under great stress and
>>>> danger. Soldiers in combat are one example.
>>
>>> That's right - AFTER intense training, SOME of
>>> them learn to handle stress. Which means you
>>> concede that men innately DO NOT handle it.
>>
>> My impression is that the primary purposes of military training are (1)
>> to make people willing to follow orders, and (2) to make them willing to
>> kill other people.
>
> (1) is correct and so is (2). "Make them willing to kill other people"
> by being so unfair to them that they will become incredibly hateful,
> taking it out on the enemy. That is the philosophy behind "boot camp
> drill sergeant," to become like him toward the enemy. This is why the
> drill sergeant picks on the weaklings. It aint personal. He knows that
> the only way these will survive in battle is if they become hateful.
> So he picks on them, hoping to make them as hateful as possible.
>
--
*Hemidactylus*
Jack Frieze
> On Aug 28, 10:56 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ok, satanists, you claim traits are competitively selected,
> > for their survival properties.
>
> > Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> > situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> > which amps strength and pain threshold, and focuses
> > perception. Fine.
>
> > At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
> > possibly be advantageous? Why would such behavior
> > be selected, unless 'selected' means death wish?
>
> "And thus the native hue of resolution
> Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
> And enterprise of great pitch and moment
> With this regard their currents turn awry
> And lose the name of action."
>
> planning is often (mind, not necessarily always) better.
>
I finally get to use this anecdote. A few years ago a new travel
agency opened along my route from the office to the Superdome where I
parked my car. The first time I passed their floor-to-ceiling display
window I found myself eye-locked with a small lion, and I immediately
froze, not even breathing. I relaxed only as I realized it was dead
and stuffed. My Just So story was that the only people to survive
suddenly finding themselves that close to a lion were those that
didn't move; turning to run would have caused a pounce from even a
sated lion. I also have personal experience with being in the place of
the deer in Okimoto's example above and agree that it does not work
with cars.
--
Jack Frieze
>
>
> > I'd say it proves Darwin was wrong, and God exists -
> > and of course, completely vindicates Ray M.
>
> > Rich
Richard Clayton
Nope, he's been pretty clear in the past he thinks torture, indefinite
detainment, and attacks on noncombatants are all okey-dokey by him.
"911 gives us the right to do as we please... There is no torture. It is
called justice in the theatre of war."
"We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right."
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2c82997de69a1fc4
(Read quickly, before the Mysterious Post Deleter savages the thread.)
> he's just pointing
> them out as his perception, which isn't far from the truth. Boot camp
> often turns out killing machines, some of whom don't know when to turn
> it off.
"Often"? How often? Every day? Twice a week? A few times a month? Cite?
Some people do crack under the pressure, but it's pretty rare. Most of
them attempt to hurt themselves, not others. Most people make it through
Basic Combat Training psychologically intact; given we have more than 20
million former service members in the United States and homicidal
rampages from killing machines who "don't know when to turn it off" are
pretty rare, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the
situation as "often."
What really seems to do a number on our brains is service in warfare.
I'd love to see the U.S. military develop a modern attitude toward
mental health, including comprehensive counseling and psychiatric care
for service members and veterans. I'd also like to see some kind of
screening process to to weed out recruits who are psychologically unfit
for duty, whether because they're too gentle in character or too vicious.
*Hemidactylus*
OK, I admit Ray is probably not someone to defend given his track record.
>> he's just pointing
>> them out as his perception, which isn't far from the truth. Boot camp
>> often turns out killing machines, some of whom don't know when to turn
>> it off.
>
> "Often"? How often? Every day? Twice a week? A few times a month? Cite?
Often enough to produce a subset of soldiers who are expected to see
real in your face combat. People in certain military fields aren't going
to a cush job in Hawaii or Germany. They are transformed by training
into hard-core soldiers. The training prepares them for the hard-core
stuff. The experiences of combat, seeing people cut in half by RPGs or
ripped to shreds by automatic weapons, could scar them for life.
> Some people do crack under the pressure, but it's pretty rare. Most of
> them attempt to hurt themselves, not others. Most people make it through
> Basic Combat Training psychologically intact; given we have more than 20
> million former service members in the United States and homicidal
> rampages from killing machines who "don't know when to turn it off" are
> pretty rare, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the
> situation as "often."
There are, from my impression, plenty of people returning as hollow
shells of their former selves. They have issues readjusting to "normalcy".
> What really seems to do a number on our brains is service in warfare.
> I'd love to see the U.S. military develop a modern attitude toward
> mental health, including comprehensive counseling and psychiatric care
> for service members and veterans. I'd also like to see some kind of
> screening process to to weed out recruits who are psychologically unfit
> for duty, whether because they're too gentle in character or too vicious.
I'd like to hope that veterans won't return home desperate to find work
and at high risk of becoming homeless. At least their survival skills
will help them, if that happens, at least until some redneck sheriff
harasses them in the Pacific Northwest and draws first blood.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/First_Blood
[quote]Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in
charge of million-dollar equipment. Back here I can't even hold a job
parking cars!! [throws machine gun at wall before breaking down] Uhhh!!
Wha...I can't...oh, I just, oh my God. Where is everybody? Oh
God...I...I had a friend, who was Danforth. What, I had all these guys
man. Back there I had all these fucking guys. Who were my friends. Cause
back here there's nothing. Remember Danforth? He wore this black
headband and I took one of those magic markers and I said to Feron, "Hey
mail us to Las Vegas" cause we were always talking about Vegas, and this
fucking car. This uh red '58 Chevy convertible, he was talking about
this car, he said we were gonna cruise till the tires fall off ... We
were in this bar in Saigon and this kid comes up, this kid carrying a
shoe-shine box. And he says "Shine, please, shine!" I said no. He kept
askin', yeah, and Joey said "Yeah." And I went to get a couple of beers,
and the box was wired, and he opened up the box, fucking blew his body
all over the place. And he's laying there, he's fucking screaming.
There's pieces of him all over me, just...like this, and I'm tryin' to
pull him off, you know, my friend that's all over me! I've got blood and
everything and I'm tryin' to hold him together! I'm puttin'... the guy's
fuckin' insides keep coming out! And nobody would help! Nobody would
help! He's saying, sayin' "I wanna go home! I wanna go home!" He keeps
calling my name! "I wanna go home, Johnny! I wanna drive my Chevy!" I
said "With what? I can't find your fuckin' legs! I can't find your
legs!" [/quote]
--
*Hemidactylus*
Richard Clayton
But now you're talking about real combat, not basic training.
>> Some people do crack under the pressure, but it's pretty rare. Most of
>> them attempt to hurt themselves, not others. Most people make it through
>> Basic Combat Training psychologically intact; given we have more than 20
>> million former service members in the United States and homicidal
>> rampages from killing machines who "don't know when to turn it off" are
>> pretty rare, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the
>> situation as "often."
>
> There are, from my impression, plenty of people returning as hollow
> shells of their former selves. They have issues readjusting to "normalcy".
No argument here. But again, you're talking about the horrors of war
itself, not BCT turning out "killing machines who don't know when to
turn it off."
>> What really seems to do a number on our brains is service in warfare.
>> I'd love to see the U.S. military develop a modern attitude toward
>> mental health, including comprehensive counseling and psychiatric care
>> for service members and veterans. I'd also like to see some kind of
>> screening process to to weed out recruits who are psychologically unfit
>> for duty, whether because they're too gentle in character or too vicious.
>
> I'd like to hope that veterans won't return home desperate to find work
> and at high risk of becoming homeless.
Yeah. See what I said above about wishing the military would adopt a
modern attitude toward mental health.
To be fair, they're being much smarter about it now than they were in
the Vietnam war. In the Vietnam era, you could be fighting for your life
in the jungle on Tuesday morning, then walking around the streets of
your hometown by Wednesday afternoon — fighting men didn't have time to
decompress, and were suddenly separated from the people they'd come to
rely on for survival.
Now units come home together, and generally get about a week at a
demobilization station. Unfortunately, it's still not enough — the demil
period should be more like a month of light duty, and it should include
mandatory counseling and psych evals for everybody. Unfortunately, now
as then, those who need professional help dealing with what they've seen
and done are derided as weak and cowardly.
(For people who were so fond of exhorting us all to "SUPPORT THE
TROOPS!" the Bush Administration sure spent a lot of time screwing
active service members and veterans.)
I'm endlessly amused that so many folks miss the irony of turning the
Rambo series into brainless action flicks. I notice the same folks tend
to miss the irony in "Born in the U.S.A."
*Hemidactylus*
OK, but isn't there training beyond basic for people going into various
combat duties? Basic at least prepares the mind for this, or did I watch
Full Metal Jacket too many times?
>>> Some people do crack under the pressure, but it's pretty rare. Most of
>>> them attempt to hurt themselves, not others. Most people make it through
>>> Basic Combat Training psychologically intact; given we have more than 20
>>> million former service members in the United States and homicidal
>>> rampages from killing machines who "don't know when to turn it off" are
>>> pretty rare, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the
>>> situation as "often."
>>
>> There are, from my impression, plenty of people returning as hollow
>> shells of their former selves. They have issues readjusting to
>> "normalcy".
>
> No argument here. But again, you're talking about the horrors of war
> itself, not BCT turning out "killing machines who don't know when to
> turn it off."
Post-basic training might. And basic takes people out of the cushy
everyday existence of the "world" and puts them in an intense and
stressful situation that transforms them into a different person. Or is
that just Marine boot camp? Air Force boot camp might serve to take a
couple pounds off, kinda like having a personal trainer yell at you
every morning.
There were several layers to Rambo. There was the superficial shoot em
and blow them up layer and the deeper abstract layer. There was a
serious irony in Rambo III that only became relevant after 9-11. The
newest Rambo flick at least highlighted the issues in Burma/Myanmar with
enough shoot em and blow them up to keep most in the target audience
interested, beyond the brutal political layer.
I've been meaning to read the original book that inspired the movies.
The first movie was rather tame vs the book, from what I've heard.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Richard Clayton
Of course. Each branch of the military has numerous schools; the Army is
particularly notable for having dozens or hundreds, some very
specialized indeed. Can you cite any statistics showing any of these
schools produce "killing machines who don't know when to turn it off"?
I'm still not seeing any evidence for your original assertions.
Incidentally, Full Metal Jacket, though it has permeated pop culture, is
not a great source of information on how basic training works. It's an
excellent film, but it's not a documentary.
>>>> Some people do crack under the pressure, but it's pretty rare. Most of
>>>> them attempt to hurt themselves, not others. Most people make it
>>>> through
>>>> Basic Combat Training psychologically intact; given we have more
>>>> than 20
>>>> million former service members in the United States and homicidal
>>>> rampages from killing machines who "don't know when to turn it off" are
>>>> pretty rare, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the
>>>> situation as "often."
>>>
>>> There are, from my impression, plenty of people returning as hollow
>>> shells of their former selves. They have issues readjusting to
>>> "normalcy".
>>
>> No argument here. But again, you're talking about the horrors of war
>> itself, not BCT turning out "killing machines who don't know when to
>> turn it off."
>
> Post-basic training might.
"Well, yeah, but there MIGHT be something else" isn't a compelling
counterargument. Can you cite evidence or can't you?
> And basic takes people out of the cushy
> everyday existence of the "world" and puts them in an intense and
> stressful situation that transforms them into a different person. Or is
> that just Marine boot camp? Air Force boot camp might serve to take a
> couple pounds off, kinda like having a personal trainer yell at you
> every morning.
Please do not sneer at an entire branch of the service. Maybe Air Force
basic is less demanding than other branches — I've never been there and
haven't seen any studies, so I couldn't say — but people who enlist in
the Air Force are still accepting challenges others will never face, and
putting their lives on the line for their fellow men and women. And
since we have an all-volunteer military, every single one of them does
it of his or her own free will. They don't deserve to be trivialized.
Haven't seen the new one.
> I've been meaning to read the original book that inspired the movies.
> The first movie was rather tame vs the book, from what I've heard.
I'd like to read it as well, but since the books on my "To Read" list
probably outmass me, it'll probably be a while until I get around to it.
RichD
> > > > Well, what happens in a real survival, life or death
> > > > situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
>
> > > > How in the world can this possibly be advantageous?
>
> > >advantageous that natural selection doesn't make sense?
> > >Are you at all familiar with sexual selection?
>
> > Sexual selection. Sounds good.
>
> > and surrounded by enemy destroyers. Depth charges
> > exploding, all around!
> > Various crew members frozen, foaming, running around
> > like headless chickens. She picks out the one who
> > disintegrates most, throws herself upon him;
>
> straight forward example of where the selective pressures are
> not on maximally advantageous combinations of genes.
> Peacock's are the cliched example of that. It's called a counterpoint.
Peacocks. OK.
The peacock's tail has no impact on his individual
fitness, it's neutral. The males preen their tails just
to impress the chicks.
But when a shmuk chokes and trips over his dick
in a crisis, that clearly shows his UNFITNESS. And
you want to claim this somehow IMPRESSES the
hos, they throw their panties at him, it's just your
basic sexual selection?
I dunno, Perfessor, you might want to review this theory,
before applying for tenure.
> Now that we've established that evolution is not predicated on your
> notions of selection we can move on.
>
> > > Try doing so basic research
> > > on a topic before you try this again.
>
> > Basic research. Good idea.
> > I Googled "why is brain lock in crisis an evolution selected trait?"
> > And found nada.
>
> Bravo, you did one google search. That's some super duper
> research alright!
Which, apparently, puts me ahead of you -
> > Can you help me out, Perfessor?
>
> I'm not a neurologist,
You just play one on the internet.
> for all we know it's a byproduct of some
> obscure physiology of the brain. Try looking up fight
> or flight response. Some creatures stand perfectly still when they're
> frightened, some play dead.
They do.
and, um, what does that have to do with sexual
selection, Perfessor?
> > > Confidence more often begets Ignorance than knowledge.
>
> > Right.
> > You sound pretty confident, so if I listen to you....
>
> I didn't assert anything that wasn't plainly obvious to someone
> with a cursory knowledge of TOE.
Plainly obvious? A female will OBVIOUSLY select
a mate who manifests INFERIOR survival traits?
wow, this is even better than unreality teevee.
I might comment mordantly on the IQ of someone who
opines on a subject, with a cursory knowledge of
that subject, but my mama taught her boy good manners.
Now stick around, Nate, willya? u r my new BFF -
--
Rich
VoiceOfReason
Actually it's from the second you wake up until the second the lights
go out at night.
Having been to Air Force boot camp, I can tell you it's not quite that
cushy. The biggest difference in Air Force boot camp compared to the
Marines: 1) no 20-mile hikes, and 2) no pugil sticks. Although we
did get trained on the M-16. The major part of the day is marching to/
from one class or another while somebody screams in your ear.
I've heard a lot of people (most of whom never served) say they
thought that boot camp dehumanized people. That was not my
experience. IMO, the only reason anybody would come out of boot camp
as a psychopath is because they went in as one, and weren't detected
in the meantime.
Take a random cross-section of people from any society, and you're
going to get a certain number head cases. Send those people through
some brutal experiences, and they're certainly not going to turn out
better.
You don't get nutcases in the military just because they were in the
military. You get them because the population you get people from has
a certain percentage of nutcases in it.
(A side note -- There is clear evidence that the enlisted folks in the
Air Force are smarter than those in the Army & Marines. In the Air
Force, the enlisted guys stay back at the base and send the officers
out to fight.)
;-)
RichD
>
> > > > situation? You experience the adrenaline dump,
> > > > perception. Fine.
>
> > > > How in the world can this possibly be advantageous?
>
> > And found nada.
>
> you are unsure if the phrase you use is correct.
>
> And here one n a related issue that brings in the sexual selection
> argument someone else brought up in this thread
http://cogprints.org/5014/1/2004_C.N.S_Five_Fs_of_FEAR--Freeze_Flight_Fight_Fright_Faint.pdf
This one gets to the nub of the question.
Freezing is apparently an instinctve response,
as predators' vision is tuned for motion.
Now there's an answer which I call science
(though undoubtedly much oversimplified).
And it throws egg on the faces of the knowitalls
here, who said "You can't think and act, you
have to MOVE QUICK, climb a tree, it's so
simple and OBVIOUS!"
hahahahaha
But even if the muscles freeze, it still doesn't
explain why cortex freeze occurs, or should occur.
--
Rich
Stanley Friesen
>On 05-Sep-11 2:28 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 09/04/2011 07:26 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>> On 03-Sep-11 5:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> ... ...
>>>> Often enough to produce a subset of soldiers who are expected to see
>>>> real in your face combat. People in certain military fields aren't going
>>>> to a cush job in Hawaii or Germany. They are transformed by training
>>>> into hard-core soldiers. The training prepares them for the hard-core
>>>> stuff. The experiences of combat, seeing people cut in half by RPGs or
>>>> ripped to shreds by automatic weapons, could scar them for life.
>>>
>>> But now you're talking about real combat, not basic training.
>>
>> OK, but isn't there training beyond basic for people going into various
>> combat duties? Basic at least prepares the mind for this, or did I watch
>> Full Metal Jacket too many times?
>
>Of course. Each branch of the military has numerous schools; the Army is
>particularly notable for having dozens or hundreds, some very
>specialized indeed. Can you cite any statistics showing any of these
>schools produce "killing machines who don't know when to turn it off"?
>I'm still not seeing any evidence for your original assertions.
Indeed, I would argue the opposite. One aspect of military basic
training that Hemidactylus ignores is teaching prospective soldiers
(self-)control. Indeed the regimentation and importance of following
orders is at least as much to put *limits* on the use of force by
military personnel as it is to make them willing to shoot to kill.
[I mean, really - what sort of government is going to put automatic
weapons in the hands of someone likely to use them *against* that
government's agents - the government has a vested interest in making
sure soldiers remain under control].
>
>Incidentally, Full Metal Jacket, though it has permeated pop culture, is
>not a great source of information on how basic training works. It's an
>excellent film, but it's not a documentary.
Pretty much par for the course for any fictionalized film, on any
subject. And even some documentaries overly sensationalize their
material.
>
> > And basic takes people out of the cushy
>> everyday existence of the "world" and puts them in an intense and
>> stressful situation that transforms them into a different person. Or is
>> that just Marine boot camp? Air Force boot camp might serve to take a
>> couple pounds off, kinda like having a personal trainer yell at you
>> every morning.
>
>Please do not sneer at an entire branch of the service. Maybe Air Force
>basic is less demanding than other branches — I've never been there and
>haven't seen any studies, so I couldn't say — but people who enlist in
>the Air Force are still accepting challenges others will never face, and
>putting their lives on the line for their fellow men and women. And
>since we have an all-volunteer military, every single one of them does
>it of his or her own free will. They don't deserve to be trivialized.
Ditto. [I mean - 7 G turns in a supersonic jet!!! That is *some* stress:
I would probably pass out by 5 Gs].
>
>I'd like to read it as well, but since the books on my "To Read" list
>probably outmass me, it'll probably be a while until I get around to it.
Another one of us :-)
[A couple days ago my brother says he acquires two new books to read for
each one he finishes reading - about like me].
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
*Hemidactylus*
Well I saw something on TV not long ago that talked about aspects of
training, but damned if I can recall where I saw it, so I'll have to
take a Martinez on this one.
> Incidentally, Full Metal Jacket, though it has permeated pop culture, is
> not a great source of information on how basic training works. It's an
> excellent film, but it's not a documentary.
>
>>>>> Some people do crack under the pressure, but it's pretty rare. Most of
>>>>> them attempt to hurt themselves, not others. Most people make it
>>>>> through
>>>>> Basic Combat Training psychologically intact; given we have more
>>>>> than 20
>>>>> million former service members in the United States and homicidal
>>>>> rampages from killing machines who "don't know when to turn it off"
>>>>> are
>>>>> pretty rare, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the
>>>>> situation as "often."
>>>>
>>>> There are, from my impression, plenty of people returning as hollow
>>>> shells of their former selves. They have issues readjusting to
>>>> "normalcy".
>>>
>>> No argument here. But again, you're talking about the horrors of war
>>> itself, not BCT turning out "killing machines who don't know when to
>>> turn it off."
>>
>> Post-basic training might.
>
> "Well, yeah, but there MIGHT be something else" isn't a compelling
> counterargument. Can you cite evidence or can't you?
Is military training geared towards teaching people to be shiny happy
people?
If anything maybe training should reduce chances of people returning
home not knowing how to turn it off after combat stress:
http://current.com/shows/vanguard/92532800_war-crimes.htm
But is it?
But still, military culture and all the bravado involved from boot camp
through various training phases might have its own issues, especially
since the military exists to break things and kill people. Somehow you
take the person that was stocking shelves or selling home entertainment
equipment and transform them into the person that can draw down on
someone else at a long or short distance and end their life. Or am I
misunderstanding the purpose of the *armed* forces?
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
Well how many returning vets are coming home with enough self-control
and psychological training to deal with their life-shattering
experiences that most peopple back home cannot even begin to fathom?
They are trained to clear a room or building of enemy combatants, but
are they trained to be able to erase these experiences from their
memories forever so as not to cause them life-long distress?
Sorry BTW if I had the impression that boot camp might be related in any
way to learning how to kill people and perhaps strive to do it well.
That was my mistake. Sorry. And if they are not actively training people
to be able to prepare themselves to kill someone, I mean what's with all
the guns and target practice (hunting deer?), they are passively
allowing people to come home unprepared to cope with what they will
experience and how to compartmentalize it or contextualize it or turn it
off. There are psychological patterns there that need to be disrupted
and pushed to the side. With the adrenaline rush, for some, it might be
like quitting smoking.
I'm just trying to get a grip on why so many kids are coming home with
serious readjustment issues.
Boot camp might be the wrong target. OK. I'm taking a Martinez on this
one...well not exactly since he's abandoned the subthread after pulling
me in, the bastard.
>>
>> Incidentally, Full Metal Jacket, though it has permeated pop culture, is
>> not a great source of information on how basic training works. It's an
>> excellent film, but it's not a documentary.
>
> Pretty much par for the course for any fictionalized film, on any
> subject. And even some documentaries overly sensationalize their
> material.
>>
>>> And basic takes people out of the cushy
>>> everyday existence of the "world" and puts them in an intense and
>>> stressful situation that transforms them into a different person. Or is
>>> that just Marine boot camp? Air Force boot camp might serve to take a
>>> couple pounds off, kinda like having a personal trainer yell at you
>>> every morning.
>>
>> Please do not sneer at an entire branch of the service. Maybe Air Force
>> basic is less demanding than other branches — I've never been there and
>> haven't seen any studies, so I couldn't say — but people who enlist in
>> the Air Force are still accepting challenges others will never face, and
>> putting their lives on the line for their fellow men and women. And
>> since we have an all-volunteer military, every single one of them does
>> it of his or her own free will. They don't deserve to be trivialized.
>
> Ditto. [I mean - 7 G turns in a supersonic jet!!! That is *some* stress:
> I would probably pass out by 5 Gs].
To be fair, even this physical stress at those Gs doesn't compare to the
stress an infantry soldier, Ranger, Marine, or SEAL deals with. The Air
Force and Navy cockpit jockeys are playing video game way up there in
supersonic land. Unless they've been shot down and become POWs like
McCain, what kind of person to person experience have they had?
>>
>> I'd like to read it as well, but since the books on my "To Read" list
>> probably outmass me, it'll probably be a while until I get around to it.
>
> Another one of us :-)
> [A couple days ago my brother says he acquires two new books to read for
> each one he finishes reading - about like me].
--
*Hemidactylus*
Glenn
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EeSdnb_W8skuSPvT...@giganews.com...
joined?
> Boot camp might be the wrong target. OK. I'm taking a Martinez on this
> one...well not exactly since he's abandoned the subthread after pulling
> me in, the bastard.
>
> >>
> >> Incidentally, Full Metal Jacket, though it has permeated pop culture,
is
> >> not a great source of information on how basic training works. It's an
> >> excellent film, but it's not a documentary.
> >
> > Pretty much par for the course for any fictionalized film, on any
> > subject. And even some documentaries overly sensationalize their
> > material.
> >>
> >>> And basic takes people out of the cushy
> >>> everyday existence of the "world" and puts them in an intense and
> >>> stressful situation that transforms them into a different person. Or
is
> >>> that just Marine boot camp? Air Force boot camp might serve to take a
> >>> couple pounds off, kinda like having a personal trainer yell at you
> >>> every morning.
> >>
> >> Please do not sneer at an entire branch of the service. Maybe Air Force
> >> haven't seen any studies, so I couldn't say - but people who enlist in
*Hemidactylus*
But, no offense, that's the Air Force. My dad served during the years
just after it branched off from the Army.
Wouldn't a pugilistic, bloodthirsty type of person be self-selected to
join a branch more likely to see heavy combat (or maybe become a rare
breed of forward air controller attached to a commando unit)? Most Air
Force enlistees aren't going into it for the combat experience and at
least they don't get stuck on a frickin' boat (oh God I just pissed off
the Navy now too!). As you imply below, the gun happy Air Force members
become officers so they can blow stuff up from high altitudes.
> Take a random cross-section of people from any society, and you're
> going to get a certain number head cases. Send those people through
> some brutal experiences, and they're certainly not going to turn out
> better.
True.
> You don't get nutcases in the military just because they were in the
> military. You get them because the population you get people from has
> a certain percentage of nutcases in it.
To a certain extent. But in peacetime, which we haven't experienced for
how long now, people serve their time and get a benefit like employment
opportunity enhancing experience or a GI Bill that pays tuition. In
wartime, a subset of sane people who join get driven beyond extremes and
wind up seriously damaged. I'd almost guess that the ones that were
mentally touched to begin with might be able to cope with the experience
or find it pleasantly exhilarating in some disturbing way, but come home
about as messed up they were before hand.
> (A side note -- There is clear evidence that the enlisted folks in the
> Air Force are smarter than those in the Army& Marines. In the Air
> Force, the enlisted guys stay back at the base and send the officers
> out to fight.)
>
> ;-)
>
I never thought of it that way.
A good friend of mine served in the USAF and his son followed suit (no
pun intended). My friend was disturbed when he found out his son
*volunteered* to go to Iraq. After his tour he came back unscathed,
thank goodness.
--
*Hemidactylus*
VoiceOfReason
the Army to the Air Force when it was formed. (He served in the
Philippines during WWII while in the Army, and never spoke about it to
his dying days.)
Most of the "Baby Boomers" had fathers who served in WWII in one
capacity or another.
> Wouldn't a pugilistic, bloodthirsty type of person be self-selected to
> join a branch more likely to see heavy combat (or maybe become a rare
> breed of forward air controller attached to a commando unit)? Most Air
> Force enlistees aren't going into it for the combat experience and at
> least they don't get stuck on a frickin' boat (oh God I just pissed off
> the Navy now too!). As you imply below, the gun happy Air Force members
> become officers so they can blow stuff up from high altitudes.
guys I worked with were Vietnam vets who had seen combat in the Army
or Marines, then transferred to the AF after the war.
Interestingly, most of them said that the worst part about Vietnam was
coming back home. They had been "invited" by their own people to go
fight a war, some having horrible experiences, and came back to a
society that in large part despised them. Many internalized their
experiences and had major problems with afterwards, as history shows.
> > Take a random cross-section of people from any society, and you're
> > going to get a certain number head cases. Send those people through
> > some brutal experiences, and they're certainly not going to turn out
> > better.
>
> True.
>
> > You don't get nutcases in the military just because they were in the
> > military. You get them because the population you get people from has
> > a certain percentage of nutcases in it.
>
> To a certain extent. But in peacetime, which we haven't experienced for
> how long now, people serve their time and get a benefit like employment
> opportunity enhancing experience or a GI Bill that pays tuition. In
> wartime, a subset of sane people who join get driven beyond extremes and
> wind up seriously damaged.
never do. Even the ones who do manage to "recover" are sometimes
haunted by nightmares for years afterwards.
> I'd almost guess that the ones that were
> mentally touched to begin with might be able to cope with the experience
> or find it pleasantly exhilarating in some disturbing way, but come home
> about as messed up they were before hand.
> > (A side note -- There is clear evidence that the enlisted folks in the
> > Air Force are smarter than those in the Army& Marines. In the Air
> > Force, the enlisted guys stay back at the base and send the officers
> > out to fight.)
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> I never thought of it that way.
>
> A good friend of mine served in the USAF and his son followed suit (no
> pun intended). My friend was disturbed when he found out his son
> *volunteered* to go to Iraq. After his tour he came back unscathed,
> thank goodness.
advise anybody to do it in the current situation.
Richard Clayton
The bone of contention in this subthread was not whether the military
trains people to kill, but your assertion that it makes people into
"killing machines who don't know when to turn it off". It's an assertion
you obviously can't support. That's okay; we all have moments when our
conviction overreaches our knowledge. Maybe you should take a few deep
breaths and re-evaluate what you know and what you think you know about
the issue.
> That was my mistake. Sorry. And if they are not actively training people
> to be able to prepare themselves to kill someone, I mean what's with all
> the guns and target practice (hunting deer?), they are passively
> allowing people to come home unprepared to cope with what they will
> experience and how to compartmentalize it or contextualize it or turn it
> off. There are psychological patterns there that need to be disrupted
> and pushed to the side. With the adrenaline rush, for some, it might be
> like quitting smoking.
>
> I'm just trying to get a grip on why so many kids are coming home with
> serious readjustment issues.
I'd be the last to disagree that there are serious problems with
military culture, and particularly with the care (mental as well as
physical) offered to veterans. But you're simply pointing the finger in
the wrong place if you're looking for "serious readjustment issues." It
mucks with your head when you kill other people. It mucks with your head
when other people try to kill you.
Basic just trains you to survive the experience. For some people, it's
not enough; they catch a bullet, or their bodies survive while their
psyches are shattered. Blaming BCT for that is like blaming a doctor
whose patient died of cancer; sometimes all you can do just isn't enough.
Now, if you'd like to argue that the horrors of war are the root problem
and maybe we should be a lot more reluctant to go to war -- particularly
unwinnable, interminable war against nebulous enemies with no command
structure, no supply chain, no logistics or industrial centers -- I'm
right there with you.
I don't know. Is it less of a "person to person experience" when you gun
down a dozen or so people from an Apache than when you shoot somebody
with a rifle from a hundred yards away?
*Hemidactylus*
make the comments earlier about boot camp turning out killing machines
not knowing when to turn it off. It is called "The Ground Truth":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446345/
I must have seen it on the Sundance Channel:
http://www.sundancechannel.com/films/500063996/
And it's slated to play on 9-11, which is apropos.
If you wish to take a look, at your own risk, there's online versions
like this (or it can be ordered on disc from Netflix:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5188599301918606321
That is my citation for Richard Clayton! It is difficult to watch. If he
follows up to me I will post the google video link again for him.
And add this, which I posted recently that shows some of the
consequences of our long term commitment to the War on Terror.
http://current.com/shows/vanguard/92532800_war-crimes.htm
But the first video is what was weighing heavily in my mind when I made
the above commentary that ruffled everyone's feathers.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Stanley Friesen
>On 09/06/2011 07:39 PM, Stanley Friesen wrote:
>> Richard Clayton<richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course. Each branch of the military has numerous schools; the Army is
>>> particularly notable for having dozens or hundreds, some very
>>> specialized indeed. Can you cite any statistics showing any of these
>>> schools produce "killing machines who don't know when to turn it off"?
>>> I'm still not seeing any evidence for your original assertions.
>>
>> Indeed, I would argue the opposite. One aspect of military basic
>> training that Hemidactylus ignores is teaching prospective soldiers
>> (self-)control. Indeed the regimentation and importance of following
>> orders is at least as much to put *limits* on the use of force by
>> military personnel as it is to make them willing to shoot to kill.
>>
>> [I mean, really - what sort of government is going to put automatic
>> weapons in the hands of someone likely to use them *against* that
>> government's agents - the government has a vested interest in making
>> sure soldiers remain under control].
>
>Well how many returning vets are coming home with enough self-control
>and psychological training to deal with their life-shattering
>experiences that most peopple back home cannot even begin to fathom?
society well, but relatively few of them resort to aggression as a
result. Deppression, unemployment, and suicide are far more prevalent
than shooting everybody in sight.
>They are trained to clear a room or building of enemy combatants, but
>are they trained to be able to erase these experiences from their
>memories forever so as not to cause them life-long distress?
>
>Sorry BTW if I had the impression that boot camp might be related in any
>way to learning how to kill people and perhaps strive to do it well.
denied that teaching how to kill wasn't *part* of basic training. Look
up above: the words I used were "One aspect of" and "at least as much".
Both of these phrases indicate I was *adding* to the list of functions
of basic training, not replacing it.
>I'm just trying to get a grip on why so many kids are coming home with
>serious readjustment issues.
in your obsession with killing.
>Boot camp might be the wrong target. OK. I'm taking a Martinez on this
>one...well not exactly since he's abandoned the subthread after pulling
>me in, the bastard.
conditions is no longer done all that well. After WW II we gave them
massive ticker-tape parades, front page coverage, speeches, and many
other ceremonial mechanisms to mark that major transition in their
lives. Now we just bring them home and turn them loose with no
ceremonial rite of passage to psychologically mark their homecoming, and
little support in getting jobs and are only now re-instituting, minimal,
real debriefing at the end of a tour.
Stanley Friesen
>On 06-Sep-11 10:23 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>Now, if you'd like to argue that the horrors of war are the root problem
>and maybe we should be a lot more reluctant to go to war -- particularly
>unwinnable, interminable war against nebulous enemies with no command
>structure, no supply chain, no logistics or industrial centers -- I'm
>right there with you.
>> To be fair, even this physical stress at those Gs doesn't compare to the
>> stress an infantry soldier, Ranger, Marine, or SEAL deals with. The Air
>> Force and Navy cockpit jockeys are playing video game way up there in
>> supersonic land. Unless they've been shot down and become POWs like
>> McCain, what kind of person to person experience have they had?
>
>I don't know. Is it less of a "person to person experience" when you gun
>down a dozen or so people from an Apache than when you shoot somebody
>with a rifle from a hundred yards away?
Modern weapons have a much longer potential range. [Of course in dense
forest/jungle one cannot see much further, so it might be that close
under some circumstances].
Stanley Friesen
>
>Interestingly, most of them said that the worst part about Vietnam was
>coming back home. They had been "invited" by their own people to go
>fight a war, some having horrible experiences, and came back to a
>society that in large part despised them. Many internalized their
>experiences and had major problems with afterwards, as history shows.
Our treatment of the Vietnam veterans was one of the lowest points in
our treatment of veterans. Not only were they denied a homecoming
process to mark this major transition, they were despised and rejected
by society. While the Vietnam war was largely idiotic and badly handled,
this was NOT the fault of our combat soldiers, and they did not deserve
this treatment.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
We have mostly learned from that episode.
Still, it does appear that the few problems that the healthy Vietnam
vets had returning home were exploited by right-wingers for their own
hateful reasons while they refused to fund adequate treatment for those
vets who were not healthy, either for physical or mental reasons.
*Hemidactylus*
other detractors on notice:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5188599301918606321
This will be on Sundance on 9-11 or available via Netflix via disc if
you find the Google feed subpar. I am vindicated by my ability to
retrace my steps and realize what influenced me not long ago to become
more dovish and have remorse for being a post 9-11 hawk a decade ago.
Can you dismiss this or
http://current.com/shows/vanguard/92532800_war-crimes.htm which I posted
to you already?
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
from Iraq and Afghanistan! They've been there and done that.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Paul J Gans
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Glenn
sense say not many.
Where are you getting this stuff?
VoiceOfReason
Agreed on all points. I hope experience has opened our eyes a little
bit more to the plight of those who do the dirty work.
*Hemidactylus*
vets have been through similar enough circumstances to be able to help
returning vets with physical and mental scars to cope. They have a
support mechanism already in place at VFWs and other veteran groups
related structures. Jesus, they have a fricking traveling black wall! My
god everybody on this thread is a fucking asshole!
--
*Hemidactylus*
VoiceOfReason
> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:J_qdnenSGMp6lvXT...@giganews.com...
>
> > On 09/07/2011 06:53 PM, Stanley Friesen wrote:
>
> > >> Interestingly, most of them said that the worst part about Vietnam was
> > >> coming back home. �They had been "invited" by their own people to go
> > >> fight a war, some having horrible experiences, and came back to a
> > >> society that in large part despised them. �Many internalized their
> > >> experiences and had major problems with afterwards, as history shows.
>
> > > Our treatment of the Vietnam veterans was one of the lowest points in
> > > our treatment of veterans. Not only were they denied a homecoming
> > > process to mark this major transition, they were despised and rejected
> > > by society. While the Vietnam war was largely idiotic and badly handled,
> > > this was NOT the fault of our combat soldiers, and they did not deserve
> > > this treatment.
>
> > Ironically enough the Vietnam vets are best able to help those returning
> > from Iraq and Afghanistan! They've been there and done that.
>
> Vietnam vets have been to and returned from Iraq and Afganistan? Spidey
> sense say not many.
> Where are you getting this stuff?
I believe "been there, done that" refers to having experienced close
combat themselves, albeit in Southeast Asia, and struggled to return
to civilian life afterward.
Glenn
experiences. Now where do you get the idea that Iraq and Afganistan and
Vietnam have "similar enough circumstances" to enable them to help them
"cope"? Or that a "fricking travelling black wall" really helps any vet to
"cope"?
*Hemidactylus*
Sorry about that.
Glenn has a way of irritating obtuseness about him which I will now
kindly ignore, since it provoked the worst in me.
Go spin yourself in semantic circles Glenn. I'll have none of it.
--
*Hemidactylus*
*Hemidactylus*
Sorry about that. I think I'm going to ignore him from now on.
--
*Hemidactylus*
VoiceOfReason
No prob - the posts said it all.
Glenn
Glenn
environments.
> Yes. And I made the mistake of letting Glenn bring out the worst in me.
> Sorry about that. I think I'm going to ignore him from now on.
>
Paul J Gans
the dirty work.
RichD
> >I'm just trying to get a grip on why so many kids are coming
> >home with serious readjustment issues.
>
> How do you know that those kids did not have serious
> issues before they joined?
Reason: Logic and critical thinking is a violation
of every Usenet newsgroup charter.
In addition, the talk.origins charter dictates that
no member's credibility can be questioned. If a
person says a thing, with 100% sincere belief,
we can be sure it's true. This is a selected trait,
Darwin approved.
So knock it off.
- The moderators
--
Rich
RichD
>
> >Interestingly, most of them said that the worst part about
> >Vietnam was coming back home.
>
> lowest points in our treatment of veterans. Not only
> were they denied a homecoming process to mark this
> major transition, they were despised and rejected
> by society.
Hollywood concoction, blowing up or fabricating
a few isolated incidents. gee, they wouldn't do
that, would they?
But hey, every nitwit KNOWS this legend is true,
because all the OTHER nitwits know it, what more
proof do you need?.(but wait, I saw a DOCUMENTARY!!!)
Now let me tell you a story - well known and confirmed
by witnesses - about a man who could raise the dead -
--
Rich
VoiceOfReason
> On Sep 7, Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>
> > VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > >Interestingly, most of them said that the worst part about
> > >Vietnam was coming back home.
>
> > Our treatment of the Vietnam veterans was one of the
> > lowest points in our treatment of veterans. Not only
> > were they denied a homecoming process to mark this
> > major transition, they were despised and rejected
> > by society.
>
> 99% horse manure, a feelgood / feelbad guilt trip
> Hollywood concoction, blowing up or fabricating
> a few isolated incidents. gee, they wouldn't do
> that, would they?
>
> But hey, every nitwit KNOWS this legend is true,
> because all the OTHER nitwits know it, what more
> proof do you need?.(but wait, I saw a DOCUMENTARY!!!)
Stanley Friesen
Sounds like a potentially useful idea. Combat veterans helping a new
generation of combat veterans.
[Even that is probably, by itself, insufficient, but it could help].
Stanley Friesen
>On Sep 7, Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
>> VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Interestingly, most of them said that the worst part about
>> >Vietnam was coming back home.
>>
>> Our treatment of the Vietnam veterans was one of the
>> lowest points in our treatment of veterans. Not only
>> were they denied a homecoming process to mark this
>> major transition, they were despised and rejected
>> by society.
>
>99% horse manure, a feelgood / feelbad guilt trip
>Hollywood concoction, blowing up or fabricating
>a few isolated incidents. gee, they wouldn't do
>that, would they?
>
>But hey, every nitwit KNOWS this legend is true,
>because all the OTHER nitwits know it, what more
>proof do you need?.(but wait, I saw a DOCUMENTARY!!!)
>
opinions and conclusions. And whenever I am tempted to do so I listen to
"Dirty Laundry" sung by the Eagles. That cures me of trusting them
plenty fast.
However, I am old enough to actually *remember* how we treated returning
Vietnam vets (I was a mere one or two years to young to actually be sent
to 'Nam). I saw what happened with my own eyes, and it was not pretty.
They were treated socially as murderers, drug addicts, and the like.
Some, at least, of the anger towards the government for getting us into
Vietnam was turned on the veterans for merely doing their job.
I am sure that Hollywood has hyped and exaggerated this like it does
everything else that is ugly and scandalous, but that does not make the
whole thing false.
Richard Clayton
I have never argued that war isn't a terrible thing. I have never argued
that we shouldn't do a whole lot less of it. That ranges from actual,
tangible wars, involving guns and bombs and a declared hostile enemy, to
"talking point" wars on abstract concepts, like the War On Drugs or the
War On Terror.
As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, the assertion with which I took
issue was your claim that basic training itself turns people into -- and
once again, here is your quote -- "killing machines who don't know when
to turn it off."
Incidentally, documentaries aren't generally regarded as primary
scientific evidence; you'd do better to cite a scientific study
supporting your claims. (Plus I have to admit I'm not especially
interested in watching two hours of video just so I can reply to one
usenet post. I'm working a lot of overtime this week, and this is simply
a bigger commitment of my leisure time than I want to make right now.)
Come on, man. You're a smart guy. Knock off the goal-post moving.
Richard Clayton
where it used to be. At least we don't turn a guy loose in Hometown
U.S.A. 48 hours after the night he killed six guys and watched his best
friend die in terrified agony. Still not good enough, though.
I suspect a big part of it too is whether a vet feels his service was
righteous, whether the horrors he endured and inflicted were justified.
World War II vets came home knowing they'd stopped the Nazis, ended the
death camps, and kept the free world free.
What did Korea accomplish?
What did Vietnam accomplish?
What have Afghanistan and Iraq accomplished?
"I went to war so a moron who can't keep his fingers out of his nose in
public could have four more years in office" doesn't really SING, you know?
Richard Clayton
>> On 05-Sep-11 2:28 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2011 07:26 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>>> On 03-Sep-11 5:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>> On 01-Sep-11 9:21 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/31/2011 07:09 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31-Aug-11 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 30, 9:36 pm, Earle Jones<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>> <467c6030-9916-4466-8c99-05b579c3f...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 30, 3:27 pm, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>> Clayton<richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30-Aug-11 5:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 30, 9:23 am, Mark
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/29/11 7:46 PM, RichD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, VoiceOfReason<papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in addition, you go into brain lock.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the critical moment, when clear thinking is most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urgent, thinking freezes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if you're the panicky type. Some people are much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better at thinking and acting while under great stress and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> danger. Soldiers in combat are one example.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right - AFTER intense training, SOME of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them learn to handle stress. Which means you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concede that men innately DO NOT handle it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My impression is that the primary purposes of military
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> training
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are (1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make people willing to follow orders, and (2) to make them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill other people.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) is correct and so is (2). "Make them willing to kill other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by being so unfair to them that they will become incredibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hateful,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking it out on the enemy. That is the philosophy behind
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> camp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drill sergeant," to become like him toward the enemy. This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drill sergeant picks on the weaklings. It aint personal. He
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only way these will survive in battle is if they become
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hateful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So he picks on them, hoping to make them as hateful as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, Ray, have you ever enlisted in any
>>>>>>>>>>>> military?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> puzzled where you got those ideas.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your issue, as phrased, says a person cannot have accurate ideas
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> the military unless they spent time in the military.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>> And your response says you were never in the military and you
>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>> don't know a goddam thing about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> earle
>>>>>>>>>> *- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your response says you were never man enough to join or the
>>>>>>>>> weakling
>>>>>>>>> who couldn't make it out of boot camp.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In addition: your rejection of the purpose of war time boot camp
>>>>>>>>> indicates the very reason why most (if not all) wars since WW2
>>>>>>>>> Vietnam
>>>>>>>>> and the Balkans war were the last real wars fought. In these wars
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> ones previous soldiers were trained to take orders (like Mark
>>>>>>>>> Isaak
>>>>>>>>> said) and they were trained to be mindless hateful killing
>>>>>>>>> machines
>>>>>>>>> (like I said). Commanding officers want their troops to butcher
>>>>>>>>> civilians without hesitation and without mercy. In the three wars
>>>>>>>>> mentioned this is exactly what we saw. The reason why a real war
>>>>>>>>> kills
>>>>>>>>> civilians is because they could and do aid the enemy. Like it or
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> (and I, like any other civilized person do not) war is about
>>>>>>>>> killing
>>>>>>>>> anyone and everyone who could aid your enemy. This is why we
>>>>>>>>> failed in
>>>>>>>>> Iraq and Afghanistan. I know a Vietnam vet who says he was
>>>>>>>>> trained to
>>>>>>>>> be the mindless hateful killing machine that I spoke of. He
>>>>>>>>> admits to
>>>>>>>>> killing men, women and children because he was ordered to do so
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the reasons I mentioned. Am I advocating genocide? No, of course
>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>> I am admitting the unpleasant facts of REAL war.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can deny it all you want, but their are volumes upon
>>>>>>>>> volumes of
>>>>>>>>> history books that confirm what I am saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd almost forgotten you're a sick enough human being to approve of
>>>>>>>> military forces targeting noncombatants. Thanks for reminding me.
>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>> please, get help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think Ray is advocating these brutalities,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, he's been pretty clear in the past he thinks torture,
>>>>>> indefinite
>>>>>> detainment, and attacks on noncombatants are all okey-dokey by him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "911 gives us the right to do as we please... There is no torture.
>>>>>> It is
>>>>>> called justice in the theatre of war."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We will kill and hurt whoever we want - 911 gives us the right."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2c82997de69a1fc4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Read quickly, before the Mysterious Post Deleter savages the
>>>>>> thread.)
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I admit Ray is probably not someone to defend given his track
>>>>> record.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> he's just pointing
>>>>>>> them out as his perception, which isn't far from the truth. Boot
>>>>>>> camp
>>>>>>> often turns out killing machines, some of whom don't know when to
>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>> it off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Often"? How often? Every day? Twice a week? A few times a month?
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>> Often enough to produce a subset of soldiers who are expected to see
>>>>> real in your face combat. People in certain military fields aren't
>>>>> going
>>>>> to a cush job in Hawaii or Germany. They are transformed by training
>>>>> into hard-core soldiers. The training prepares them for the hard-core
>>>>> stuff. The experiences of combat, seeing people cut in half by RPGs or
>>>>> ripped to shreds by automatic weapons, could scar them for life.
>>>>
>>>> But now you're talking about real combat, not basic training.
>>>
>>> OK, but isn't there training beyond basic for people going into various
>>> combat duties? Basic at least prepares the mind for this, or did I watch
>>> Full Metal Jacket too many times?
>>
>> particularly notable for having dozens or hundreds, some very
>> specialized indeed. Can you cite any statistics showing any of these
>> schools produce "killing machines who don't know when to turn it off"?
>> I'm still not seeing any evidence for your original assertions.
>
> training, but damned if I can recall where I saw it, so I'll have to
> take a Martinez on this one.
>
>> Incidentally, Full Metal Jacket, though it has permeated pop culture, is
>> not a great source of information on how basic training works. It's an
>> excellent film, but it's not a documentary.
>>
>>>>>> Some people do crack under the pressure, but it's pretty rare.
>>>>>> Most of
>>>>>> them attempt to hurt themselves, not others. Most people make it
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> Basic Combat Training psychologically intact; given we have more
>>>>>> than 20
>>>>>> million former service members in the United States and homicidal
>>>>>> rampages from killing machines who "don't know when to turn it off"
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> pretty rare, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the
>>>>>> situation as "often."
>>>>>
>>>>> There are, from my impression, plenty of people returning as hollow
>>>>> shells of their former selves. They have issues readjusting to
>>>>> "normalcy".
>>>>
>>>> No argument here. But again, you're talking about the horrors of war
>>>> itself, not BCT turning out "killing machines who don't know when to
>>>> turn it off."
>>>
>>> Post-basic training might.
>>
>> "Well, yeah, but there MIGHT be something else" isn't a compelling
>> counterargument. Can you cite evidence or can't you?
>
> Is military training geared towards teaching people to be shiny happy
> people?
No, but that's not the goal of the exercise. Once again, you claimed
it's training people to be "killing machines who don't know when to turn
it off." Where is your evidence?
> If anything maybe training should reduce chances of people returning
> home not knowing how to turn it off after combat stress:
>
> http://current.com/shows/vanguard/92532800_war-crimes.htm
>
> But is it?
Maybe? But your assertion was about "killing machines who don't know
when to turn it off." Where is your evidence?
> But still, military culture and all the bravado involved from boot camp
> through various training phases might have its own issues, especially
> since the military exists to break things and kill people. Somehow you
> take the person that was stocking shelves or selling home entertainment
> equipment and transform them into the person that can draw down on
> someone else at a long or short distance and end their life. Or am I
> misunderstanding the purpose of the *armed* forces?
You do understand that most people who serve in the military don't serve
FOREVER, right? We retire, or we choose not to re-enlist, or we get
discharged. Where is your evidence that all these ex-service members are
"killing machines who don't know when to turn it off"? 'Cause, you know,
I know a TON of former service members, and oddly enough, none of us are
going berserk with assault rifles every other week.
*Hemidactylus*
--
*Hemidactylus*
Richard Clayton
>>
>>
>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2011 07:26 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>>> On 03-Sep-11 5:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing to
>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>> it off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> real in your face combat. People in certain military fields aren't
>>>>> going
>>>>> to a cush job in Hawaii or Germany. They are transformed by training
>>>>> into hard-core soldiers. The training prepares them for the hard-core
>>>>> stuff. The experiences of combat, seeing people cut in half by RPGs or
>>>>> ripped to shreds by automatic weapons, could scar them for life.
>>>>
>>>> But now you're talking about real combat, not basic training.
>>>
>>> OK, but isn't there training beyond basic for people going into various
>>> combat duties? Basic at least prepares the mind for this, or did I watch
>>> Full Metal Jacket too many times?
>>>
>>>>>> Most of
>>>>>> them attempt to hurt themselves, not others. Most people make it
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> Basic Combat Training psychologically intact; given we have more
>>>>>> than 20
>>>>>> million former service members in the United States and homicidal
>>>>>> rampages from killing machines who "don't know when to turn it
>>>>>> off" are
>>>>>> pretty rare, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the
>>>>>> situation as "often."
>>>>>
>>>>> There are, from my impression, plenty of people returning as hollow
>>>>> shells of their former selves. They have issues readjusting to
>>>>> "normalcy".
>>>>
>>>> No argument here. But again, you're talking about the horrors of war
>>>> turn it off."
>>>
>>> Post-basic training might. And basic takes people out of the cushy
>>> everyday existence of the "world" and puts them in an intense and
>>> stressful situation that transforms them into a different person. Or is
>>> that just Marine boot camp? Air Force boot camp might serve to take a
>>> couple pounds off, kinda like having a personal trainer yell at you
>>> every morning.
>>
>> Actually it's from the second you wake up until the second the lights
>> go out at night.
>>
>> Having been to Air Force boot camp, I can tell you it's not quite that
>> cushy. The biggest difference in Air Force boot camp compared to the
>> Marines: 1) no 20-mile hikes, and 2) no pugil sticks. Although we
>> did get trained on the M-16. The major part of the day is marching to/
>> from one class or another while somebody screams in your ear.
>>
>> I've heard a lot of people (most of whom never served) say they
>> thought that boot camp dehumanized people. That was not my
>> experience. IMO, the only reason anybody would come out of boot camp
>> as a psychopath is because they went in as one, and weren't detected
>> in the meantime.
>
> But, no offense, that's the Air Force. My dad served during the years
> just after it branched off from the Army.
>
> Wouldn't a pugilistic, bloodthirsty type of person be self-selected to
> join a branch more likely to see heavy combat (or maybe become a rare
> breed of forward air controller attached to a commando unit)? Most Air
> Force enlistees aren't going into it for the combat experience and at
> least they don't get stuck on a frickin' boat (oh God I just pissed off
> the Navy now too!). As you imply below, the gun happy Air Force members
> become officers so they can blow stuff up from high altitudes.
>
>> Take a random cross-section of people from any society, and you're
>> going to get a certain number head cases. Send those people through
>> some brutal experiences, and they're certainly not going to turn out
>> better.
>
> True.
>
>> You don't get nutcases in the military just because they were in the
>> military. You get them because the population you get people from has
>> a certain percentage of nutcases in it.
>
> To a certain extent. But in peacetime, which we haven't experienced for
> how long now, people serve their time and get a benefit like employment
> opportunity enhancing experience or a GI Bill that pays tuition. In
> wartime, a subset of sane people who join get driven beyond extremes and
> wind up seriously damaged. I'd almost guess that the ones that were
> mentally touched to begin with might be able to cope with the experience
> or find it pleasantly exhilarating in some disturbing way, but come home
> about as messed up they were before hand.
>
>> (A side note -- There is clear evidence that the enlisted folks in the
>> Air Force are smarter than those in the Army& Marines. In the Air
>> Force, the enlisted guys stay back at the base and send the officers
>> out to fight.)
>>
>> ;-)
>>
> I never thought of it that way.
>
> A good friend of mine served in the USAF and his son followed suit (no
> pun intended). My friend was disturbed when he found out his son
> *volunteered* to go to Iraq. After his tour he came back unscathed,
> thank goodness.
In the Army:
OFFICER: "So, men, I want you to go stomp around in this God-forsaken
desert for a coupla days. I'll be right here in this nice, safe,
air-conditioned TOC if you need me. Oh, but don't bother me on Tuesdays,
that's poker night with the command staff."
ENLISTED: "mutter mutter eat a dick you fucking REMF mutter."
In the Air Force:
OFFICER: "Thanks for prepping my jet, men. If I'm not back by 2100...
tell my mom I love her."
ENLISTED: "Good luck, sir. Oh, and can I have your Camaro if you get
whacked?"
Richard Clayton
United States needs a lot more "militant doves" and a lot fewer
chicken-hawks.