the king's CONSIDERABLE ignorance of combat

My SIL is a N.P. with a doctorate degree. She works in V.A. with the vets who return home with
multiple and SERIOUS complications from combat....guess what her MAJOR patient issues are.

PTSS and mental issues....meds,for pain and depression.

homeagain wrote: My SIL is a N.P. with a doctorate degree. She works in V.A. with the vets who return home with
multiple and SERIOUS complications from combat....guess what her MAJOR patient issues are.

PTSS and mental issues....meds,for pain and depression.

Was it always this way? Lots of reports of shell shock go back all the way to the Civil War. Or are we as a society more sensitive to it? Probably a bit of both. Asymetrical warfare has changed things. US troops are less likely to be under intense, long artillery attacks and aerial bombardment, but they still have to deal with IED's, mortars and rocket attacks.

Now it's 50 injuries.

Fifty US military personnel have now been diagnosed with concussions and traumatic brain injuries following the Iranian missile attack on US forces in Iraq earlier this month, according to a statement Tuesday from the Pentagon.

www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/50-injur...an-strike/index.html

If the king states NO ONE WAS HURT,NO INJURIES and then there were some with ''headaches,
nothing serious" and THEN there were 12, and THEN there were 34 and THEN there were 50....
do you REALLY believe the king has the corona virus covered...don't worry?

homeagain wrote: If the king states NO ONE WAS HURT,NO INJURIES and then there were some with ''headaches,
nothing serious" and THEN there were 12, and THEN there were 34 and THEN there were 50....
do you REALLY believe the king has the corona virus covered...don't worry?

From the same media that was predicting WW3, only 50 casualties is pretty light. Probably more brain trauma during the NFL regular season.

So this is my take on everything I just read.

1. I do believe the President of the US should have some military experience,

2. Biggest problem I see with TBI's is, there may be nothing much in the beginning but down the road years later it may start to show problems. They should all be treated as serious and kept a watch on. And yes I have experience with this dealing with my son, who has 3 TBI's from being over there.

3. As far as Trump goes, killing the Iranian General, outstanding job. The general was not a head of state, he was a terrorist and along with him was another terrorist, so two terrorist killed is a good thing.

4. It is time for us to pull out and bring our troops home. Afghanistan will never be liberated. The Russians could not do it, we sure as hell will not do it. There has been fighting going on there for thousands of years. Same with Iraq, pull out, let them deal with their own stuff.

5. Presidents should be listening to the military advisers (generals and admirals), Most of have been there and done that, had that been done under Obama, Benghazi we would not have lost people, instead Obama fired both an Admiral and a General. Obama though along with Trump are not the only ones that have not listened. (Listen to the info they are given and then make a proper decision.)

FIRST out of the gate...thank you for your experienced input...for the most part I agree on your
points....the thing I have NEVER understood is-our insistence in interfering in TRIBAL
WARS that are centuries old....but then the allure/assurance of abundant oil is the culprit.....we
need to stay out of the ONGOING conflict....but we never learn.....Vietnam taught us Nothing.

www.nbcnews.com/news/military/14-more-u-...ing-iranian-n1127081

The number continues to INCREASE......"just some headaches"...what a joke, the king can
NOT ignore this....when is enough ENOUGH?

homeagain wrote: www.nbcnews.com/news/military/14-more-u-...ing-iranian-n1127081

The number continues to INCREASE......"just some headaches"...what a joke, the king can
NOT ignore this....when is enough ENOUGH?

How many of our Americans were KILLED as a result of Obama's actions in Libya? Do you remember the justification for taking out Gadaffi? I seem to recall that he was killing too many people... not as many as Soleimani, not even close. Selective outrage at it's best.

The bottom line on all this, no President in the last 30 to 40 years is exempt from getting members of the US Military killed or severely injured. Some of the incidents that caused this was going against the advise of the military advisers. The Presidents do have the authority to do that. What many do not understand, and I have actually had to deal with some of the fools that are clueless, we (the US Military) go where we are ordered, it is a civilian government that pretty much dictates where we go and what we do. Their ROE that they give us is usually crap. We follow the various many international laws on prisoners etc, up to a point. Do we have some that break those, yes, are we perfect, no. But you can bet we do not do what the enemy does to the prisoners. Yet we are held to a much higher standard. People complain about water torture etc, hell I am all for it if the information gotten will save lives. It beats cutting their heads off on camera though. So its not just Trump, its Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush again and so on down the line. So just something to think about also. Maybe just maybe we would not even be discussing this, had Clinton, taken care of business when he was offered Osama bin laden back when Clinton was president, but he refused. Also, when had the chance to take out Saddam during the first Gulf War, yet the military was told to stand down and not take him out. So many thing to think about.