Military training and it's effect on humans

Originally posted by gravitor
reply to post by Equidae

 

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

Np, jeebus knows I need them on a regular basis.

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
Gravitor:

Im watching a movie called "The Help"

Im only about 1/4 through it.

Just wondering if you have seen it and whats your opinion about it?

I am no Gravitor (There Can Only Be One!), but the previews made me a bit queasy from the apparent stereotyping. Of course that could just be from growing up in the Deep South. You get really hit over the head with it. If I have to watch Mississippi Burning one more time then I will beat Gene Hackman and William Dafoe to death with as many VHS copies of it as I can find. It's almost as annoying as the creepy obsession with the Confederate Flag

reply to post by Equidae


Yeah its heavy on stereotypes. But........ It was a trying time for america back then.

Still bewilders me that some hold on to that way of thinking.

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
reply to post by Equidae

 

Yeah its heavy on stereotypes. But........ It was a trying time for america back then.

Still bewilders me that some hold on to that way of thinking.

When I was younger I used to display it, and would get very defensive about the whole 'Heritage, Not Hate ' spiel. I had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. I was never racist, and most of the people who display it aren't. But then I turned 17, left Hickville, and joined the real world

Now I think it makes about as much sense as a descendant of Colonial Loyalists putting the Union Jack everywhere. Though at least the Union Jack isn't synonymous with ignorance, poverty, obesity, meth, trailer parks, and fundamentalist religion

reply to post by Equidae


I just stay away from it. Ive seen it on both sides of the coin. But cha know, its in the military and i know a few good guys who were raised that way. I dont hold it against them, and they dont treat me as such. We are brothers and they know i would give my life trying to protect them. Cause in the end we all bleed red.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Plasfisk

And there is a magnified qualitative difference between the US soldier/sailor/airman/marine than any other nation one earth. To wit: we're all volunteer. Most nations have compulsory service.

This is utter ignorant unresearched bull. I challenge you to name even just the English speaking countries which have compulsory service.

Your statement is so incorrect it's a lie.

My buddy plasifisk isn't here right now but we can speak for eac other so I figured I would give you a little education because it is so easy.
Country

Australia
17 years of age for voluntary military service (with parental consent); no conscription; women allowed to serve in Army combat units in non-combat support roles (2010)

Ok Grimpachi

And what's the point of your post other than validating mine? All you've shown is that your buddy is full of it and alot of countries don't have conscrpition or compulsory military service


But your buddy said this.

"And there is a magnified qualitative difference between the US soldier/sailor/airman/marine than any other nation one earth. To wit: we're all volunteer. Most nations have compulsory service."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll repeat. "And there is a magnified qualitative difference between the US soldier/sailor/airman/marine than any other nation one earth. To wit: we're all volunteer"

Please point out where Australia has conscription.?

You are the one who needs educating otherwise you would have been able to read that and seen that you were actually validating my post by showing that Australia and alot of other countries doesn't have compulsory service.

The U.S soldier is NOT unique 'tis a floppy trumpet you both blow.

I know that other counries do but I also know that alot don't and his statement "And there is a magnified qualitative difference between the US soldier/sailor/airman/marine than any other nation one earth. To wit: we're all volunteer" is bull.

And isn't saying on one hand "And there is a magnified qualitative difference between the US soldier/sailor/airman/marine than any other nation" Followed by "Most nations have compulsory service" ( which to use the word "most" implies that others dont.) Some kind of oxymoron?

Please point out where Australia has compulsory service?

Originally posted by gravitor

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by PLASIFISK

 

Idiot...you're an idiot......he is an idiot.....they are idiots....any contribution?

Try to use your brain instead of insulting people when you can not comprehend or understand...... for a change.....idiot.

edit on 19/12/2011 by zatara because: (no reason given)

I would say ...try to use both brains, as they are totally seperate and joined via the pineal gland, which is what flouridisation is all about, and the use of specific drugs to keep the mor animalistic operating out of their left brain( prozac)
the two hemispheres are TOTALLY seperate.
Gravitor , balanced.

I better leave this offensive thread dominated with keyboard war heroes like yourself .....I can still not see any contribution from you or your friend plasifake to the subject of this thread..and able to gain some understanding.....you know.....to learn something.

I better move along to a more interesting thread.....

Bye.....

reply to post by zatara


Well show yourself to the door ...........

Idiot!

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
reply to post by zatara

 

Well show yourself to the door ...........

Idiot!

Did they teach You how to evaluate fellow posters in the forces??
Or are You looking in a mirror?
gravitor

reply to post by gravitor


Ohhhhhh Gravitor, nothing wrong with a little fun now is it!?!

They guy was talking shyt, so he got the same in return.

Dont get your panties in a bunch "G".

Lets not forgt, YOU wanted attention from the military types and you got it.

Borg and all you crazy lil guy!!!!

I'd like to point out the thread title's ridiculousness: "...and its effect on humans" as if there were other creatures it would have an effect on. and the underlying assumption being that military training is afforded to other species.. /shakes head

Back to the thread of silliness.

Originally posted by tangonine
I'd like to point out the thread title's ridiculousness: "...and its effect on humans" as if there were other creatures it would have an effect on. and the underlying assumption being that military training is afforded to other species.. /shakes head

Back to the thread of silliness.

Alot of dogs don't have the confidence to attack. Once they're trained they gain confidence and aren't so shy in a hostile enviroment. So if you get an untrained dog and the defence force trains it they're changing its nature or bringing out a part of its nature that was subdude. Isn't that an effect of military training on another animal?

Horses spook easily and in the days before the tank horses had to be noise broken and basically combat trained so that they wouldn't panic on the battlefield and they gained confidence. Isn't that an effect of military training?

In WW1 Dogs had to be trained to overcome their fear so that they could deliver masseges from the battlefield to the HQ at the rear. Isn't that an effect if military training on other animals?

When a dog is retired form the services it will go to a family who has experience with ex service dogs and one which may well be a combat vet.. That's because military training and service has had an effect on the dog.

Animals in the service have been known to have nervous breakdowns in war zones or PTSD. Isn' that an effect as a result of it's military role in a combat zone?

I think that the OP is correct to state humans in the heading.

reply to post by tangonine


Hahaha tangonine!

That was my first thought when i entered this thread!

But cha know ive met some cool people in this thread including Gravitor.

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
reply to post by tangonine

 

Hahaha tangonine!

That was my first thought when i entered this thread!

But cha know ive met some cool people in this thread including Gravitor.

Gravitor is a Ranger but doesn't know it.

reply to post by tangonine


Lol either a ranger or a crazy fueler!

You i kind of admire Gravitor though. He never gives up.

Wonder if he was born like that or taught to be that way. Either way he has potential to do good things in this world.

If he chooses to.

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by tangonine
I'd like to point out the thread title's ridiculousness: "...and its effect on humans" as if there were other creatures it would have an effect on. and the underlying assumption being that military training is afforded to other species.. /shakes head

Back to the thread of silliness.

Alot of dogs don't have the confidence to attack. Once they're trained they gain confidence and aren't so shy in a hostile enviroment. So if you get an untrained dog and the defence force trains it they're changing its nature or bringing out a part of its nature that was subdude. Isn't that an effect of military training on another animal?

Horses spook easily and in the days before the tank horses had to be noise broken and basically combat trained so that they wouldn't panic on the battlefield and they gained confidence. Isn't that an effect of military training?

In WW1 Dogs had to be trained to overcome their fear so that they could deliver masseges from the battlefield to the HQ at the rear. Isn't that an effect if military training on other animals?

When a dog is retired form the services it will go to a family who has experience with ex service dogs and one which may well be a combat vet.. That's because military training and service has had an effect on the dog.

Animals in the service have been known to have nervous breakdowns in war zones or PTSD. Isn' that an effect as a result of it's military role in a combat zone?

I think that the OP is correct to state humans in the heading.

edit on 21-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

You haven't met my Ukranian Shepherd. I don't need to train her. She defends the pack like a wolverine on steroids.

The OP implied that military training (summation) rendered those that went through it, somehow deficient in social skills.. That's the brunt of the argument, and it's pure silliness.

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by tangonine
I'd like to point out the thread title's ridiculousness: "...and its effect on humans" as if there were other creatures it would have an effect on. and the underlying assumption being that military training is afforded to other species.. /shakes head

Back to the thread of silliness.

Alot of dogs don't have the confidence to attack. Once they're trained they gain confidence and aren't so shy in a hostile enviroment. So if you get an untrained dog and the defence force trains it they're changing its nature or bringing out a part of its nature that was subdude. Isn't that an effect of military training on another animal?

Horses spook easily and in the days before the tank horses had to be noise broken and basically combat trained so that they wouldn't panic on the battlefield and they gained confidence. Isn't that an effect of military training?

In WW1 Dogs had to be trained to overcome their fear so that they could deliver masseges from the battlefield to the HQ at the rear. Isn't that an effect if military training on other animals?

When a dog is retired form the services it will go to a family who has experience with ex service dogs and one which may well be a combat vet.. That's because military training and service has had an effect on the dog.

Animals in the service have been known to have nervous breakdowns in war zones or PTSD. Isn' that an effect as a result of it's military role in a combat zone?

I think that the OP is correct to state humans in the heading.

edit on 21-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

Everyone can display certain reactions due to difficult situations. I prefer to adopt my pets from shelters. I had adopted one dog already, and decided to get another. Naturally I needed to know they would get along, so I brought my first dog to the shelter with me to help pick. As soon as I parked the car at the shelter my dog immediately began whining and shivering because she thought I was bringing her back! After a few minutes I got her to relax, and she (and the new addition) are sitting on my legs cutting off the bloodflow to my feet as I type. They are not permanently crippled from their time in the shelter any more than a MWD would be from being in the military. They experienced trauma to be sure, but a little TLC ensured they need no special PTSD-sensitive environment.

I used to compete in equestrian events, and yes a cavalry horse would need 'sound' breaking, but that's no different than getting a horse used to any other unusual stimuli. My horse used to be deathly afraid of flags, banners, and pretty much anything that flapped in the breeze. It took some careful training, but I helped him work through his fear so they no longer bothered him. He wasn't traumatized, and I when I sold him to a young girl as a companion for 4-H events I didn't need to do any special screening or instruction because of his former fear and desensitization.

A retired servicedog is not required to go to a military family. Tradition dictates that the last handler (or the family if the handler is deceased) get the first 'dibs' so to speak on a retired military working dog. A similar scenario is also true for police dogs. This isn't done because of 'ptsd,' but the bond and affection that results from being partners.

Also, you really can't train an animal that is unsuited to military service. Any working animal undergoes a great deal of temperament screening before they are selected. A guard dog must have an inborn confidence and aggression that can be honed. Horses selected for the mounted police must have an inherently calm disposition. A bomb sniffer must have a vigorous working drive tempered by a strong self-restraint. And so on. You can never break an animal for it's inherent disposition, just as you can never break a human from traits inherent to a highly social great ape (which is why the idea of turning teenagers into The Borg is so laughable.)

Originally posted by Equidae

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by tangonine
I'd like to point out the thread title's ridiculousness: "...and its effect on humans" as if there were other creatures it would have an effect on. and the underlying assumption being that military training is afforded to other species.. /shakes head

Back to the thread of silliness.

Alot of dogs don't have the confidence to attack. Once they're trained they gain confidence and aren't so shy in a hostile enviroment. So if you get an untrained dog and the defence force trains it they're changing its nature or bringing out a part of its nature that was subdude. Isn't that an effect of military training on another animal?

Horses spook easily and in the days before the tank horses had to be noise broken and basically combat trained so that they wouldn't panic on the battlefield and they gained confidence. Isn't that an effect of military training?

In WW1 Dogs had to be trained to overcome their fear so that they could deliver masseges from the battlefield to the HQ at the rear. Isn't that an effect if military training on other animals?

When a dog is retired form the services it will go to a family who has experience with ex service dogs and one which may well be a combat vet.. That's because military training and service has had an effect on the dog.

Animals in the service have been known to have nervous breakdowns in war zones or PTSD. Isn' that an effect as a result of it's military role in a combat zone?

I think that the OP is correct to state humans in the heading.

edit on 21-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

Everyone can display certain reactions due to difficult situations. I prefer to adopt my pets from shelters. I had adopted one dog already, and decided to get another. Naturally I needed to know they would get along, so I brought my first dog to the shelter with me to help pick. As soon as I parked the car at the shelter my dog immediately began whining and shivering because she thought I was bringing her back! After a few minutes I got her to relax, and she (and the new addition) are sitting on my legs cutting off the bloodflow to my feet as I type. They are not permanently crippled from their time in the shelter any more than a MWD would be from being in the military. They experienced trauma to be sure, but a little TLC ensured they need no special PTSD-sensitive environment.

I used to compete in equestrian events, and yes a cavalry horse would need 'sound' breaking, but that's no different than getting a horse used to any other unusual stimuli. My horse used to be deathly afraid of flags, banners, and pretty much anything that flapped in the breeze. It took some careful training, but I helped him work through his fear so they no longer bothered him. He wasn't traumatized, and I when I sold him to a young girl as a companion for 4-H events I didn't need to do any special screening or instruction because of his former fear and desensitization.

A retired servicedog is not required to go to a military family. Tradition dictates that the last handler (or the family if the handler is deceased) get the first 'dibs' so to speak on a retired military working dog. A similar scenario is also true for police dogs. This isn't done because of 'ptsd,' but the bond and affection that results from being partners.

Also, you really can't train an animal that is unsuited to military service. Any working animal undergoes a great deal of temperament screening before they are selected. A guard dog must have an inborn confidence and aggression that can be honed. Horses selected for the mounted police must have an inherently calm disposition. A bomb sniffer must have a vigorous working drive tempered by a strong self-restraint. And so on. You can never break an animal for it's inherent disposition, just as you can never break a human from traits inherent to a highly social great ape (which is why the idea of turning teenagers into The Borg is so laughable.)

I don't see the point of your post. They still need to be changed through training for service so what I said is relevant to the post I replied to. Animals do undergo changes as a result of training. A dog which does not display the confidence to attack gains that confidence, A horse which learns (or learned back in the day) to cope with the sounds of combat has been changed. And they both can suffer the effects of war.

Also dogs which are trained to attack are not placed with your everyday family. I know that one for a fact. At least not where I come from.

What I said stands.

Originally posted by tangonine

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by tangonine
I'd like to point out the thread title's ridiculousness: "...and its effect on humans" as if there were other creatures it would have an effect on. and the underlying assumption being that military training is afforded to other species.. /shakes head

Back to the thread of silliness.

Alot of dogs don't have the confidence to attack. Once they're trained they gain confidence and aren't so shy in a hostile enviroment. So if you get an untrained dog and the defence force trains it they're changing its nature or bringing out a part of its nature that was subdude. Isn't that an effect of military training on another animal?

Horses spook easily and in the days before the tank horses had to be noise broken and basically combat trained so that they wouldn't panic on the battlefield and they gained confidence. Isn't that an effect of military training?

In WW1 Dogs had to be trained to overcome their fear so that they could deliver masseges from the battlefield to the HQ at the rear. Isn't that an effect if military training on other animals?

When a dog is retired form the services it will go to a family who has experience with ex service dogs and one which may well be a combat vet.. That's because military training and service has had an effect on the dog.

Animals in the service have been known to have nervous breakdowns in war zones or PTSD. Isn' that an effect as a result of it's military role in a combat zone?

I think that the OP is correct to state humans in the heading.

edit on 21-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

You haven't met my Ukranian Shepherd. I don't need to train her. She defends the pack like a wolverine on steroids.

The OP implied that military training (summation) rendered those that went through it, somehow deficient in social skills.. That's the brunt of the argument, and it's pure silliness.

But you said. "I'd like to point out the thread title's ridiculousness: "...and its effect on humans" as if there were other creatures it would have an effect on."

I'll repeat. " as if there were other creatures it would have an effect on."

I pointed out there's other creatures that military training has had an effect on.

Also. Your Ukranian Shepherd might be the toughest k9 on the planet but it has no relevance to the post because there's more than one breed of dog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not agreeing with the OP all that much myself but what I'm saying is that the OP did nothing wring in saying "the effects on humans" because some one else could easily and rightly post a thread in regards to the effects of military training on animals and there would actually be a solid basis for it.