After 28 years David A Hemler tells the truth

No concern over deserters, who cares about serving next to someone who is just looking for a way out?

More surprising is how often these people stay on the government dole after they have left, sometimes even the country like the person in the OP's story.

I knew one soldier who went AWOL, was forced to work in the field for a month and pulled a knife on me in frustration because they wouldn't pay him while his wife was having a baby. His logic was that even though he was paid for most of the time he was AWOL and his punishment was to work long enough for the government to recoup the costs he should have been paid on top of his theft and fraud.

He enjoyed a free trip to Thailand. I was struggling to support my family already, and was screwed out of my bonus among other things. I hated having to be in charge of him but it was my duty.

He got into a fight with another soldier who went AWOL when they were both arguing about finances. The turd with a better moral compass was explaining that he was also not being paid, but he wasn't complaining. I told them to disperse and return when they were willing to stop screwing me over.

The better soldier came back within minutes, after a smoke break I presume, and then the turd came through and rifled through a pan of knives. I thought he was going to stab the other guy so I took one step just as he started cutting... himself. I told him to, "quit that s**t" as I moved toward him.

He then bolted out the back door and I caught his free arm just as he crossed the door jam. He tried to spin around and I, being an 11B combat veteran, proceeded to instead barrel into him, spin him around and slam him into a fence. I jumped on his back and choked him out as, I was told by witnesses, he was trying to stab me the entire time. I blacked out, but I was told he was in my rear naked for over a minute and eventually turned blue and gray shades while seizing and convulsing.

I probably would have killed him if I saw the knife, and never intended to release the choke anyway until his heart stopped beating, but three people pulled me off of him. He came to a few minutes later as I was being questioned and tried to attack me again, lucky for him, there was a crowd between us.

If that wasn't bad enough, he later tried to say that I attacked him.

That's my story. There are more, but that's the most fun the tell.

reply to post by MrWendal

With all due respect, I do not buy one ounce of the story your selling here. If Soldiers are committing suicide because they miss their families... why are so many committing suicide after they return back home?

Because you get back home with the expectation you can return to "before" - and you can't.

You get back home and find the furniture re-arranged. Your kid is talking to you, now (or worse - anyone but you).

Perhaps you and your wife or girlfriend had a little spat, and you think being back home will fix the problem. But it's never that simple.

While none of your assets can be repossessed by a lending institution while you are deployed - you still have to deal with any financial issues when you return (even if you have the money to do it - it's still a hassle).

Well now the US claims the Taliban are lawless rebels who have oppressed the people of Afghanistan... but we funded them, we trained them, and we put them in power.

To fight the Russians.

Of course - the "policy" was never fully put into place. The problem is that projects like this are planned on the scale of decades while the political climate of the U.S. changes every two years with sweeping changes every four to eight years (usually eight - as single-term Presidents are hard to come by).

When the next guys come into office and see "oh, hey... the Russians aren't attacking Afghanistan anymore... mission accomplished - cease our operations in Afghanistan." - they often don't take into account the longer term goals of the operation. Most of those aim to ensure the governments and powers of nations we utilize as proxies develop U.S. friendly governments (which would later end up being transformed by economic exchange with our nation - much like the UAE is being fundamentally transformed by its international trade).

However, back in the 80's Saddam was a "statesman". Anyone remember the picture of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam?

He actually did wonders to improve the status of living and other conditions in that country.

Which is why the U.s. looked to form a more friendly relationship with Iraq. Again - covert ops would have helped to keep him from getting too crazy (like gassing the Kurds) and economic forces would have invariably brought about a change in the form of government.

reply to post by boncho

Aren't the majority of suicides done after a soldier returns?

Second leading cause of death in the military is suicide.

I wouldn't buy that it has to do with separation from family. That's a higher rate than the prison population, and if the prison population is getting by without all killing themselves, well...

I've come to expect better reasoning abilities from you, Boncho.

See above.

In addition - prison populations are deliberately kept from popular devices for suicide (knives, firearms, etc) and their cells are under surveillance by cameras and/or guards who would intervene in the attempt of a suicide.

A servicemember - abroad or at home - doesn't have quite the same 'support' structure.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Crap, Iraq was a lie, and what's worse, everyone knew it

When you actually look at the history and internal investigations done; Iraq was not so much a lie as it was a classic example of many intuitive illusions that human psychology suffers from.

Confidence is intuitively used as a measure of correctness. Several in Bush's cabinet were absolutely certain and confident we'd find said weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The reality is a little more stark.

If he did have those weapons - they went to Syria; eye-witness reports on the ground as well as aerial photographs of convoys leaving the country before the ultimatum expired exist.

There are also U.N. weapon inspector testimonies of being disallowed to enter various palaces and/or buildings while trucks and/or helicopters departed out the back... to be let in afterward to see a number of oddly empty rooms. There were also the many buildings we found after invading that were recently stripped of machinery and chemical stocks.

Exactly what was there before can only be guessed at (perhaps there were factories producing something that Saddam didn't want to be in our hands - not necessarily a WMD - but perhaps something he thought could be interpreted as a WMD). It's also possible Saddam was no longer in control of his party, and a number of projects were going on 'under the table' - without his knowledge and outside the scope of various analysts' conclusions on the matter.

Afghanistan is a nightmare and even the reasoning for that war is questionable.

Most of the nightmare is our own creation. The military is hit pretty hard by the good idea fairies in congress and the president's cabinets (as well as star-wearing officers who want to be able to say they created some kind of program or changed the procedures to make things more effective, cost less, or whatever whims they may have).

It also doesn't help that people are very, very impatient. You can't walk in and change an entire culture in ten years. You can't do it in twenty years.

South Korea is a great example. They want to be like the U.S. in many respects. They started out friendly and open to our concepts of government and economics - and flourished within their first twenty years (having resources for them to utilize helped that matter... something Afghanistan is struggling with)... but they are still not where they want to be.

Japan is the same way. They recovered more quickly because the had industry to work with and were used to conducting trade with other nations (including us). So, when the war was over - they recovered pretty quickly. ... And our cultures are still merging (look at all the Japanese popularity in the U.S. and the popularity of many U.S. products in Japan).

Man, you wanna kill people for your country, I bet it's gotta haunt your mind a bit, and all the time,

I don't want to "kill people for my country." If the need arises - I will kill someone to protect those around me and the ideals I believe in.

I have a different concept of death when compared to many Americans. I don't see it as an inherently bad thing. Sometimes - the simplest and most practical means of accomplishing something is to end another person's life. The greater the goal and the smaller number of deaths required makes the choice of killing increasingly agreeable, particularly when more publicly acceptable methods have higher rates of failure or have unacceptable caveats.

the real reasons for all these wars are never revealed, until it's way too late to do anything about.

There is no "real reason" for any war. It is always an assortment of other reasons.

Why did you decide to eat the lunch/dinner you did? It's never a single reason. It's many factors playing at one time.

It's understandable why you should think this way. Human psychology and memory is often episodic. One thing leads to another which leads to another - all events are strung together by causal links. It makes sense we should evolve this way (Ug ate mushroom and died an hour later - eating mushroom probably killed him); but it is often misleading in other contexts.

We try to fill in the gaps in our understanding with singular causes to satisfy our instincts. Reality is just not that simple.

reply to post by Zyril

I wonder how many people in the US military feel this way today.

you know, with 3 seconds of ponder I have an answer.

With consideration that since 1973 Service has been voluntary. So with regard to your question,

Dont reenlist !!! simple as that.

sign a 4 yr contract with the late Steve Jobs and get out of it.

reply to post by Aim64C

When you actually look at the history and internal investigations done; Iraq was not so much a lie as it was a classic example of many intuitive illusions that human psychology suffers from.

Ok, you wanna discount Iraq, what about the proceedings up to the Vietnam war? Gulf of Tonkin? Pearl Harbour stinks as well. I do actually believe we have a hidden agenda by hidden people. I have no idea their true goals, but the agenda seems to exist.

Confidence is intuitively used as a measure of correctness. Several in Bush's cabinet were absolutely certain and confident we'd find said weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The reality is a little more stark.

Bush was the warmonger puppet, he reminded me of a used car salesman

I don't want to "kill people for my country." If the need arises - I will kill someone to protect those around me and the ideals I believe in.

Well, the risks of doing so are yours. And how can you have concrete values, when a lot of information you are receiving to form your ideals, is untrue?

Additionally, you actually believe that these people who's countries you are invading, are a threat to your family? Kinda hard to hit America from Afghanistan with non-armed, horse-pulled carts.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Ok, you wanna discount Iraq, what about the proceedings up to the Vietnam war?

What about them?

America had been involved in the region for decades. British and French influences even before that.

Multiple factors drove the war (that was never officially declared): a key one was the ideology that we had to prevent the spread of Communism (specifically - communist Russia). Another was the belief that we could train South Vietnam to fight against the NVA and preserve their non-communist government.

It started with military advisers and led up to such iconic events as Operation Rolling Thunder and ArcLight, finally concluding in a full scale withdraw from the region after it became clear the Vietnamese culture valued group unity over individualism (and had largely lost the will to fight against people they considered family).

The reality is always cold, despite the various ideologies we put in place.

The fact of the matter was that, in the beginning, South Vietnam was under attack by communist-backed North Vietnam with people being coerced and killed.

There are two basic ideologies you can put into play: To stand by and watch as one population assaults another, or to get involved, yourself.

Both ideologies ignore the fact that people are going to die and someone is going to walk away from the mess beaten and bitter - in essence - both ideologies neglect to consider that no action or lack of action is going to create an ideal outcome.

Gulf of Tonkin?

www.gwu.edu...

Of which, specifically: www.gwu.edu...

Hanyok's article, "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964," originally published in the National Security Agency's classified journal Cryptologic Quarterly in early 2001, provides a comprehensive SIGINT-based account "of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin." Using this evidence, Hanyok argues that the SIGINT confirms that North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked a U.S. destroyer, the USS Maddox, on August 2, 1964, although under questionable circumstances. The SIGINT also shows, according to Hanyok, that a second attack, on August 4, 1964, by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on U.S. ships, did not occur despite claims to the contrary by the Johnson administration.

Remember that we were already involved in Vietnam, and many forces at play were of the opinion that a stronger presence/response was necessary in Vietnam. The event was skewed for political advantage to make the case of greater action in Vietnam easier to pass. Exactly who skewed what, and where, is likely not possible to determine at this point in time - but it is reasonable to expect that regional and command authorities realized the political implications of the event and tweaked their reports accordingly. By time it landed on the President's desk - any number of exaggerations could have been made (for the executive administration to then spin to Congress).

Pearl Harbour stinks as well.

You're really reaching, there. The 'secret' military/government came out of World War II. The military, prior to our involvement in World War II - was like Boy Scouts. The entire culture was different (even leading into the war - if you talk to a number of World War II veterans - their boot camp and training experiences were completely different from just fifteen years later in the Korean conflict) - it's changed both for better and for worse since.

Bush was the warmonger puppet, he reminded me of a used car salesman

And, yet, you never really met him. You heard snippets of him talking on TV - either what he was reading from script or what had been edited and processed by a news media.

I did.

He was a human being. Above average intelligence in some regards, at average in others.

Well, the risks of doing so are yours. And how can you have concrete values, when a lot of information you are receiving to form your ideals, is untrue?

You're thinking far too macroscopically. If someone pulls a weapon on me - unless I have a very deeply vested interest in their survival - they are going to die (or I am).

Additionally, you actually believe that these people who's countries you are invading, are a threat to your family? Kinda hard to hit America from Afghanistan with non-armed, horse-pulled carts.

Again - far too macroscopic. It doesn't matter where I am, or for what reasons I am there. I do not go to another country to kill people. If, however, I am threatened or those around me are threatened - I will apply the appropriate amount of force to neutralize the threat in a practical and expedient manner.

reply to post by Aim64C


We can debate all day, but when stuff like this keeps happening, I'll keep my stand point. Please don't watch if you are upset easily btw

Yes those things happen and are happening all over the world as we speak.In some places worse is being done as the cultural norm.I can say with a great deal of confidence I would have cheerfully harmed anyone who I knew performed such acts against civilians.
We are not mean't to be an occupying force,we aren't good at it and because of recruitment shortfalls we allowed scum in the ranks.that is predominantly what you see here.Nothing to be proud of from them,just the thanks to our creator they were caught.Only a complete idiot would believe it happens all the time or we allow it to and turn a blind eye to it.I guarantee when these a##hat's story got out they were rushed to protective custody or they would have been killed.To me rightly so.
Soldiers are there for a reason,through out history atrocities are the norm in war.The US Army looses more troops SAVING civilian lives by avoiding combat around them and directly removing them from gunfire,that's what a guy does.In a city sometimes that isn't possible and that's where the bad guys go.
These particular bad guys like to use civilian hostages.
We are trained to use specific weapons against certain types of targets.DU rounds are supposed to be anti armor only.I myself am sick from their use.Some I suppose would celebrate that.
Don't blame contractors acts on the military they are mercenarys who haven't got a military command and again not all are like that.
I don't despute the Bankers running the show that is true it started in Italy when the 1st bankers and scientific dissidents rebelled against the Vatican.The US branch came to power during the industrial age.

I don't seek to convince you of anything I just want to tell the truth as I understand it.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

We can debate all day, but when stuff like this keeps happening, I'll keep my stand point. Please don't watch if you are upset easily btw

What it amounts to is you can't logically back your view. Views that are not founded in logic or that cannot be defended in a reasonable context are, by definition, ignorant.

By all means - cling to ignorance and post a bunch of emotionally charged rhetoric.

You really need to come to terms with what people and nations are. More people die in a year under the influence of alcohol than ten years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed (on both sides) combined. Yet we rally around the substance as a cultural icon.

Not saying it should be banned - simply putting it into a context for you.

You are just as likely to have been conceived by an adulterous lover than you are to have been conceived by the individual your mother was married to (or in a long term relationship with). A little whacked in the head, don't you think? Yet take a look at the glamorized relationships on TV.

If you want someone to consider your life above that of any other animal.... perhaps you all should act with a little self-awareness. Because, as it stands, you all are really only suitable for pets on the whole (a few individuals stand out as being intelligent and self-aware... but well over 80% of the population is not much different than a pet with aposable thumbs - they'll even go out tramping around the neighborhood).

I mean... really.

Makes me hope there is some kind of conspiracy to keep you all from breeding - at least until we can attain viable space colonies that can be self-sustaining and propagating (we can build more without needing to return to the planet).

You all are scary.

reply to post by Aim64C

Makes me hope there is some kind of conspiracy to keep you all from breeding - at least until we can attain viable space colonies that can be self-sustaining and propagating (we can build more without needing to return to the planet).

How much you love that poster of the Fuhrer on your wall mate?

You all are scary.

Who in the hell are they?

You tell yourself whatever you need to mate.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

How much you love that poster of the Fuhrer on your wall mate?

A Nazi reference. How quaint.

You can't logically defend a species that openly acts in collective self-ignorance. It openly embraces and glamorizes substances and practices in the manners where they are scientifically demonstrated to be destructive to both individuals and society.

Such things are, blatantly, the opposite of intelligent behavior.

Predictably, as a member of said species - you side-step the issue and infer that I'm the equivalent of an indoctrinated Nazi (presumably because of their belief in the superiority of a single race).

Which means you really don't grasp what I'm saying.

Of course, I suppose I should not place undue expectations upon pets. Would you like a biscuit as a reward for being able to recall that Nazis were pro-eugenics (even if their criteria were illogical and politically motivated)?

Who in the hell are they?

"They" who are scaring me would be the general population. The individuals who routinely act in self ignorance based upon raw emotion. Basically - the people who act without thinking (before or afterward); the people who can't think or apply logic. Roughly 75% of the population falls into this category - with everyone between that and the 95 percentile in a gray area. These are the people I would like to get as far away as humanly possible from - preferably on another planet so that they don't # me over with their stupidity (which; thankfully, will preclude their ability to colonize space).

"They" - the people who do not scare me - are those who can think before they act (and who think about things they have done to determine if their actions are representative of their ideal self). The principles they accept can be different - even conflicting; but the nature of the individual makes their actions more deliberate and calculated as opposed to frantic and irrational.

As the saying goes - professionals are predictable; amateurs are scary.

reply to post by Aim64C

As the saying goes - professionals are predictable; amateurs are scary.

And elitists are something else completely

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

And elitists are something else completely

I've no problem being called an elitist. I hold myself to a very high standard - because I am far more capable than you and no amount of effort on your part will change that. What takes you months to accomplish I can eclipse in a matter of days.

Humans are often deluded by the notion that effort equates to results - that perseverance can turn them into anyone or anything they so choose. While neural plasticity is quite amazing - the old saying of "genetics loads the gun" still holds true. Someone packing a much better load will generally be superior. No advantage can be held by mediocrity for very long against the more adept individuals.

But it's really a moot point. Humans are never above the force of natural selection (even if they have become a force of selection in and of themselves). I will do what is necessary to ensure respectable specimens (by my own perspective) survive to flourish and inherit the universe.

You can dither about in ideals involving moral judgments as opposed to functional and survival efficacy.

Should make for an interesting divergence of the human species.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

And elitists are something else completely

I've no problem being called an elitist. I hold myself to a very high standard - because I am far more capable than you and no amount of effort on your part will change that. What takes you months to accomplish I can eclipse in a matter of days.

Humans are often deluded by the notion that effort equates to results - that perseverance can turn them into anyone or anything they so choose. While neural plasticity is quite amazing - the old saying of "genetics loads the gun" still holds true. Someone packing a much better load will generally be superior. No advantage can be held by mediocrity for very long against the more adept individuals.

But it's really a moot point. Humans are never above the force of natural selection (even if they have become a force of selection in and of themselves). I will do what is necessary to ensure respectable specimens (by my own perspective) survive to flourish and inherit the universe.

You can dither about in ideals involving moral judgments as opposed to functional and survival efficacy.

Should make for an interesting divergence of the human species.

King of the Universe, impressive

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

King of the Universe, impressive

Such an ignorant individual.

You do realize that the course of human genetics can be mapped back to key individual lines, correct? For all humans - mitochondrial DNA traces a matriarchal heritage that spans hundreds of thousands of years; but all surviving geneologies outside of Africa have their genetics tied to a single female.

One.

While there were likely many other females heading out from Africa - She is our G^x grandmother - and we all come from her (well - spare for those of matriarchal lineage extending from Africa - which is, interestingly enough, not inherently tied to race).

95% of Europeans fall within seven major "clans" of matriarchal heritage - seven individual women extending back to the paleolithic era whose daughters populated the region.

The world falls within 36 major matriarchal 'clans' - though all of these can be tracked back through the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA to one single set of mitochondrial DNA from which all subsequent mutations occurred - "eve" - if you will.

It's not all that different for males. The Y chromosome exists almost specifically to inhibit certain functions of the rest of our DNA that would otherwise make us female. This code is, in a sense, similar to mitochondrial DNA (that is passed on through our mothers) - spare for it is male specific. While global population data for the Y chromosome is not and extensive as for mitochondrial DNA - Europe's males stem from ten patriarchal clans.

Seventeen individuals set the genetic pace for an entire continent. Even fewer individuals set the bar for our very beginning.

You really shouldn't underestimate the importance of the individual and the contribution you have to the future.

Did these people know they were "clan mothers?" More than likely, not. But they survived while other lines went extinct. Was it because of any special effort on their part? Possibly not - but an above the average effort to survive and improve the lives of their children certainly wouldn't have hurt, either - and may have just made the difference in our very existence.