|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 26, 2011 3:14:26 GMT -5
I think its sad that in this day and age people still only think physical casualties are the only casualties worth worrying about. I think the point was that it's wrong to say NATO is spending "blood and treasure" in Libya when there's no NATO casualties. That doesn't mean the economic side of things isn't worth considering, just that implying NATO personnel are dying when they're not is stupid. Again... not all causalties involve death or injury to one's physical body. Further, IMHO, going out knowing you COULD die requires precisely the same sacrifice as actually dying. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 26, 2011 3:21:52 GMT -5
I think the point was that it's wrong to say NATO is spending "blood and treasure" in Libya when there's no NATO casualties. That doesn't mean the economic side of things isn't worth considering, just that implying NATO personnel are dying when they're not is stupid. Again... not all causalties involve death or injury to one's physical body. Further, IMHO, going out knowing you COULD die requires precisely the same sacrifice as actually dying. Regardless, "blood" does imply casualties (as in death or injury casualties, not your own alternate definition, whatever that may entail). |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 26, 2011 5:09:33 GMT -5
I think its sad that in this day and age people still only think physical casualties are the only casualties worth worrying about. Please specify what kind of casualties you mean instead. PTSD et al? Further, IMHO, going out knowing you COULD die requires precisely the same sacrifice as actually dying. Yes. I still wouldn't equate the two. Driving a car isn't the same as dying in a car crash. (Metaphor unfitting on purpose) |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 26, 2011 13:32:01 GMT -5
I think its sad that in this day and age people still only think physical casualties are the only casualties worth worrying about. Please specify what kind of casualties you mean instead. PTSD et al? For example, yes. Further, IMHO, going out knowing you COULD die requires precisely the same sacrifice as actually dying. Yes. I still wouldn't equate the two. Driving a car isn't the same as dying in a car crash. (Metaphor unfitting on purpose)[/quote] Regardless, I'd rather not have a semantic discussion over what constitutes a deck chair while the ship is bearing down on rocks at flank speed. My original question stands, whether you think NATO is expending blood and treasure, or merely treasure. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Aug 26, 2011 14:50:31 GMT -5
Please specify what kind of casualties you mean instead. PTSD et al? For example, yes. There is no counterinsurgency done on Libyan ground, which is usually considered the most traumatic form of military deployment, on account of the constant need for alertness and unexpectedness of attacks, while operating in an environment similar to home, and the inability to distinguish civilians from enemy combatants. Combat pilots fly their sortie, and then return to a secure base. Air combat and bombardment are highly impersonal. I'd say that the traumatic potential is low, to say the least. Especially if you compare it to the enemy grunt on the ground who is suffering helplessly through the rain of steel and fire coming from above NATO is training rebel Libyan troops. I'm gonna go on a limb here and say it's not a traumatic experience. Which leaves us special forces as the only ones are engaging in ground combat. Still, if you were saying that you (exclusively) pity the spec-op soldier for the trauma he suffers while assaulting and killing enemy soldiers, I would laugh at you. Bottom line, you're gonna be able to count the NATO soldiers suffering PTSD from the LCW on one hand. On the other hand, there have been 15000 dead Libyans as of June. Shall I try to appraise the number of PTSD cases? Fighters, soldiers, paramedics, civilians(!), we're gonna need a few more hands resp. digits for that. And a last bit about the nonhuman resources: while NATO is spending money and ammunition, it's also housing and infrastructure being destroyed in Libya. Before I cry for one NATO soldier, I would have to cry a lot more for the Libyan people(s). NATO is employing human resources in Libya. However, these assets are at a rather low risk of loss (average-to-low probability of loss, low quantity). The term 'blood' implies loss or expectation of loss (and a lot of pathos on top of it). 'Manpower' would be more appropriate. (This applies to NATO as a whole, not necessarily to an individual soldier) |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 26, 2011 16:24:09 GMT -5
Do the pilots of invulnerable bombers suffer PTSD? I honestly would like to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 26, 2011 20:10:35 GMT -5
Please specify what kind of casualties you mean instead. PTSD et al? For example, yes. Yes. I still wouldn't equate the two. Driving a car isn't the same as dying in a car crash. (Metaphor unfitting on purpose) Regardless, I'd rather not have a semantic discussion over what constitutes a deck chair while the ship is bearing down on rocks at flank speed. My original question stands, whether you think NATO is expending blood and treasure, or merely treasure. Sorry, I wasn't aware that "blood" could also refer to "psychological disorder". The next time I find myself having an OCD fit, I'll announce it by saying "I'm bleeding!" since apparently, blood is the same thing as psychological illnesses. |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Aug 26, 2011 20:45:38 GMT -5
Blood can be used as a metaphor in this instance, i.e. someone's health.
Ltfred, Dave Grossman's book On Killing:The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society covers this pretty well, on a scale of who is more likely to suffer PTSD/guilt from killing, pilot and artillerymen are at the low end of the scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 27, 2011 0:53:28 GMT -5
Blood can be used as a metaphor in this instance, i.e. someone's health. This is true, but only when the context is established. Otherwise, the very first thing people think of when they hear "blood is wasted" is physical injury. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 1:39:07 GMT -5
Do the pilots of invulnerable bombers suffer PTSD? I honestly would like to know. Yes, aircrew suffer PTSD. As do the crews of naval ships that are as effectivly invulnerable, if not more so, than aircraft. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 1:40:37 GMT -5
There is no counterinsurgency done on Libyan ground, which is usually considered the most traumatic form of military deployment, on account of the constant need for alertness and unexpectedness of attacks, while operating in an environment similar to home, and the inability to distinguish civilians from enemy combatants. Combat pilots fly their sortie, and then return to a secure base. Air combat and bombardment are highly impersonal. I'd say that the traumatic potential is low, to say the least. Especially if you compare it to the enemy grunt on the ground who is suffering helplessly through the rain of steel and fire coming from above NATO is training rebel Libyan troops. I'm gonna go on a limb here and say it's not a traumatic experience. Which leaves us special forces as the only ones are engaging in ground combat. Still, if you were saying that you (exclusively) pity the spec-op soldier for the trauma he suffers while assaulting and killing enemy soldiers, I would laugh at you. Bottom line, you're gonna be able to count the NATO soldiers suffering PTSD from the LCW on one hand. On the other hand, there have been 15000 dead Libyans as of June. Shall I try to appraise the number of PTSD cases? Fighters, soldiers, paramedics, civilians(!), we're gonna need a few more hands resp. digits for that. And a last bit about the nonhuman resources: while NATO is spending money and ammunition, it's also housing and infrastructure being destroyed in Libya. Before I cry for one NATO soldier, I would have to cry a lot more for the Libyan people(s). NATO is employing human resources in Libya. However, these assets are at a rather low risk of loss (average-to-low probability of loss, low quantity). The term 'blood' implies loss or expectation of loss (and a lot of pathos on top of it). 'Manpower' would be more appropriate. (This applies to NATO as a whole, not necessarily to an individual soldier) *blink blink* so its about numbers for you? How many mental health casualties does it take before you consider these combatants worthy of your compassion? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 1:44:27 GMT -5
For example, yes. Yes. I still wouldn't equate the two. Driving a car isn't the same as dying in a car crash. (Metaphor unfitting on purpose) Regardless, I'd rather not have a semantic discussion over what constitutes a deck chair while the ship is bearing down on rocks at flank speed. My original question stands, whether you think NATO is expending blood and treasure, or merely treasure. Sorry, I wasn't aware that "blood" could also refer to "psychological disorder". The next time I find myself having an OCD fit, I'll announce it by saying "I'm bleeding!" since apparently, blood is the same thing as psychological illnesses. I love it when you focus on the tiny minutiae of someone's turn of phrase while refusing to address the actual issue at hand. Again... who the fuck is Mahmoud Jibril and why are we spending so many of our resources and putting our people in harm's way (happy?) to make him the most powerful man in Northern Africa? (Let me guess... now we have to have a semantic pissing contest over what constitutes "powerful"? Or "man" perhaps?) |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 1:44:56 GMT -5
Blood can be used as a metaphor in this instance, i.e. someone's health. THANK YOU! |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 27, 2011 1:45:46 GMT -5
Sorry, I wasn't aware that "blood" could also refer to "psychological disorder". The next time I find myself having an OCD fit, I'll announce it by saying "I'm bleeding!" since apparently, blood is the same thing as psychological illnesses. I love it when you focus on the tiny minutiae of someone's turn of phrase while refusing to address the actual issue at hand. Again... who the fuck is Mahmoud Jibril and why are we spending so much of our TIME and ENERGY (happy?) making him the most powerful man in Northern Africa? (Let me guess... now we have to have a semantic pissing contest over what constitutes "powerful"? Or "man" perhaps?) Context. Learn to use it if you want people to understand you. When you fail at including context to say what you mean, then the fault lies with you, not with the person who responded to your statement exactly how it was stated. I don't actually have a problem with what you're saying (in fact, with context, you actually bring up a good point) but when you talk down to someone for something that was your fault, then we have a problem. EDIT: Also, Modify Post, learn to use it instead of spamming up the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 27, 2011 1:55:51 GMT -5
I love it when you focus on the tiny minutiae of someone's turn of phrase while refusing to address the actual issue at hand. Again... who the fuck is Mahmoud Jibril and why are we spending so much of our TIME and ENERGY (happy?) making him the most powerful man in Northern Africa? (Let me guess... now we have to have a semantic pissing contest over what constitutes "powerful"? Or "man" perhaps?) Context. Learn to use it if you want people to understand you. When you fail at including context to say what you mean, then the fault lies with you, not with the person who responded to your statement exactly how it was stated. I don't actually have a problem with what you're saying (in fact, with context, you actually bring up a good point) but when you talk down to someone for something that was your fault, then we have a problem. EDIT: Also, Modify Post, learn to use it instead of spamming up the thread. "blood and treasure" is a perfectly appropriate phrase in this context, and its meanings are generally understood. Human cost was my meaning. If you think I bring up a good point, maybe it would be more constructive for all concerned if we discussed that, rather than getting into yet another waaahmbulance calling context over who said what and how they said one thing and really meant another and blah blah blah when its all utterly irrelevent to the actual issue? Whaddya say? |
|
