|
SOULFUL SHEE M. G. Pulsing In Passionate Purple PassionS, click here
to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.
|
|
* To give to who deserves would be my answer to this plight they see! A red heart (blood and emotions) would be a good calling!
Purple Hearts for Mental Wounds?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
"...with an increasing number of troops being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, the modern military is debating an idea Gen. Washington never considered -- awarding one of the nation's top military citations to veterans with psychological wounds, not just physical ones.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates offered cautious support for such a change on a trip to a military base in Texas this month.
"It's an interesting idea," Mr. Gates said in response to a question. "I think it is clearly something that needs to be looked at."
With all due respect to Mr. Gates, whom I respect more than any single member of Bush's administration, this is complete crap. The Purple Heart is for soldiers who bled on the battle field as they fought for our freedom. Period. The shear idea of this medal being awarded to someone with mental issues is a stain on anyone who lost a body part, or took a bullet, or otherwise physically wounded by the enemy. The Purple Heart is a badge of honor and to sully it with victims of mental wounds is a disgrace to our soldiers who are making this sacrifice and earn this medal with their blood.
To the PTSS people fighting for this award: Get your own medal if you are having trouble sleeping at night. You can't say that to the guy who didn't come back. Or to the guy paralyzed for the rest of his life. I honor the sacrifice you made to the country, now honor the sacrifice those who bled made as well. Leave this medal in the hands of the wounded and on the graves of those who didn't come back.
One of the last things I saw in Washington DC before leaving the US for my current job was a Purple Heart resting peacefully on the grave of a fallen soldier in Arlington National Cemetery. You cannot tell me that any mental would is greater than the sacrifice that soldier made for my freedom.
Philosophized by DB at 5/15/2008
Topics: A Post by DB, Current Events, War
16 Dissenters:
Nikki said...
DB...I don't know how I feel about this. Maybe a red heart for the psychologically wounded? There is no doubt that our soldiers need to be better taken care of physically and mentally...and if you will pardon, spiritually. I also think the rest of america needs to pull their heads out of their asses and stop telling soldiers that their plight is of no worth and all for nothing...I think this is a contributor and that begins with the idiots running for President and sitting on the hill already. Supporting the troops but not the cause is not supporting it is undermining and supporting the enemy. :)N
5/15/08 8:44 PM
DB said...
Supporting the troops but not the cause is not supporting it is undermining and supporting the enemy.
So, everyone who is against the war is against the troops and supporting the enemy?
That is simply asinine.
5/16/08 1:47 AM
Nikki said...
I think it is ASSinine to think otherwise...how can you say I support the troops but the cause is not just. Aren't you in essence saying have fun killing people for no reason and going through friggin hell for no reason and come home and deal...at least if there is unity in the cause there is a feeling of purpose. so no offesnse taken for being asinine but I don't see how the 2 can co-exist. its lip service because of all the flack the anti war crowd got spitting on vietnam vets when they came home...its a cover to their disdain to soldiers. :)N
5/16/08 7:12 AM
DB said...
Well, I live on a US military base and have tons of friends who are anti-war and soldiers at the same time. In fact, I would say more so against than for. They have served in Iraq. They have served in Afghanistan. You can't tell me they don't support the troops when they are one of them. That is like saying that if you don't support the President 100% you are unpatriotic...oh, wait, you did say that. We must have a hugely unpatriotic country. And over 50% apparently want the enemy to win. Seriously? And if Obama wins, I would like to see how many people are patriotic then.
5/16/08 8:46 AM
Nikki said...
DB...I have friends in the military too. I have family members in the military. This claim does not give you an authority on the subject. Your military friends can think what they want. I have had my own discussions on the topic. I would like to see the unpariotic statement I said about Bush. Throwing that in is unfair. I stated my position. I think it is not good for a cause to have americans stomp all over it, while others have to psychologically justify the killing they do and americans calling it for nothing. See it for what I said not for what you interpreted it to mean. :)N
5/16/08 9:36 AM
DB said...
I didn't say I was an authority, I merely mentioned that I live amongst soldiers who fight for our country proudly and patriotically who are very critical of this war and do not think we should be in Iraq. Clearly you can support the troops and not the war. That is the point.
I didn't say you said something negative about Bush (I know you would never!). I meant to say that using your reasoning on supporting troops but not the war, someone, not you, who does say something against Bush is unpatriotic. You have referred to anti-war people as unpatriotic in previous conversations. That's all.
You can support the troops and be against the war just as much as you can think Bush is a moron and still be a Patriot. Otherwise, what are we fighting for?
5/16/08 10:09 AM
Nikki said...
Your post was on the psychological damage to soldiers...my point was to state that PART of the psychology is the problem of a cause that it is of no value! I can't imagine watching people get killed and killing people and the world is saying it was a bunch of shit and the cause is FOR NOTHING. That was my point. dragging bush hating into a patriot discussion was off the subject IMO. I don't know how many times I can say that hating Bush is not unpatriotic. I can learn it in spanish french and german...BUT I NEVER SAID THAT! it is only assigned to me because I am a conservative!
5/16/08 10:19 AM
Nikki said...
yes I am yelling in my brain a little bit.
5/16/08 10:21 AM
DB said...
I can tell lol. I am going to bed. 230am. Goodnight, or morning.
5/16/08 10:25 AM
bullet said...
"I can't imagine watching people get killed and killing people and the world is saying it was a bunch of shit and the cause is FOR NOTHING."
Americans died in Viet Nam for nothing. Ditto Somalia. Germans died in WW2 for nothing. It doesn't matter what the goal is/was. If it's not an achievable goal, then people who are dying for it do so in vain.
Supporting the troops is writing letters, sending care packages and even just saying thank you when you see a soldier. I can say that I don't believe in the justification for this war (i do, BTW) without flagging in support for those men and women who are fighting and dying for me. Even if I didn't ask them, they volunteered to do it and deserve as well as receive my respect.
I can hate the war (or even just hate war) and still recognize the sacrifice and valor of the people who fight it.
5/16/08 12:25 PM
bullet said...
As to the point at hand:
First off, PTSD is not a mental illness. It is an emotional disorder. (This is my opinion.) Even if it was,giving a purple heart in recognition of mental illness is a dicey proposition. Once we define some mental illnesses as casualties, it makes every one who suffers a victim. Changes need to made in how we define "mental illness," before something like this should happen.
5/16/08 12:33 PM
Nikki said...
must I constantly refer to the post and the psychological effects of war. I am saying and let me pronounce my position one more time...the very thing you state...
"Americans died in Viet Nam for nothing. Ditto Somalia. Germans died in WW2 for nothing. It doesn't matter what the goal is/was. If it's not an achievable goal, then people who are dying for it do so in vain."
This is damaging to a persons psyche. so no I don't think it speaks to support.
5/16/08 12:47 PM
bullet said...
"This is damaging to a persons psyche. so no I don't think it speaks to support."
I just don't agree. If I said that to someone's face, maybe. "You know what? You're fighting for nothing." But I wouldn't do that and no one who considers themselves to be decent should. I'm sure a lot of soldiers think they are dying in vain. But not because someone told them (not necessarily, I guess). If one thinks his cause is just, then why consider the opinions of those who are obviously wrong? This is over-simplified, I know, but it speaks to the point.
I just don't think that my pride in the fighting men and women this country is lucky to have should be mitigated in any way by my opinion of the intelligence or agenda of the politicians who command them. It is because of my pride in those people that I can be outraged (if I wish) with the perceived abuse of their sacrifice. I can't very well speak to that and effect any change on their behalf if I can't mention it for fear of damaging the psyche of someone who probably couldn't give a shit about my opinion. I understand that morale is important, but so is not needing it because you're not being shot at.
To illustrate with a perfectly ridiculous example:
I love my football team. I am proud that they represent me. I think the players are fine athletes and upstanding men. If I see one while out, I'll shake his hand and buy him a drink and tell him how great he is. But I hate the coaches and the owner. They are idiots. The coaches can't strategize worth a damn. They don't understand their opponents offensive and defensive schemes and have made absolutely no progress in that area in years. Every game is over before it starts. The owner is a stubborn ass who throws money at the wrong problems and won't listen to anyone who tells him anything but that he's doing a fine job.
I still respect and admire the players. I just want new coaches and (I wish) a new owner.
5/16/08 1:17 PM
DB said...
Great example Bullet (and post too). I can't say that any better. I support the war but am not naive enough to confuse those who don't support the war with those who don't support the troops. Over half our country does not support the war, but I guarantee you they support the troops.
And yes, Nikki, the psychological effects of war are damaging. But the Purple Heart is very objective: you get one when you fight and get wounded or killed by the enemy. If we were to give Purple Hearts out to everyone who saw combat, it would make the sacrifice of those who died or got wounded less. The military has plenty of different awards, give non-physically wounded soldiers something else, but not the Purple Heart. I think if everyone got a Purple Heart just for fighting because of Psychological issues, then what is the point of the Purple Heart?
btw Bullet, welcome to the Blogroll!
5/16/08 6:31 PM
Nikki said...
DB...I have no opinion on whether they should get one or not...:)N
5/16/08 7:52 PM
bullet said...
"btw Bullet, welcome to the Blogroll!"
Thanks a bunch!
5/19/08 3:10 PM
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
|
|
|
|
| f |
| |
Reader Reviews for
"READ THIS! PURPLE HEARTS For Mental Wounds" |
Want to review or comment on this
article?
Click here to login!
Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!
|
| Reviewed by Terry Rizzuti |
6/22/2008 |
|
| Speaking as someone with a Purple Heart and PTSD, I'm opposed to awarding the PH for psychological wounds. Someone here said maybe a Red Heart is appropriate, but, if anything at all is awarded, I think a Blue Face makes more sense. One side of the face is frowning; the other is angry. Terry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share
Print
Save