Army suicide rate could pass rate for general population this year

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Part of the reason for my first post was the less dramatic comment in bold above. I took that to mean that you think the statistic might be misleading in an overblown manner, which to me was trivializing the fact that servicemen and women are taking their lives at a higher rate.

The second bolded statement seems to say the opposite. So, I'm truly confused as to whether you are arguing that the statistic might be under- or overblown. If the concern is that the statistic is masking the potential that it is worse than we think, I guess I'm ok with that line of thought. If the concern is for the reverse, I repeat my original statement that the bottom line is that the number is up, and it seems really wrong to try to justify it or explain it away.

My concern is that the comparison is likely to be inaccurate. It doesn't make sense to me only to concerned if the comparison understates the problem.

I'm concerned about the troops' mental health and suicide rate, but I'm not sure how much can be done to effectively address it, and I have a sense (that you likely don't share) that any negative reporting on the war and the troops that can possible get reported is expressed in the worst possible terms. You may see earnest reporting on a serious issue about troop welfare, and I see something that might just be another negative story for the sake of a negative story. Something that might overstate a real problem for the sake of making this appear to be the worse war for the troops ever.

I see a secondary agenda that the accuracy of the comparison might be important for evaluating.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

My concern is that the comparison is likely to be inaccurate. It doesn't make sense to me only to concerned if the comparison understates the problem.

I'm concerned about the troops' mental health and suicide rate, but I'm not sure how much can be done to effectively address it, and I have a sense (that you likely don't share) that any negative reporting on the war and the troops that can possible get reported is expressed in the worst possible terms. You may see earnest reporting on a serious issue about troop welfare, and I see something that might just be another negative story for the sake of a negative story. Something that might overstate a real problem for the sake of making this appear to be the worse war for the troops ever.

I see a secondary agenda that the accuracy of the comparison might be important for evaluating.

I have to respectfully disagree to some of the comments.

Not to become long winded, chit happens and all's fair in love and war... You would be amazed as to what is truthful or not.

The other issue is about troop morale. American's like it short and sweet. Life is never like that. But that does not negate the fact that morale declines over time.

Lastly, in a free democratic pluralistic republic society, we can think we can warmonger, but that seldomly means the citizenry is free at that point...