NationStates Jolt Archive

Who has it harder? The soldiers serving in Afghanistan/Iraq or their spouses & family back at home?

I'd rather be the one endangering myself than the one having to worry about someone I cared for. Without personal experience my thoughts don't mean much but just thought i'd add that at least

Who has it harder? The soldiers serving in Afghanistan/Iraq or their spouses & family back at home?

The civilian Afghanis or Iraqis.

The people back home. As Chuck Yeager's wife said in The Right Stuff

They spend thousands on teaching you to be a fearless pilot, but they don't spend one goddamn penny on teaching you to be the fearless wife of a pilot.

Soldiers are trained. Their families are not trained (at not being afraid).

Me, for there is no poll.

Fine.

Me, for there is no poll.

The civilian Afghanis or Iraqis.

QFT.

The civilian Afghanis or Iraqis.

Uhhh...Assume they don't exist for a moment.:p

100% of people say "The family of the soldier"

Interesting.

100% of people say "The family of the soldier"


Not anymore.;)

Uhhh...Assume they don't exist for a moment.:p

Unfortunately theres rather enough of that going on, without me joining in.

Well in the Iraq situation, the Iraqi people have it the hardest of all. But from the choice you gave, obviously the soldier.

The people back home. As Chuck Yeager's wife said in The Right Stuff



Soldiers are trained. Their families are not trained (at not being afraid).

You can't train someone to not be afraid. Those in the military may have a better ability to function under pressure, but fear never goes away.

Uhhh...Assume they don't exist for a moment.:p

Then we'd be the American government.

You can't train someone to not be afraid. Those in the military may have a better ability to function under pressure, but fear never goes away.

I'd disagree. You can change the form and the severity of the fear through experience and training

Who has it harder? The soldiers serving in Afghanistan/Iraq or their spouses & family back at home?

it depends.

each has it hard in their own way.

at least the soldier can make rationalizations, but the family won't know until either they come home, or they get a letter.

however, the family has more options open than the soldier.

both have it hard.

the family isn't getting shot at daily.......this one is kind of a no brainer.

The family won't actually die from worry. The soldier could actually die from having people trying to kill him.

the soldiers do.

not that it matters. there is enough hardship to go around.

what hurts more a gutshot or having your leg blown off?

the family isn't getting shot at daily.......this one is kind of a no brainer.

THink about the worrying the families have to do. Imagine having to worry about if mom/dad/brother/sister/daughter/son/husband/wife is going to come back alive? or being the spouse of a soldier that has to raise 3 children on your own.
I think families have it harder, simple because if their loved one is killed in action, they, the family, have to deal wit that loss.

THink about the worrying the families have to do. Imagine having to worry about if mom/dad/brother/sister/daughter/son/husband/wife is going to come back alive? or being the spouse of a soldier that has to raise 3 children on your own.
I think families have it harder, simple because if their loved one is killed in action, they, the family, have to deal wit that loss.

Yes, but they'll still be alive. The soldier won't.

Yes, but they'll still be alive. The soldier won't.

That is exactly why they have it worse. The soldier will be dead and not have to worry about anything else in this life, the family however has to carry on their grief until they die.

The family won't actually die from worry. The soldier could actually die from having people trying to kill him.

I think many people would argue that living with the loss is quite a deal harder than just being dead. I think that is the rationale behind suicide.

That is exactly why they have it worse. The soldier will be dead and not have to worry about anything else in this life, the family however has to carry on their grief until they die.
So, having to live with grief is worse than dying? Wouldn't that mean that suicide is a good way to deal with the death of a loved one?
I think many people would argue that living with the loss is quite a deal harder than just being dead. I think that is the rationale behind suicide.

Eh, well not really. People commit suicide for more reasons than just grief.

That is exactly why they have it worse. The soldier will be dead and not have to worry about anything else in this life, the family however has to carry on their grief until they die.

Due to the time warp, you now sound more original than me.

Curses.

So, having to live with grief is worse than dying? Wouldn't that mean that suicide is a good way to deal with the death of a loved one?


Eh, well not really. People commit suicide for more reasons than just grief.

Having to live with grief is worse than being in a dead state, or state of nonexistence. But that all depends on where we go after we die, and we do not want to go into that.

People commit suicide because they cannot deal with life/cannot stand living anymore/living would cause more problems than being dead. Meaning when being dead is easier than being alive. Pretty simple really.

Having to live with grief is worse than being in a dead state, or state of nonexistence.
This assumes that one allows grief to consume one's life. Admittedly I haven't lost anyone particularly close to me, so I can't speak from experience, but life goes on after bereavement. I don't see why grief should permanently preclude one from ever enjoying any aspect of life ever again. Really, if it did then there would be no point for most people to continue to live, since it's almost inevitable that we'll all lose someone very close to use eventually.
But that all depends on where we go after we die, and we do not want to go into that.
No, we do not.
People commit suicide because they cannot deal with life/cannot stand living anymore/living would cause more problems than being dead. Meaning when being dead is easier than being alive. Pretty simple really.

I want to call you on appearing to think that suicide is a good way to deal with grief, but I can't think of a good way to do it that doesn't seem iffy, what with the whole don't advocate suicide thing.

This assumes that one allows grief to consume one's life. Admittedly I haven't lost anyone particularly close to me, so I can't speak from experience, but life goes on after bereavement. I don't see why grief should permanently preclude one from ever enjoying any aspect of life ever again. Really, if it did then there would be no point for most people to continue to live, since it's almost inevitable that we'll all lose someone very close to use eventually.

No, we do not.


I want to call you on appearing to think that suicide is a good way to deal with grief, but I can't think of a good way to do it that doesn't seem iffy, what with the whole don't advocate suicide thing.

It doesn't, or rather it shouldn't. I am just saying that a soldier who is currently dead has a much easier..uhm..life.. than someone who is currently alive and grieving over the death of another. That being said, living and fighting with the threat of death hanging over your head, and living while worrying about someone who has the threat of death hanging over their head probably leaves the soldier with a harder life.

At least we agree on that.:p

Not quite sure I understand what you mean.. Well, at any rate, I don't think suicide is a good way to deal with anything. In my opinion it is one of the most cowardly acts a person could commit.

It doesn't, or rather it shouldn't. I am just saying that a soldier who is currently dead has a much easier..uhm..life.. than someone who is currently alive and grieving over the death of another. That being said, living and fighting with the threat of death hanging over your head, and living while worrying about someone who has the threat of death hanging over their head probably leaves the soldier with a harder life.

At least we agree on that.:p

Not quite sure I understand what you mean.. Well, at any rate, I don't think suicide is a good way to deal with anything. In my opinion it is one of the most cowardly acts a person could commit.

I wold disagree on one key part, which is that suicide is cowardly. It might be done for cowardly reasons, but actually carrying out the killing of yourself would take a heck of a lot of guts.

(Disclaimer: I've never been there, hopefully never will, etc)

I wold disagree on one key part, which is that suicide is cowardly. It might be done for cowardly reasons, but actually carrying out the killing of yourself would take a heck of a lot of guts.



The only way that carrying out the killing would take a lot of guts is if you don't actually want to die. In which case you wouldn't be attempting to commit suicide.

As if there'd be a question.

The family at home doesn't have to deal with live incoming artillery at any given moment of their lives.

The soldier could actually die from having people trying to kill him.

No, the soldier could die for having people succeeding at killing him.

That is exactly why they have it worse. The soldier will be dead and not have to worry about anything else in this life, the family however has to carry on their grief until they die.

Then again, you also have to consider the soldier(or marine or whatever branch he serves in), if he survives, having to deal with the grief of loss. Imagine, in the middle of battle, watching people who you've come to bond with as brothers, as a sort of family, die. Watching them gunned down by the enemy.

So, I'd say, out of the two choices, the soldier has it the toughest. (Pretending for a moment, as does the US government, that the civilians IN these places don't exist.)

Answer: Who's getting shot at?

The civilian Afghanis or Iraqis.seconded

No, the soldier could die for having people succeeding at killing him.

If people try to kill the soldier, he could die.
If people succeed in killing the soldier, he will die.

The soldier knows what he is doing. The family does not and will have to live without him, should he die.

Answer: Who's getting shot at?

Again: The civilian Afghanis or Iraqis. At least the soldiers have body armor... No, wait...

If people try to kill the soldier, he could die.
If people succeed in killing the soldier, he will die.

Potato, dead potato...

Potato, dead potato...

More like baked potato, baked potato with butter and black-pepper which I just ate.

The Medics who are probably sick of dealing with all the gangrene.

Forgive the pun.

Who has it harder? The soldiers serving in Afghanistan/Iraq or their spouses & family back at home?

Being married and serving for a year in Thailand during Vietnam, I can honestly say both the military member and his/her family have an equally hard time. :(

100% of people say "The family of the soldier"

Interesting.

99.999% probably have not served in the military or are not members of military families.

You can't train someone to not be afraid. Those in the military may have a better ability to function under pressure, but fear never goes away.

You are correct, but fear is overcome through training.

the family isn't getting shot at daily.......this one is kind of a no brainer.

No, but the family has no idea if their loved one is dead or still alive. During Vietnam while I was serving in Thailand my wife never missed the news. It was a combination of dread (she would hear the base I was on was attacked) and joy (when she didn't hear the base I was on was attacked.)

That's tough. Sure you have bullets, bombs, and curses coming at you as a soldier but as a family you have a giant fear of the unknown about your loved ones. It's hard on both in different ways and very hard in each way.