# HBO doesn't like the military either...big surprise...



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

Well, I have read quite a few of the books the show the HBO show True Blood is based on.  I stopped reading at the novel where Sookie was dating the were-tiger, the reviews of the novel after that were pretty bad so I stopped there.  Now in the novels you have a peripheral character, one of the cooks at the bar where Sookie works.  He was, from what I remember a way in the background character.  When HBO made the series they decided to use this character to give a "shout out" to all those brave members of the U.S. military by having him be a veteran of the Iraq war.  You would think that was enough, but you would be wrong.  This brave (we'll get back to this term in a second) veteran is...wait for it...suffering from mental illness brought on by his war time experience.  Thanks HBO for honoring our soldiers.  Well, since the first season was pretty wretched, I stopped watching the show until this season.  I was channel surfing and decided, let's see how bad True Blood is now, after several seasons. 

Apparently, this season, this mentally ill, Iraq war vet has his own story line.  Hooray for him.  In this story line we learn that he was a brave soldier, honorably serving his country and the cause of freedom....I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing.  The truth is, this character flashes back to his time in the Iraq war and...wait for it...engaged in atrocities. You see, his squad goes out on patrol, in a war zone, and decides to hold up in a bombed out building...(yes, it is a mosque and they desecrate it) so that they can drink the booze and use the drugs they brought with them.  You know, standard operating procedure for U.S. troops in a war zone.  Welllll, they leave one guy out front to keep a look out, it is a war zone after all, and a lone, unarmed Iraqi guy comes out and starts talking to the sentry.  Yes, you guessed it, they get into a confrontation and the U.S. soldier shoots the unarmed civillian, but as they say...but wait, there's more.  After he shoots this guy, a crowd comes out and starts yelling at our brave troops, who are now drunk and high.  As the squad is confronting the crowd, an "alledged," terrorist type shoots at our brave soldiers...and then they open fire on the unarmed civilian crowd killing everyone...but wait, there's more.  Once they have killed all these innocent civilians, there is of course one woman who is badly wounded, but still clinging to life, and you guessed it, instead of calling for medical help, the squad leader tells one of the soldiers to kill her because they have been over there too long to deal with the blow back from the atrocity they just committed.

Yes, much like the rest of hollywood,  HBO and True Blood went out of their way to honor our soldiers.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Well, I have read quite a few of the books the show the HBO show True Blood is based on. I stopped reading at the novel where Sookie was dating the were-tiger, the reviews of the novel after that were pretty bad so I stopped there. Now in the novels you have a peripheral character, one of the cooks at the bar where Sookie works. He was, from what I remember a way in the background character. When HBO made the series they decided to use this character to give a "shout out" to all those brave members of the U.S. military by having him be a veteran of the Iraq war. You would think that was enough, but you would be wrong. This brave (we'll get back to this term in a second) veteran is...wait for it...suffering from mental illness brought on by his war time experience.






> Up to 31 percent of soldiers returning from combat in Iraq experience depression or post-traumatic stress disorder that affects their jobs, relationships, or home life, according to a new study by Army researchers.





billcihak said:


> Apparently, this season, this mentally ill, Iraq war vet has his own story line. Hooray for him. In this story line we learn that he was a brave soldier, honorably serving his country and the cause of freedom....I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing. The truth is, this character flashes back to his time in the Iraq war and...wait for it...engaged in atrocities. You see, his squad goes out on patrol, in a war zone, and decides to hold up in a bombed out building...(yes, it is a mosque and they desecrate it) so that they can drink the booze and use the drugs they brought with them. You know, standard operating procedure for U.S. troops in a war zone.



Actually, it's likely the drugs that they would be using were prescribed for them by the military:




> _Troops and military health care providers also told Military Times that these medications are being prescribed, consumed, shared and traded in combat zones &#8212; despite some restrictions on the deployment of troops using those drugs._
> _The investigation also shows that drugs originally developed to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are now commonly used to treat symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as headaches, nightmares, nervousness and fits of anger&#8230;._
> _Antidepressants and anticonvulsants are the most common mental health medications prescribed to service members. Seventeen percent of the active-duty force, and as much as 6 percent of deployed troops, are on antidepressants, Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, the Army&#8217;s highest-ranking psychiatrist, told Congress on Feb. 24._
> _In contrast, about 10 percent of all Americans take antidepressants, according to a 2009 Columbia University study._​



and:



> _* Antipsychotic medications, including Seroquel and Risperdal, spiked most dramatically &#8212; orders jumped by more than 200 percent, and annual spending more than quadrupled, from $4 million to $16 million._
> _* Use of anti-anxiety drugs and sedatives such as Valium and Ambien also rose substantially; orders increased 170 percent, while spending nearly tripled, from $6 million to about $17 million._
> _* Antiepileptic drugs, also known as anticonvulsants, were among the most commonly used psychiatric medications. Annual orders for these drugs increased about 70 percent, while spending more than doubled, from $16 million to $35 million._
> _* Antidepressants had a comparatively modest 40 percent gain in orders, but it was the only drug group to show an overall decrease in spending, from $49 million in 2001 to $41 million in 2009, a drop of 16 percent. The debut in recent years of cheaper generic versions of these drugs is likely responsible for driving down costs._​




And soldiers have always gotten drunk in war zones, when the opportunity presented itself. 




> Although alcohol was banned in the combat zone, one of the sergeants had managed to buy vodka, and they drank cocktails together that night in the barracks, according to the statements. Later, drunk, the sergeants piled into a Humvee to bid goodbye to a female tower guard, according to testimony.
> 
> It was 3 a.m. when the group stopped at McKinney's guard tower. Shell called her down, and she joined them in the Humvee.
> 
> The particulars of that night began to unfold after McKinney's funeral, when Barbie Heavrin said she asked investigators for "all the details." She learned that there was no ill-fated trip to a latrine. McKinney's death was a criminal case.



Not all soldiers, of course, but always.....



billcihak said:


> Yes, much like the rest of hollywood, HBO and True Blood went out of their way to honor our soldiers.




I'd say they've done as good a job of "honoring our soldiers" as the government and military apparently have.......


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

Sorry, the drugs they brought with them were obviously not prescription meds.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Sorry, the drugs they brought with them were obviously not prescription meds.



The booze, certainly not.

The "candy?" _Pills_. Obviously *pills*, and nothing more obvious than that-though far more likely to have been someone's prescription than not.


----------



## billc (Jul 9, 2012)

Yes, I am sure the doctor that prescribed the drugs made sure to tell them to take them with alcohol, while on patrol, before they murder unarmed civilians.  The pharmacist who issued the pills probably pointed out those directions on the label, as well,  before he let them have them...:angel:

You missed this weeks episode where they killed the wounded Iraqi, civilian woman in cold blood.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, I am sure the doctor that prescribed the drugs made sure to tell them to take them with alcohol, while on patrol, before they murder unarmed civilians. The pharmacist who issued the pills probably pointed out those directions on the label, as well, before he let them have them...:angel:




No, but let's look at the facts:

The military knows it has a problem with prescribing-and *over*prescribing all sorts of drugs, anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and painkillers to active duty personnel in the field.

It's documented that there is drinking in the field.

It's documented that what some would call atrocities have been committed by U.S. military personnel.

How is it that "HBO doesn't like the military?"

I mean, a more accurate statement might be "Alexander Woo (the writer of episode 4 of this season) doesn't like the military," but an *even more* accurate statement might be "Alexander Woo has used some of the most unsavory aspects of the U.S. military's presence in Iraq as a plot device, and I find that distasteful." 

Of course, objectivity is a bit much to ask in the case of such a clearly inflammatory and biased piece of propaganda as a show based on the incredibly realistic premise of vampires and werewolves running around like normal folks, consorting with witches and psychics...... :lfao:



billcihak said:


> You missed this weeks episode where they killed the wounded Iraqi, civilian woman in cold blood.




I didn't miss anything-I don't watch that program, or just about any other, really. _Mad Men, Burn Notice, Dexter_ that's about it. I was disappointed when _Life_ was canceled, and got tired of _House_ about four years before it ended. Occasionally, Rita-that's the wife-will force me to watch some program she enjoys, like _Hawaii Five-O,_, but I refuse to get sucked into the continuity......

However:





> Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood," a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday. From the beginning, Iraqis in the town of Haditha said U.S. Marines deliberately killed 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children.
> One young Iraqi girl said the Marines killed six members of her family, including her parents. &#8220;The Americans came into the room where my father was praying,&#8221; she said, &#8220;and shot him.&#8221;



_"In war, "innocents" are always killed-that is to say, *women and children."*_-Mao Tse Tung


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 9, 2012)

I'm sure this couldn't just be a case of writers choosing to use emotionally charged characters and events in order to tell a fictional story. You forgot to mention that when they kill the last woman she puts a curse on them which sends a mystical fire demon to hunt down each of the members of the military unit in turn.

THIS JUST IN!!! HBO DOESN'T LIKE IMAGINARY FIRE DEMONS!!!

Get over yourself. Sometimes a story is just a story. I don't tune in to watch HBO kiss *** all over the armed forces. I can turn on lots of other channels to see that. I want to see a fun story about supernatural characters with lots of outrageous sex and graphic violence. Feel free to continue not watching it.

You see an agenda everywhere you look. Because you're looking for one.


-Rob


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 10, 2012)

Yes, HBO dislikes the military...oh wait, aren't they the same company that made Band of Brothers, a very positive potrayal of Easy company in WWII?  Sheesh, that means that maybe they niether dislike or like the military, but rather good storylines so they can get subscribers to make a profit.  Thats capitalism right?  Since Billi is posting a negative article about HBO using capitalism, that must mean Billi hates capitalism.  That must mean Billi is a socialist!!!   I see how this works now.  It is kind of a fun little game.


----------



## billc (Jul 10, 2012)

Yes, World War 2 the European theater is the only war that seems okay with hollywood.  However, World War 2 the pacific theater gets trashed...by the same guy who made the show about the European theater...

Here is his tribute to the brave men who fought island to island against the Japanese Empire...

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...ming-the-pacific/story-e6frfmvr-1225842406411



> *TOM Hanks is under fire for suggesting that World War II veterans are racist.*
> 
> The star of _Saving Private Ryan_ has twice compared the Second World War with the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, saying all three were about race.
> Promoting his new series _The Pacific_, which was filmed in Melbourne and Queensland, he told MSNBC yesterday that the war drama "represents a war that was of racism and terror".
> ...



And it points out how he also attacked our current soldiers fighting the guys who murder innocent people...

Another article...

http://voices.yahoo.com/tom-hanks-pacific-controversy-5636224.html



> One can only hope that those words were inartfully expressed or perhaps even misquoted. But they are out there and thus far Hanks had not chosen to clarify or, as many are now demanding, apologize for what appears to be a slander of not only the soldiers and Marines who fought in the Pacific but those who now fight against Islamist terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> Victor Davis Hanson, himself a historian, asked the question, "Is Tom Hanks unhinged?" Until Hanks chooses to clarify and apologize, it is a fair question. Hanson offers a devastating refutation to Hanks, starting with the context of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and ending with the inconvenient fact that the moment Japan stopped fighting, the United States spent a great deal of treasure rebuilding Japan to such an extent that it is now an economic rival and a military ally.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2012)

I don't watch HBO and I have zero interest in True Blood and books/movies of that sort.

However...

I have three young nephews, all of whom have served recently in the US Army (to my disgust, since I'm a Marine).  Joking - I actually respect them for their service to our country.

However, I am reliably informed by them (and I have no reason to doubt them), that the US Army of today is basically a pill-factory.  Pills for mood swings, ADD, and this that and the other, which I'm not going to get into.  Suffice to say that it's rare to find a soldier who doesn't rattle when he walks because of the prescription pills in his pockets.  And yeah, there's a lot of trading with friends and hooking up buddies.

http://www.army.mil/article/74584/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/07/nation/la-na-army-medication-20120408



> A fog of drugs and war
> ...
> More than 110,000 active-duty Army troops last year took antidepressants, sedatives and other prescription medications. Some see a link to aberrant behavior.
> April 07, 2012|By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times
> ...



This is not the military I served in back in the 1970s and 1980s.  Things have changed.

I'm sorry to have to say it.  You know I love and respect the US military and have the utmost respect for all veterans.

But something bad is happening.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 11, 2012)

A few years back we had an American fighter across to fight on one of shows, a brilliant man called Skip Hall. I'd love to petition your president to get him sent here as Ambassador to the Court of St James as he's such a good representive for Americans however he's also a Vietnam vet who told us of the drugs they were given by the doctors, 'upper's and 'downers', he said most soldiers were addicted to something when they left. No one questioned anything as it was officially sanctioned.

Our soldier are compulsory drugs tested regularly and aren't actually given much by the docs, not even when they need it unfortunately however what is worrying is the vast amount of innoculations and different drugs such as the anti malaria ones they are given, some blame these for Gulf War Syndrome.

We have had some who are addicted to pain killers after serious injuries with them having to go into rehab and it was very common some years ago to have soldier's wives addicted to the old style tranquillisers handed out by army doctors basically to keep them 'happy'!


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, World War 2 the European theater is the only war that seems okay with hollywood. However, World War 2 the pacific theater gets trashed...by the same guy who made the show about the European theater...
> 
> Here is his tribute to the brave men who fought island to island against the Japanese Empire...
> l



First off, war makes men go against something very basic for most of them-an aversion to taking human life. One of the best ways to get them to do this is to dehumanize the enemy-consequently, we have "Charlie Gook," of the Vietnam and Korean wars, "Filthy Japs," and "Rotten Jerries" of WWII, more "Rotten Jerries," in WWI, all the way back to "Johnny Reb" in our Civil War.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have "Hajis,"  and "Camel jockeys." It's just the way it is.

In WWII, though, we had the distinct pleasure of an enemy that _was_ markedly different from most soldiers in a very physical and cultural way. And, of course, we were a more racist society, with racism being acceptable and expected at various levels of society, with  segregation of all aspects of American life, but especially in the armed services-where accepted "race science" still said that the black man was to unintelligent and cowardly to be an effective soldier. We made AMericans of Japanese descent prisoners in their own country, but didn't do the same to Americans of German descent. We made Japanese-Americans serve in the E.T.O. exclusively, but permitted German-Americans to serve in both Asia and Europe-though this might have been justified as a safety matter for Japanese-American soldiers. 

And we had lovely little racist bits like these:


View attachment $thumbnailCAX2ZQBR.jpgView attachment $Anti_Japanese_Propaganda1-ww2shots.jpg

So, again, I have to ask, in what way was Tom Hanks wrong?


----------



## granfire (Jul 11, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't watch HBO and I have zero interest in True Blood and books/movies of that sort.
> 
> However...
> 
> ...



So they do it like the civilian doctors....
It's been in the making for a long tie and you may thank DC and the pharma lobbyists for that one....I mean, why on earth is it even legal to advertise prescription drugs in Readers Digest?! To people who can't tell the difference between a sniffle and the flu. Who have no basic understanding of medications. 

Take a pill, makes you feel better.

But that is a matter for another thread. (gotta go find some pain killers that will touch my back ache...) </sarcasm>


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2012)

granfire said:


> Take a pill, makes you feel better.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 11, 2012)

granfire said:


> Take a pill, makes you feel better.



I quite understand.  I take metformin for my diabetes.  I have recently been taking vitamin D because my doctor asked me to, since my blood tests recently showed a very low level of it (it has risen to 'normal' level since I started taking it).  Other than that, nothing.

And that gets some interesting reactions when I go to the doctor's office.

"What high blood pressure medication do you take?"
"None."
"None?" *look of incredulity*
"None."
"Ah.....OK.  What cholesterol-lowering medication do you take?"
"None."
"None?  Are you sure?"
"Yeah, I'm sure."
"Did the doctor prescribe it and you're just not taking it?"
"No, I don't need it and I wasn't prescribed it."
"Hmmm."

So apparently, everyone my age and/or weight takes blood pressure medication and cholesterol medication.  Nation of bloody pill-poppers, we are.

And this gem...

"Do you snore?"
"No, but I used to."
"How do you know?"
"My wife tells me."
"OK, I'm going to schedule your for a sleep study.  Don't worry, your insurance will cover the cost."
"No, thank you."
"What?  Don't you understand that sleep apnea kills?"
"Yes.  I don't have it."
"Well, we'll have to schedule a sleep study to know that."
"I'm not going to take a sleep study."
"Why not?"
"Because supposing you find that I have sleep apnea (which I suspect is the universal answer to everyone who takes it), you'll prescribe a CPAP machine for me.  Which costs hundreds of dollars, and I won't wear it anyway.  So there's no point in this exercise."
"But sleep apnea kills!"
"Thank you for your time, doctor.  Goodbye."


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> A few years back we had an American fighter across to fight on one of shows, a brilliant man called Skip Hall. I'd love to petition your president to get him sent here as Ambassador to the Court of St James as he's such a good representive for Americans however he's also a Vietnam vet who told us of the drugs they were given by the doctors, 'upper's and 'downers', he said most soldiers were addicted to something when they left. No one questioned anything as it was officially sanctioned.
> 
> Our soldier are compulsory drugs tested regularly and aren't actually given much by the docs, not even when they need it unfortunately however what is worrying is the vast amount of innoculations and different drugs such as the anti malaria ones they are given, some blame these for Gulf War Syndrome.
> 
> We have had some who are addicted to pain killers after serious injuries with them having to go into rehab and it was very common some years ago to have soldier's wives addicted to the old style tranquillisers handed out by army doctors basically to keep them 'happy'!



How one describes Vietnam is very much when, who, and where.  A mechanic at a division base camp in the delta in 1967, generally had very different experiences than an infantryman in the jungles of the Highlands at the same time.  A soldier in Saigon in 1967 would report different 'facts' about Vietnam than an infantryman supporting pacification at LZ English in 1971.  Drug use increased during the involvement of the US military.  About 1967, there was for the most part, moderate marijuana use anywhere.  Troops on patrols or company logger sites would not likely use marijuana, although they might well have with them.  If they got to FSB security, or forward base camp security, they might take turns at getting high.  There was a distinction between boozers and heads.  They often tolerated each other if each kept within certain limits.  However, as time went by, the gulf between them became more pronounced and less tolerated, especially as narcotics became a favored drug.

The use of marijuana was sometimes augmented by barbiturate use from the local drug stores.  Then opium gained some favor, as the tincture used could be stored in whiskey bottles and disguised as booze.  About the spring of 1970, heroin began to be sold and used.  It was pure heroin.  The usual progression was to smoke it, then snort it, and finally to inject it.  It seemed to explode in use, moving from the first vial sightings in Saigon in Spring of 1970, to moderate use along the DMZ by August of that same year.  Then it got worse.  The military's reaction to bad press over drug use was to require anyone found in possession, to be sent to an in-country detox facility.  If you used drugs and managed to avoid getting caught, before you could leave country, you had to submit to a drug test and would still be caught.

I would think Iraq and Afganistan would have similar tales and progressions, within the fact that we are into a much more tolerant civilian drug society (that's where the military comes from; the civilian populace), a volunteer military, and a greater recognition of PTSD.  *I can remember in the 50s and 60s, sometimes seeing TV shows which portrayed "bad" vets, who committed crimes after the WWII or Korea.  (Take note of that billcihak, its not new, whether portrayed to show a poor vet or all military as deficient)  *If we acknowledged their plight at all, it was that they were "shell shocked."  Of coures there was some small number who were bad people before they joined, and they didn't get any better, and maybe worse.

But again, think of the Vietnam vets who came home and were 'different' but we really didn't want to talk about it much.  Many Vietnam vets were double traumatized, first by war experiences, then by becoming lumped into some big mystical group of baby killers, and weak minded misfits.  Now we have a medical condition called PTSD.  What do we do about it?

If we ignore them we are failing our responsibility.  If we treat them, however ineffectively, we are making them drug addicts.  Of course some of you probably think much of the military already is.  I don't think so.  But what do we do as a nation?  What does the military do?  Do we kick them out of the military?  Do we pay them disability for life?  If we keep them in the military, are those that don't exhibit or claim PTSD the only ones who have to go back to a combat zone.

One further comment.  War crimes.  They are indeed committed.  By both sides.  I think the US and most western countries are more likely to investigate any allegations of war crimes that get reported.  But remember, combat is a rather unnatural circumstance to find oneself in.  There are times of great boredom and often with no warning, times of absolute horrible panic.  Some people handle that less well than others.  They may in fact react by doing things they wouldn't have ever thought themselves capable of.  I don't excuse crimes however.  If we do something wrong, we must be ready to be held accountable.  Just something for people to think about.

So if any of you have a good solution, please, let's hear it.  But don't be too quick to put down all service people, nor hold all of them up as perfect either.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 11, 2012)

When Skip was telling us about the drugs it wasn't marijuana or any drug which is called 'recreational' now it was drugs given to them by the military doctors as a matter of operational 'necessity', to keep them awake and then help them sleep. It was policy for the doctors to precribe soldiers this drugs and it was these drugs that soldiers became addicted to. Marijuana wasn't mentioned nor any other drug.

At the risk of annoying Steve yet again by mentioning the UK 'experience' our soldiers if found using drugs are usually discharged if found out on a drugs test, if they go to the medics before that though and say they need help getting off they will be helped.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> When Skip was telling us about the drugs it wasn't marijuana or any drug which is called 'recreational' now it was drugs given to them by the military doctors as a matter of operational 'necessity', to keep them awake and then help them sleep. It was policy for the doctors to precribe soldiers this drugs and it was these drugs that soldiers became addicted to. Marijuana wasn't mentioned nor any other drug.
> 
> At the risk of annoying Steve yet again by mentioning the UK 'experience' our soldiers if found using drugs are usually discharged if found out on a drugs test, if they go to the medics before that though and say they need help getting off they will be helped.



Not knowing when and where he was, it is hard to comment. I don't think that was the norm, but may have been for when and where he was. Granted, the medics had some leeway in what they carried and prescribed. For instance, they had morphine and darvon when in the field. Probably other things as well.

EDIT: I think our military is the same way as far as going to medical personnel and asking for help with a drug problem. It would then be considered a medical problem. If they are independently caught, they are probably going to be prosecuted. Some of our members now in the military would know about that.

Some police departments and government agencies operate that way as well. They will be given treatment/counseling and a last best chance.

I think the military is also randomly tested fairly often.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Not knowing when and where he was, it is hard to comment. I don't think that was the norm, but may have been for when and where he was. Granted, the medics had some leeway in what they carried and prescribed. For instance, they had morphine and darvon when in the field. Probably other things as well.
> 
> EDIT: I think our military is the same way as far as going to medical personnel and asking for help with a drug problem. It would then be considered a medical problem. If they are independently caught, they are probably going to be prosecuted. Some of our members now in the military would know about that.
> 
> ...



Our military has a long history of dispensing drugs to soldiers in the field-it's rumored that Elvis's drug use began in the military, with uppers to keep him up, and downers to go to sleep, but, as recently as 2002, U.S. pilots blamed a friendly-fire incident where four Canadian soldiers were killed, on  amphetamines, dispensed by the military to keep them awake.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 11, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Our military has a long history of dispensing drugs to soldiers in the field-it's rumored that Elvis's drug use began in the military, with uppers to keep him up, and downers to go to sleep, but, as recently as 2002, U.S. pilots blamed a friendly-fire incident where four Canadian soldiers were killed, on amphetamines, dispensed by the military to keep them awake.



That may be. I don't know. I was never in the Air Force. I can tell you about the US Army when I served in it. Bill can comment on the Marines. Do we have anyone on the forums from the Air Force?  Technically, you are mixing apples and oranges.  Soldiers are not airmen.

As to Elvis and use of drugs, as a celebrity he may have gotten some special treatment under the table.  I don't know.  He was before my time.  I can assure you it was not US Army policy anywhere I was.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> That may be. I don't know. I was never in the Air Force. I can tell you about the US Army when I served in it.. I can assure you it was not US Army policy anywhere I was.





> During the Vietnam War, Special Units of the US Military, such as MACV-SOG, were issued dextroamphetamine tablets. Due to the threat of misuse, these tablets were given to the Commanding Officer of the unit, and given out when needed




And, from this article:



> All three US military services currently approve dextroamphetamine for the sustainment of combat-pilot performance under particularly fatiguing circumstances.


----------



## billc (Jul 11, 2012)

First, 



> We made AMericans of Japanese descent prisoners in their own country, but didn't do the same to Americans of German descent.



From wikipedia...



> At the start of World War II, under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the United States government detained and interned over 11,000 German enemy aliens, as well as a small number of German-American citizens, either naturalized or native-born. Their ranks included immigrants to the U.S. as well as visitors stranded in the U.S. by hostilities. In many cases, the families of the internees were allowed to remain together at internment camps in the U.S. In other cases, families were separated. Limited due process was allowed for those arrested and detained.
> The population of German citizens in the United States &#8211; not to mention American citizens of German birth &#8211; was far too large for a general policy of internment comparable to that used in the case of the Japanese in America.[SUP][24][/SUP] Instead, German citizens were detained and evicted from coastal areas on an individual basis. The War Department considered mass expulsions from coastal areas for reasons of military security, but never executed such plans.[SUP][25][/SUP]
> A total of 11,507 Germans and German-Americans were interned during the war, accounting for 36% of the total internments under the Justice Department's Enemy Alien Control Program, but far less than the 110,000 Japanese-Americans interned.[SUP][26][/SUP] Such internments began with the detention of 1,260 Germans shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor.[SUP][27][/SUP] Of the 254 persons evicted from coastal areas, the majority were German.[SUP][28][/SUP]
> In addition, over 4,500 ethnic Germans were brought to the U.S. from Latin America and similarly detained.



Italians were also interned in camps as well.  As to what Hanks said about the war...

The offensive part is mostly this...



> "They were out to kill us because our way of living was different.
> "We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different.
> "Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"



We didn't want to annihilate them because the were different, and that doesn't portray the pacific theater accurately.

As Victor Davis Hanson says in addressing Tom Hanks' statements...

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031310.html

Hanks thinks he is trying to explain the multifaceted Pacific theater in terms of a war brought on by and fought through racial animosity. That is ludicrous. Consider the following.



> We should also point out that for many Americans, initially in 1941-2, the real war was with the Japanese, not the Germans (despite an official policy of privileging the European theater in terms of supply and manpower), but not because of race hatred, but due to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.







> *Asian Relations*





> In earlier times, we had good relations with Japan (an ally during World War I, that played an important naval role in defeating imperial Germany at sea) and had stayed neutral in its disputes with Russia (Teddy Roosevelt won a 1906 Nobel Peace Prize for his intermediary role). The crisis that led to Pearl Harbor was not innately with the Japanese people per se (tens of thousands of whom had emigrated to the United States on word of mouth reports of opportunity for Japanese immigrants), but with Japanese militarism and its creed of Bushido that had hijacked, violently so in many cases, the government and put an entire society on a fascistic footing. We no more wished to annihilate Japanese because of racial hatred than we wished to ally with their Chinese enemies because of racial affinity. In terms of geo-strategy, race was not the real catalyst for war other than its role among Japanese militarists in energizing expansive Japanese militarism.





> *War in the Pacific*
> How would Hanks explain the brutal Pacific wars between Japanese and Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, Japanese and Filipinos, and Japanese and Pacific Islanders, in which not hundreds of thousands perished, but many millions? In each of these theaters, the United States was allied with Asians against an Asian Japan, whose racially-hyped &#8220;Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,&#8221; aimed at freeing supposedly kindred Asians from European and white imperialism, flopped at its inauguration (primarily because of high-handed Japanese feelings of superiority and entitlement, which, in their emphasis on racial purity, were antithetical to the allied democracies, but quite in tune with kindred Axis power, Nazi Germany.)





> *Weapons*
> Much of the devastating weaponry used on the Japanese (e.g., the B-29 fire raids, or the two nuclear bombs) were envisioned and designed to be used against Germany (cf. the 1941 worry over German nuclear physics) or were refined first in the European theater (cf. the allied fire raids on Hamburg and Dresden). Much of the worst savagery of the war came in 1945 when an increasingly mobilized and ever more powerful United States steadily turned its attention on Japan as the European theater waned and then ended four months before victory in the Pacific theater. Had we needed by 1945 to use atomic bombs, or massive formations of B-29s when they came on line, against Hitler, we most certainly would have.


----------



## billc (Jul 11, 2012)

With a show like True Blood, with each episode only an hour long,  there are three basic ways to depict American Soldiers fighting against men who murder innocent people as policy.  You can show them as all good, all bad or in a more nuanced way depicting the stress of men in war and the effects it has on them.  HBO chose to depict them in the worst way possible.  Had this been one show, in an assortment of depictions coming from hollywood, then no big deal.  The vast majority of movies and television shows depicting the fight against islamic radical terrorists have shown American soldiers, and marines in the worst way possible, as drug addicts, nut jobs, crazed killers or complete victims.  This show is no different than the other depictions out there.  

It is not American training doctrine to kill innocent civilians.  Atrocities happen, as has been pointed out, due to putting normal people in war situations, but American training and policy does not include targeting innocent civilians.  This is however, the policy of the actual people we are fighting.  The lopsided view of who does what to who starts to permeate the culture, much like the previous examples of the "crazed" vietnam vet, which was a false depiction of the actual vets. 

Since this is a show about vampires and werewolves, there was no expectation to go into a nuanced portrayal of war and its horrors, so they chose to show the worst qualities of our soldiers.

And to how the Japanese portrayed us...

http://www.psywarrior.com/JapanPSYOPWW2.html

*





Churchill and Roosevelt feast on bones​
The beheading of prisoners was a common practice with the Japanese army, not something brought on by the stress of combat, but an actual approved practice.  I read a story told by a Japanese officer in China where as a bonding and training excercise, each officer in the unit had to behead chinese prisoners.  He remembered one officer who missed the cut, cutting the prisoner across the shoulder blade, and they had to chase the prisoner around as he ran about the compound, slashing at him to kill him.  The Japanese also told the civilian population that the G.I.'s were cannibals and would eat anyone they captured.*


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> With a show like True Blood, with each episode only an hour long, there are three basic ways to depict American Soldiers fighting against men who murder innocent people as policy. You can show them as all good, all bad or in a more nuanced way depicting the stress of men in war and the effects it has on them. HBO chose to depict them in the worst way possible. Had this been one show, in an assortment of depictions coming from hollywood, then no big deal. The vast majority of movies and television shows depicting the fight against islamic radical terrorists have shown American soldiers, and marines in the worst way possible, as drug addicts, nut jobs, crazed killers or complete victims. This show is no different than the other depictions out there.
> 
> It is not American training doctrine to kill innocent civilians. Atrocities happen, as has been pointed out, due to putting normal people in war situations, but American training and policy does not include targeting innocent civilians. This is however, the policy of the actual people we are fighting. The lopsided view of who does what to who starts to permeate the culture, much like the previous examples of the "crazed" vietnam vet, which was a false depiction of the actual vets.
> 
> Since this is a show about vampires and werewolves, there was no expectation to go into a nuanced portrayal of war and its horrors, so they chose to show the worst qualities of our soldiers.



Yes, these things happen-the "worst qualities of our soldiers," though? I'm not so sure. After all, I think the character who was present for those events is a sympathetic one, if not one of the main characters, and at least appears to be conflicted if not remorseful about it. 

Frankly, I find your analyses of these and other forms of literature and entertainment to be extremely myopic and one-sided, unnuanced and unintelligent: this is an event that is probably used by the writer to introduce nuance and depth-the "backstory," if you will-to one of the supporting characters, as well as give them their own story line for the season. *That is all.* It's not about "the military." It's not about "the war in Iraq." It's not about "the U.S.A." It's about one character in a fictional account in a completely fabricated universe that is only related to ours in the most marginal of ways: the person whose head almost completely contains lives in ours with us, most of the time. Parts of the rest of the time, he lives in the universe of _True Blood,_ where the advent of synthetic blood has made vampires come out of the darkness after millenia in hiding, where werewolves walk, a waitress can read minds, voodoo works, and, yes, there is a "war on terror." 

I mean, honestly-if atrocities *do* occur,and  troops *do* take drugs and drink, they are going to be written about, one way or another. 

Quite honestly, this one note criticism of yours has grown quite tiresome, and now, with this _True Blood_ thing, you've demonstrated amply just how ridiculous it is. :lfao:



billcihak said:


> And to how the Japanese portrayed us...



All of which does nothing to negate anything I said about the inherent racism of  American society at the time, and our clearly racist attitudes towards the Japanese. 



billcihak said:


> *The beheading of prisoners was a common practice with the Japanese army, not something brought on by the stress of combat, but an actual approved practice. I read a story told by a Japanese officer in China where as a bonding and training excercise, each officer in the unit had to behead chinese prisoners. He remembered one officer who missed the cut, cutting the prisoner across the shoulder blade, and they had to chase the prisoner around as he ran about the compound, slashing at him to kill him. The Japanese also told the civilian population that the G.I.'s were cannibals and would eat anyone they captured.*



Yes, and my ancestors beat people to death, set them on fire, and buried them up to the chin at shore below the tide line, and waited for the tide to come in for entertainment-actually, if the story is to be believed, my great-great-grandfather did that to a man when he got home from a long sea voyage. :lfao:


----------



## billc (Jul 11, 2012)

I think it is rather odd, Tom Hanks was in a movie about World War 2.  Amazingly, his character didn't drink, murder, rape, anyone.  In fact, his character heroically stopped his men from killing an unarmed german prisoner.  Hmmm...why didn't Tom Hanks appear in a movie where, as an American soldier, he was involved in murder, rape or torture of innocent men, women and children.  He chose one of the very few movies where our guys didn't do that stuff. Hmmm...

Imagine the scene in the French town where Tom Hanks and his squad encounter the French Family.  Instead of lifting them out of their rubbalized house, they rape the mother and daughter( I think it was a daughter) kill all of them and then drink all their french wine, the whole time laughing and joking...and then they save private ryan.  It would be quite a different movie.

Here is a question.  Given the above discussion about how men behave in war, and it's depiction in movies, why is the European Theater of World War 2 one of the only wars that doesn't routinely show the American soldier as drunks (world war 2 after all), murderers, rapists and psychos?  Look at World War 2.  We were never attacked by Germany/iraq, and when we attacked them we didn't attack Germany (at first)/Afganistan, but we attacked Africa.  This is after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

Another thought.  How long would the Greatest Generation be the Greatest Generation, if every movie and television show that showed the European theater of world war 2 only depicted American, British and other Allied forces as murderers of innocent civilians and rapists, as well as drunks and nuts?  Not every other film, but virtually every movie or television show.  The show Combat, with Vic Morrow, would show the heroes gleefully killing innocent men and women, drinking while they were doing it, and then covering it up.  John Wayne would lead his men, not against the Japanese, but peaceful Okinawans, Phillipinos and other gentle indigenous people, happily murdering them.  How long would the Greatest Generation be called that?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I think it is rather odd, Tom Hanks was in a movie about World War 2.  Amazingly, his character didn't drink, murder, rape, anyone.  In fact, his character heroically stopped his men from killing an unarmed german prisoner.  Hmmm...why didn't Tom Hanks appear in a movie where, as an American soldier, he was involved in murder, rape or torture of innocent men, women and children.  He chose one of the very few movies where our guys didn't do that stuff. Hmmm...
> 
> Imagine the scene in the French town where Tom Hanks and his squad encounter the French Family.  Instead of
> 
> ...




Amazing. Four whole paragraphs without a link  or copy 'n paste! All original thought.My,, my.


Boring and predictable, not to mention banal, but genuine.

Completely irrelevant, as far as vampires, Iraq, and HBO go, but still.........


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 12, 2012)

elder999 said:


> During the Vietnam War, Special Units of the US Military, such as MACV-SOG, were issued dextroamphetamine tablets. Due to the threat of misuse, these tablets were given to the Commanding Officer of the unit, and given out when needed
> 
> *MACV-SOG was a very specialized unit, not operating under normal military rules.  Much of what they did remains, as far as I know, classified to this day.  I was not in MACV-SOG.  So I can't say if dextroamphetamine use was common, heavily controlled, or rampant.*
> 
> ...



Just a couple of thoughts.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 12, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Just a couple of thoughts.


[h=1]U.S. military: Heavily armed and medicated 

U.S. military&#8217;s war with drugs: Drugs issued by military led to assaults, murders, doctors say
Prescription & OTC Drug Abuse in the Military

*
Just a couple of articles....




*



[/h]*




*


----------



## billc (Jul 12, 2012)

And another little bit about Tom Hanks ...



> Hanks on the Recent War
> Hanks quips, &#8220;Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what&#8217;s going on
> today?&#8221; That is another unnecessary if asinine statement &#8212; if it refers to our
> struggle against radical Islam in the post 9/11 world. The U.S. has risked much
> ...





> Unhinged
> In short Hanks&#8217;s comments are as ahistorical as they are unhinged. One
> wonders &#8212; were they supposed to entice us into watching the upcoming HBO series
> on the Pacific theater? But if anyone is interested in the role of race on the
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> And another little bit about Tom Hanks ...




Who produced a show that appeared on HBO-relevance?

I mean-he's *not* HBO-just some guy who works with them........

HBO is a Time/Warner company-last I looked, most of Time/Warner's board of directors were pretty solidly in the _rah, rah, rah, USA!USA!USA! Republican_ camp.....:



> Board of directors As of June 24, 2010:Jeffrey L. Bewkes: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner Inc.
> James Barksdale: Chairman and President, Barksdale Management Corporation
> William P. Barr: Former Attorney General of the United States
> Stephen F. Bollenbach: Former Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hilton Hotels Corporation
> ...



Except, of course, for that Robert Clark fella-he's a Harvard law professor, so he's an Obamafriend, so he *must* "hate the military, guns ,apple pie and America." :lfao:


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 12, 2012)

Oh come on Elder, you know Tom Hanks is the liberal mastermind behind every bit of anti-military propaganda in the world!  How dare you you contradict that by...well facts?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 12, 2012)

elder999 said:


> *U.S. military: Heavily armed and medicated
> 
> U.S. military&#8217;s war with drugs: Drugs issued by military led to assaults, murders, doctors say
> Prescription & OTC Drug Abuse in the Military
> ...


----------



## JWLuiza (Jul 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I quite understand.  I take metformin for my diabetes.  I have recently been taking vitamin D because my doctor asked me to, since my blood tests recently showed a very low level of it (it has risen to 'normal' level since I started taking it).  Other than that, nothing.
> 
> And that gets some interesting reactions when I go to the doctor's office.
> 
> ...


Well if you have high blood pressure that's the conversation you and I would have. If your numbers are fine I'd leave it alone.



> So apparently, everyone my age and/or weight takes blood pressure medication and cholesterol medication.  Nation of bloody pill-poppers, we are.


Yeah, because we're a bunch of fatties. Managing blood pressure is a life saving medication. Statins dont' have evidence for primary prevention but are shown to be effective for post-MI patients. You haven't had an MI and have high lipids then you should exercise consistently and think about your diet.



> And this gem...
> 
> "Do you snore?"
> "No, but I used to."
> ...



As doctors our goal is not to put everyone on medications. Our goal is to maintain health. We don't get comission off the CPAP but we can prevent pulmonary hypertension.  If your wife is a heavy sleeper and you have some diastolic dysfunction, then you might make a case for a sleep study or you ha previous findings on a study. Are you having daytime sleepiness, etc.

I don't get the hate on doctors. I know this is out of scope for the discussion but I'm not spending 8 productive years on education to treat people to rack up a bill.


----------



## billc (Jul 12, 2012)

Tom Hanks was a producer on the HBO pacific theater mini series...



> A *film producer* oversees and delivers a film project to the film studio or other financing entity, while preserving the integrity, voice and vision of the film. They will also often take on some financial risk by using their own money, especially during the pre-production period, before a film is fully financed. Many film producers also have competency in other fields (directors, screenwriters, actors) but that is not always the case.
> The producer is often actively involved throughout all major phases of the filmmaking process, from inception and development to completion and delivery of a film project.[SUP][1][/SUP] However, an idea or concept for a film can originate with any individual, including a screenwriter, a director or a producer.




Master mind for all movies and television that depict veterans in a bad way, no, but for this show, he had a pretty big part in it...[h=2][edit][/h]


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 13, 2012)

JWLuiza said:


> Well if you have high blood pressure that's the conversation you and I would have. If your numbers are fine I'd leave it alone.
> 
> 
> Yeah, because we're a bunch of fatties. Managing blood pressure is a life saving medication. Statins dont' have evidence for primary prevention but are shown to be effective for post-MI patients. You haven't had an MI and have high lipids then you should exercise consistently and think about your diet.
> ...



I don't think it is hate of doctors, at least for the most part.  We probably prefer to self diagnose.  After all, we know more about our bodies than anyone else.  Right?  ;-)

If you were to ask me, I would say the biggest problem I see with doctors is bedside manner.  Many don't have the ability to communicate well.  Sometimes that may be the the short amount of time HMOs give them, or maybe their sense of shortening time to serve more patients.  But those who have it, tend to stand out in my experience.

But I salute doctors.  I don't think most people understand the vast amount of information we require doctors to have on instant recall when they graduate medical school and their internship.  And it keeps on coming because medical research doesn't stand still.  They not only have to keep up to be good doctors in their own mind, but for fear of law suits.

And I can't speak for Bill Mattocks, but I don't think he meant it so much as a put down for doctors, as just happiness at his own health, and putting that out with some humor.  As a doctor, that humor might be less enjoyable of course.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 13, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Tom Hanks was a producer on the HBO pacific theater mini series...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So he paid to make a miniseries on the Pacific theater.......

And HBO showed it........

To a pretty good critical reception........

And it portrayed Marines in a positive light.........


And it was based on the factual accounts of several Marines with the First Marine Division in the Pacific, _With the Old Breed,_ and _China Marine_, by Eugene Sledge, _Helmet for my Pillow,_ by Robert Leicke, and _Red Blood, Black Sand_, by Chuck Tatum.

In fact, SLedge and Leicke were two of the main characters....

And Tom Hanks had something to say about it, and you and your "conservative blogmeisters" didn't like what he had to say, _but he's *not* HBO_, he's just a guy who _sold a show to HBO._


Honestly, this constant refusal to admit that one's opinion has some flaws in it, or that the basis of that opinion is in error, and to continue butress up a minority opinion with quibbling facts and lunatic fringe blog copypastas is quite irritating, and banal-not to mention somewhat delusional, monomaniacal and self-serving-not to mention completely iignoring anything that _anyone_ has to say in rebuttal or counterpoint.

I mean, really: "_discussion_ forum" much? :lol:

(Oh, btw, I'm also pretty sure Tom Hanks had _nothing_ to do with _True Blood_, which is a pretty stupid show-made from even stupider books, I'd imagine: I mean, I can't even think of what kind of emotionally stunted dweeb would actually read that crap?-next we'll be getting critiques of _Twilight_, I suppose, or some other adolescent girl fodder._Southern Gothic redneck vampire romance_? I don't think so-I prefer my fiction to have a set of testicles to go with all that blood....:lfao: )


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 13, 2012)

I was just going to say that I thought The Pacific was a pretty darned good series - it showed that good men in bad circumstances can do terrible things.


----------

