TexasTiger 12,949 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce - up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 31/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...eratesupsharply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce - up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 31/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...eratesupsharply 163106[/snapback] I'll save them the carpel tunnel syndrome and take one for the team...This is just typical bias from the America-hating "media." Not only does "the media" hate America and "our" military, "they" hate marriage, too. Unless it's between two dogs, then, you'd better not say anything or the ACLU will be all over it. In the unlikely event that it's true and it's on Fox, these women were probably French. Demoncrats, too. Ditto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce - up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 31/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...eratesupsharply 163106[/snapback] I'll save them the carpel tunnel syndrome and take one for the team...This is just typical bias from the America-hating "media." Not only does "the media" hate America and "our" military, "they" hate marriage, too. Unless it's between two dogs, then, you'd better not say anything or the ACLU will be all over it. In the unlikely event that it's true and it's on Fox, these women were probably French. Demoncrats, too. Ditto! 163109[/snapback] Boy, you didn't leave 'em much, did you? ...cept that it's Clinton's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,426 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce - up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 31/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...eratesupsharply 163106[/snapback] That is just plain sad. Like anyone in the military wants to be deployed overseas for a long time or has anything to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce - up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 31/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...eratesupsharply 163106[/snapback] I'll save them the carpel tunnel syndrome and take one for the team...This is just typical bias from the America-hating "media." Not only does "the media" hate America and "our" military, "they" hate marriage, too. Unless it's between two dogs, then, you'd better not say anything or the ACLU will be all over it. In the unlikely event that it's true and it's on Fox, these women were probably French. Demoncrats, too. Ditto! 163109[/snapback] You know, even as a person that doesn't get involved in these political/religious/name-calling threads very often, I felt compelled to reply to this one. Before I begin, let me just say that I consider myself a Republican, as my views line up more with their party's views than the Dems. But I also consider myself intelligent enough to disagree with them when warranted. The one thing that turns me off to politics is the name calling, muck raking that some (on both sides) on this forum have made an art form. Now, on to the issue at hand: How is this anyone's "fault"? Either side could easy pull up some bs reason why this is due to the shortcomings of the Dems (by promoting the erosion of the country's moral values by pushing gay marriage and thereby discounting the sanctity of marriage) or the Reps (forcing these people to deploy in support of a corrupt war and thereby damaging their marriages.) The truth is that these marriages are the result of human nature and the shortcomings that we all possess as human beings. Some marriages are strong and will survive anything. Others are not and will crumble before the soldier is gone three months. As a brand new lieutenant at Fort Polk, LA, the first problem I had to deal with was one of my soldiers returning from the first Gulf War to a cheating spouse. Theirs was one of the casualties that the two of you so casually dismiss now as more ammunition in your internet fights with the conservatives on the board. The marriage did not survive. I lived it personally and wondered if I could have done more. Besides the factors listed in the article, in my opinion, one of the biggest factors in the divorce rate is the age of soldiers. Enlisted soldiers tend to be between 18-24 years old and newly married when they deploy. Junior officers are between 22-28. This is a recipe for disaster. Their wives end up alone as long and longer than they are together with their husbands during the marriage. This leads to affairs, financial problems, and a whole host of other problems. Did either of you point out in the article where the Army is trying to improve the marriages through weekend retreats, where the soldiers and families are given mechanisms and techniques for dealing with the issues that face the returning service members? No, you choose to point out the worst news of the article and then immediately get into a name calling contest with each other in the absence of a conservative viewpoint, which should have been irrelavent. I am all with Titan's view during his discourse with vatz in the evolution vs. creationism thread yesterday. This should be a forum for discussion and debate, not name calling and sniping. We get enough of that in the national news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 How is this anyone's "fault"? Either side could easy pull up some bs reason why this is due to the shortcomings of the Dems (by promoting the erosion of the country's moral values by pushing gay marriage and thereby discounting the sanctity of marriage) or the Reps (forcing these people to deploy in support of a corrupt war and thereby damaging their marriages.) I don't think anyone had assessed fault up this point. Just a little "tongue-in-cheek" humor in anticipation of how some folks might respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 And I am all for humor, but this kind gets old after a while. I hate the fact that people get pigeonholed by labels like Dem and conservative and such. It only makes the issues seems more and more like they are black and white, when they are not. I appreciate Al's discussion of the Iraq and Afhanistan situiations. His points have made me think more about the situations and how they differ. Also, his views in these issues are well-thought out and not a blind loyalty to some political ideology (sp?). THAT is what the forum should be for, not name calling and placing blame on a group of people for the actions of a few individuals. After all, the only stereotypes that always hold true are those that relate to Bama fans, right? (See, I have a sense of humor.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 And I am all for humor, but this kind gets old after a while. I hate the fact that people get pigeonholed by labels like Dem and conservative and such. It only makes the issues seems more and more like they are black and white, when they are not.I appreciate Al's discussion of the Iraq and Afhanistan situiations. His points have made me think more about the situations and how they differ. Also, his views in these issues are well-thought out and not a blind loyalty to some political ideology (sp?). THAT is what the forum should be for, not name calling and placing blame on a group of people for the actions of a few individuals. After all, the only stereotypes that always hold true are those that relate to Bama fans, right? (See, I have a sense of humor.) 163203[/snapback] Bammer humor is deadly serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce - up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 31/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...eratesupsharply 163106[/snapback] I'll save them the carpel tunnel syndrome and take one for the team...This is just typical bias from the America-hating "media." Not only does "the media" hate America and "our" military, "they" hate marriage, too. Unless it's between two dogs, then, you'd better not say anything or the ACLU will be all over it. In the unlikely event that it's true and it's on Fox, these women were probably French. Demoncrats, too. Ditto! 163109[/snapback] You know, even as a person that doesn't get involved in these political/religious/name-calling threads very often, I felt compelled to reply to this one. Before I begin, let me just say that I consider myself a Republican, as my views line up more with their party's views than the Dems. But I also consider myself intelligent enough to disagree with them when warranted. The one thing that turns me off to politics is the name calling, muck raking that some (on both sides) on this forum have made an art form. Now, on to the issue at hand: How is this anyone's "fault"? Either side could easy pull up some bs reason why this is due to the shortcomings of the Dems (by promoting the erosion of the country's moral values by pushing gay marriage and thereby discounting the sanctity of marriage) or the Reps (forcing these people to deploy in support of a corrupt war and thereby damaging their marriages.) The truth is that these marriages are the result of human nature and the shortcomings that we all possess as human beings. Some marriages are strong and will survive anything. Others are not and will crumble before the soldier is gone three months. As a brand new lieutenant at Fort Polk, LA, the first problem I had to deal with was one of my soldiers returning from the first Gulf War to a cheating spouse. Theirs was one of the casualties that the two of you so casually dismiss now as more ammunition in your internet fights with the conservatives on the board. The marriage did not survive. I lived it personally and wondered if I could have done more. Besides the factors listed in the article, in my opinion, one of the biggest factors in the divorce rate is the age of soldiers. Enlisted soldiers tend to be between 18-24 years old and newly married when they deploy. Junior officers are between 22-28. This is a recipe for disaster. Their wives end up alone as long and longer than they are together with their husbands during the marriage. This leads to affairs, financial problems, and a whole host of other problems. Did either of you point out in the article where the Army is trying to improve the marriages through weekend retreats, where the soldiers and families are given mechanisms and techniques for dealing with the issues that face the returning service members? No, you choose to point out the worst news of the article and then immediately get into a name calling contest with each other in the absence of a conservative viewpoint, which should have been irrelavent. I am all with Titan's view during his discourse with vatz in the evolution vs. creationism thread yesterday. This should be a forum for discussion and debate, not name calling and sniping. We get enough of that in the national news. 163136[/snapback] Sorry, Known, I wasn't trying to offend or make light of the subject of the article, but, instead was making fun of the conservatives here because their usual response to such articles is very predictable. While I don't think TexasTiger's goal in posting this was to point a finger at Bush or the military and say, "See what else you're responsible for," normally that's how many here respond. It has become a conditioned response to discredit the critic before/instead of the criticism. The response is always that the person/"media" outlet/entity is lying solely because of hatred of either republicans at large or Bush in particular. That response is what I was making fun of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 No problem, I got the jist of the post, Al. It didn't offend me, but it was a graphic illustration of the problem that exists on this forum and that is the knee jerk reaction from both sides to immediately start bashing the other side, even in the absence of provocation. Instead of a meaningful discussion, the sniping started immediately and probably stifled a debate on the subject. Now, what do you really think of the subject at hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Just a little "tongue-in-cheek" humor in anticipation of how some folks might respond. Because pointing out the marital troubles of others during war time is hi-larious. You're a regular laugh riot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Seems to me it's getting harder to figure what it means to support the troops. Anyone got any thoughts on how a country or even a community can go about doing right by our military families when this is happening to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Military life is tough, but being the spouse of a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is even tougher. It is often said that being a spouse is the hardest job in the military. It takes a special person to juggle everything when your husband or wife gets deployed, and not everyone is cut out for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,238 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Just a little historical perspective: Link War's toll on marriage: study proves war veterans have higher divorce rate, but Vietnam vets have lower rate than public perception VFW Magazine, March, 2003 by Janie Blankenship Note: Though "combat" is used in the study, it is not clear whether the individual merely served in the war zone. It's no secret that Vietnam veterans are more likely to get divorced than their non-veteran counterparts. And it's also no secret that if you believe this to be true, you've bought into the age-old media bias against Vietnam vets. In fact, a recent study published in. Armed Forces & Society--"Warfare and Welfare: Military Service, Combat and Marital Dissolution"--proves the divorce rate among Vietnam veterans serving during 1968 and later is equal to non-veterans. Furthermore, pre-1968 Vietnam veterans are more likely to have remained married than non-veterans. Conducted by professors William Ruger and Sven Wilson, as well as Navy veteran Shawn Waddoups, this study also found Korean War vets to have the most unstable track record with marriage--twice the dissolution rate of WWII vets. In comparison to non-veterans of their generation, vets of Korea were 26% more likely to get divorced. To gather such information, researchers analyzed data from the National Survey of Families and Household. Researchers attributed this to such factors as a sense of inferiority compared to WWII vets. The homecoming vets of the "forgotten war" received paled in comparison, leaving many feeling isolated. The study found it probable that such "social stresses" could lead to divorce. Of course, these are all just theories. The Real Truth The most telling piece of this study--which surveyed 442 vets of WWII, 217 of Korea and 471 of Vietnam--is its candor in dealing with the truth about Vietnam War vets. "The cultural tale that Vietnam veterans came home a messed-up lot, unable to form successful marriages, simply is not supported by the data," wrote the researchers. One strain of the study does tie all three wars together: a correlation between vets who saw combat and those who did not. Little was revealed to determine why combat is detrimental to marriages. Commonsense, though, shows that dealing with life-threatening situations is tremendously emotionally disturbing. However, researchers agree: "The effect of combat is the nature of military service that matters, not necessarily its length." The bottom line: the marriages of the men studied who actually served in combat were 62% more likely to end in divorce or separation, according to the study. This "combat stress hypothesis" suggests that combat established psychological and emotional problems in some that would increase the risk of divorce. Another reasoning used was the "hasty marriage hypothesis," where a couple would wed due to a draft notice or a call to sign up to go to war. This might have something to do with the increase in divorce among those veterans who were married before entering the service. The divorce rate among Americans jumped from 1.9 per 1,000 in 1939 to 4.6 in 1946. This study, which The Associated Press calls "the largest and most comprehensive of its time," was written to prompt policymakers to cushion a combat veteran's return home. COPYRIGHT 2003 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.