Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Celiac.com Sponsor:


Celiac.com Sponsor:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jnkmnky

Unfit For Military Service....

Recommended Posts

Oops. I guess the military probably has me on two counts then. I get exercise-induced urticaria. I've only recently discovered what that is. Sometimes people who experience that have a risk of anaphylaxis. Once I had an experience I thought may have been heat stroke, but looking back I wonder if it was anaphylaxis. I've been experiencing, also, swelling of the throat in response to gluten/wheat (I'm not sure which - whether it's a wheat allergy or celiac that causes it). I just know that it's been happening after I had gluten (which would set off a wheat allergy too). I guess I better tell my military people. You see, this is all new to me. I've had the urticaria for I don't know how many years. But the throat swelling just started in after I started experiencing the classic celiac symptoms in early January this year.

As far as Entero Labs not being able to diagnose celiac. Really, ... even though gluten sensitivity may not be the same in severity as celiac, a diagnosis of either would require the same diet. And I don't care to get an endoscopy. I don't care to go back on gluten and get sick with the possibility that they grab a part of my small intestine that's not affected or is mildly enough affected it won't show positive. And if I do have to have an endoscopy, if I go to the doctor with a positive test for gluten sensitivity from Entero, there would be a smaller liklihood of being given the runaround with other tests before getting around to the endoscopy.

Thanks for the heads up, though. It's good information regardless. And I guess at some point I'll have to get an endoscopy anyway, regardless of whether I want to. I just really don't want to. Again, thanks for the information. Ugh. Endoscopy. My mom says they cost around $2000. I don't have medical insurance. And since I'm in the Air Guard, which is part time, they don't take care of that type of medical stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that the treatment is the same.

If you have identified gluten as a problem, you don't *need* a biopsy or anything. Esp if you don't have Celiac (which sounds like a possibility based on your seemingly allergic reactions) an endoscopy won't show anything. Or, you could have Celiac and a gluten/wheat allergy...regardless, treatment is the same. Given that you have problems with your throat, it doesn't even sound like going back on gluten is a realistic possibility for you. A doctor may tell you you need an endoscopy, but if you don't want it, you don't have to have it. Unless, you are worried about other things, of course. But having a diagnosis either way doesn't affect the fact that you know that gluten bothers you.

Best of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's possible I have a wheat allergy and celiac. I experienced some of the classic symptoms for only a few weeks before going gluten-free. I had bowel symptoms, severe weakness, and pains in my limbs and joints (which I was told was likely from vitamin deficiency). My mom, who's a nurse, was afraid I might have cancer. A lot of people in my family have conditions connected with celiac - conditions that are often misdiagnosed instead of celiac or occur concurrently with celiac. Lupus, diverticulitis, lactose intolerance, hair loss (in a female), fibromyalgia, thyroid issues, irritable bowel syndrome, hypoglycemia, and more.

But you're right, the other symptoms seem more like allergy - probably wheat allergy, since the throat thing happened after I had wheat. (I had gone gluten-free for a while, then I had a little tiny bit, and the throat thing happened.)

Thanks for the good luck wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd bet that there are numerous people in the U.S. military with celiac disease, whether they (the person, not the military organizations) know it or not.

As a member of the Canadian military, I am appaled at this! There are no limitation to me AT ALL as far as where I can go or what I can do in the Canadian Forces as a person with celiac disease. In fact, there are people deployed around the world with celiac disease. I would have to think with numbers like 1 person in 133 that have celiac disease it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE that there is nobody in US military service with celiac disease!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you knowingly have a disqualifying condition and enlist, you have committed fraud. As to whether anyone would try to prosecute, that is a local commander's decision. If you know you have it, there are documents somewhere.

If you get these or are diagnosed after joining, there is a medical evaluation procedure that could either designate you for restricted duty or recommend you be released from the military. If the latter, you will be evaluated to a level of disability and could be released with a full medical retirement or you could just be released with a severence settlement.

Military doctors are certified by the same medical boards as civilian doctors. (Yes there was an issue with OK issuing a military-only license several years ago but those doctors either got full certifications or were discharged.). Military hospitals go through the same evaluations as civilian hospitals. There are varying levels of quality in both military and civilian doctors.

I served 20 years - most of it in Army medical admin - and was not diagnosed with celiac but was diagnosed by a military doctore as a retiree.

The key thing is that the military has a purpose and it isn't to give everyone who wants in a job. Some medical conditions can be reasonably accomodated and some interfer with the mission. Which things fall into which category changes over time as we learn more and technologies change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a member of the Canadian military, I am appaled at this! There are no limitation to me AT ALL as far as where I can go or what I can do in the Canadian Forces as a person with celiac disease. In fact, there are people deployed around the world with celiac disease. I would have to think with numbers like 1 person in 133 that have celiac disease it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE that there is nobody in US military service with celiac disease!

How do they feed you? When you deploy, do they give you special gluten-free meals?

I'm sure there are plenty of people in the U.S. military who have celiac, since celiac is underdiagnosed. Plus, a lot of people lie about their medical (and other) history to get in. I can't imagine many people lying about celiac, though, because... how can you hide it? You'd have to buy your own food, or suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if you weren't glutened, I think we celiacs as a whole go to the potty more than ANYBODY :lol:

Not the portion of celiacs that have C rather than D. We go to the bathroom LESS often than everyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not the portion of celiacs that have C rather than D. We go to the bathroom LESS often than everyone!

Not really an issue when they can order you to take any drug they say anyway.... there are far more potent drugs than immodium and since your purpose in the field is kill and be killed when told to do so hardly an issue.

As someone posted pages ago, the military isn't a civilian job... you sign they own.

The key thing is that the military has a purpose and it isn't to give everyone who wants in a job.

Much as quite a few people might disagree (those from places where the military is really the only way out) so long as you have bodies available that don't need special needs why should tax payers pay for those special needs?

If it ever gets to a point (and I can't see how this might happen) that you actually need to start taking people with special needs then you have already lost well over 25% of your population, something that hasn't hapened since the civil war...

By this point getting gluten-free rations isn't really an issue since your job is to go out and take a bullet anyway.

If you don't like it don't sign.... (with apologies to anyone who through circumstance signed up for an education or the chance to get out of a dead end town)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm, can you imagine what would happen if the military person gets glutened and has brain fog? - that would affect a mission.

Many jobs have strict medical qualifications - you can be a pilot with celiac but your vision better be 20/20. My dad was involved with Transport Canada until he retired...he could hold a restricted private license but had to have his glasses secured to his head (with headband) and a spare pair in the cockpit. He could not fly a passenger plane (commercial pilot license).

Any history of neurological issues, would prevent acceptance as a pilot (be it seizures, neuropathy or brain fog).

Same wth police officers - they evaluate the medical condition and if it will interfere with duty, then you will not be a candidate for that job.

Diabetics (Type 1) cannot hold a pilot's license, they can fly with another licensed pilot in the cockpit but may not carry passengers.

History of epilepsy (even controlled and seizure free) - cant' drive a school bus, ambulance, be a police officer....

Medical conditions can restrict career choices - so we have to examine all the career choices out there that aren't llimited by a medical condition. I teach my kids that instead of feeling upset about what they can't do - find out what they can do and rejoice in that.

With the blood issue - my understanding is that anyone with a medical condition would be screened - I can give blood if I am hypothyroid but not if diabetic. It is not because they feel these diseases would be "passed on".......... the explanation given to me is that - they feel a person with conditions(like diabetes, celiac etc) may be harmed by giving the blood. In other words, the concern is for the donor - they dont want to aggravate a condition or weaken that person's physical state.

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really an issue when they can order you to take any drug they say anyway.... there are far more potent drugs than immodium and since your purpose in the field is kill and be killed when told to do so hardly an issue.

As someone posted pages ago, the military isn't a civilian job... you sign they own.

This is an extremely important point. As someone who had an undiagnosed son in the Army I am only too aware the hell a celiac, diagnosed or undiagnosed would go through. And the issue of the drugs that you are ordered to take is a very serious one. Some of the psychotropic drugs that they prescribe can for celiacs have disastorous mental side effects. My DS was not diagnosed till he had been discharged for over a year. The physical and mental pain he went through was extreme. The services need to screen everyone for celiac before they enter the service. It is only because of a cell phone and an extremely sick, homebound as yet undiagnosed mother that my son, and possibly others around him, survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do they feed you? When you deploy, do they give you special gluten-free meals?

I'm sure there are plenty of people in the U.S. military who have celiac, since celiac is underdiagnosed. Plus, a lot of people lie about their medical (and other) history to get in. I can't imagine many people lying about celiac, though, because... how can you hide it? You'd have to buy your own food, or suffer.

There are members I am aware of in all elements of the CF that are deployed. WHen I go away, I inform the mess managers and they make an effort to let all the cooks know about my condidtion and diest (as they would for any food allergy). They also expect me to be smart enough to avoid foods I can not have. As for deploying to the field, there are people who eat out of field kitchens etc, and they are just careful about the foods they eat. They expect everyone from privats to general officers to know what upsets our tummies and control it accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EnteroLab seems to believe they can diagnose celiac disease. I think I believe them. I got this off their website:

This test has shown to be 100% sensitive for picking up celiac sprue in those so affected. This test is being offered at an affordable price by EnteroLab.

That quote is found specifically on the following page:

https://www.enterolab.com/StaticPages/Frame_Faq.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify:

Enterolab says they may be able to. No other labs have been able to replicate this. The "traditional" Celiac researchers and experts do not agree with his methods. His work and practices have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. We are all waiting for this!

Plus, this quote indicates that those who do have Celiac (say, biopsy proven Celiacs) also test positive on their tests. That is great! However, it doesn't address the other side of the issue...do people who don't have Celiac test positive on their tests?

Also...again, these quotes have *yet* to be published in peer reviewed journals.

While I do not doubt that they have given the answer to many, many, many people, the verdict in the general Celiac community is still out. The standard diagnosis is still the biopsy (which can most certainly be argued).

In their results explanations that they send out, they do not distinguish between Celiac and gluten sensitivity.

(this is not a rant against enterolab...I have used them in conjunction with traditional testing. I am just presenting information that is out there).

All this being said--------I am a firm believer in the fact that gluten is a problem for many people who don't know it, and it doesn't matter but so much if its Celiac or non-Celiac. If someone's symptoms resolve on a gluten-free diet, I don't care who tested or told them...Enterolab, traditional testing methods, or some crazy person in a dream. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any medical lab test that is said to be 100% accurate is being misrepresented.

If for no other reason, there are humans at some point in the process so errors can be introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By this point getting gluten-free rations isn't really an issue since your job is to go out and take a bullet anyway.

If you don't like it don't sign.... (with apologies to anyone who through circumstance signed up for an education or the chance to get out of a dead end town)

I certainly understand you didn't mean any harm :), but I must beg to differ about the job of a military person being to take a bullet. Our job is not to take a bullet. Our job is to do our best to avoid taking the bullet so we can take out as many of their guys as possible. That's why our government spends so much money training us and on our protective equipment.

I do agree with your statement, "If you don't like it, don't sign."

With that said, an update on my situation: As stated in a prior post, I'm in the Air National Guard. This is the state component of the Air Force. This past weekend, when I went in for my annual physical assessment, I was put on profile. This means that they marked me as undeployable, and therefore, unpayable. I can't serve until I get a negative diagnosis for gluten sensitivity.

The doctor I went in to see was going to let me through and allow me to just talk to my commander about it and have an understanding, but on second thought, he sent me over to the doctor in the room next door because he was a pediatric GI doctor.

In all actuality, "gluten sensitivity" is not on the list of unwaiverable conditions, but celiac disease is. I'm not certain I have celiac, but I'm certain I'm gluten sensitive, so I thouht I might be able to slip past the radar. This doctor said that, for all practical purposes, they're the same. So he put me on profile.

Now I'm supposed to go see a civilian doctor, pay for the diagnosis all myself (I have no insurance), and if I don't do this, I get kicked out. If I do pay for the diagnosis and get a positive diagnosis, I get kicked out. I don't know for sure what I'm going to do, but I'm leaning toward NOT going to see a doctor for diagnosis at this time. I have a new job, and my only income is commissions only. There's a learning curve, so I'm not making anything yet. I just can't afford to (a) pay for this right now or (B) get sick and miss time on the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I'm supposed to go see a civilian doctor, pay for the diagnosis all myself (I have no insurance), and if I don't do this, I get kicked out. If I do pay for the diagnosis and get a positive diagnosis, I get kicked out. I don't know for sure what I'm going to do, but I'm leaning toward NOT going to see a doctor for diagnosis at this time. I have a new job, and my only income is commissions only. There's a learning curve, so I'm not making anything yet. I just can't afford to (a) pay for this right now or (B) get sick and miss time on the job.

I also would lean the way you are. As someone who had an undiagnosed celiac in the 82ond Airborne of the US Army I know how tough it can be on us. When with the unit if symptoms develop they are not easy to recoginize. My DS was ordered to take drugs that left him frankly psychotic because the gluten issue was not addressed. I KNOW if my son had not had a cell phone and me on the other line whenever he needed he would have come home in a box along with much of his unit. And not from enemy fire. Until Celiac is recognized the military is not the place for us. Much as many would like to be able to be a part of it. My son still feels he failed somehow although this disease is certainly nothing he could control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly understand you didn't mean any harm :), but I must beg to differ about the job of a military person being to take a bullet. Our job is not to take a bullet. Our job is to do our best to avoid taking the bullet so we can take out as many of their guys as possible. That's why our government spends so much money training us and on our protective equipment.

I do agree with your statement, "If you don't like it, don't sign."

With that said, an update on my situation: As stated in a prior post, I'm in the Air National Guard. This is the state component of the Air Force. This past weekend, when I went in for my annual physical assessment, I was put on profile. This means that they marked me as undeployable, and therefore, unpayable. I can't serve until I get a negative diagnosis for gluten sensitivity.

The doctor I went in to see was going to let me through and allow me to just talk to my commander about it and have an understanding, but on second thought, he sent me over to the doctor in the room next door because he was a pediatric GI doctor.

Glad you didn't take it the wrong way....

With all due respect and taking your constitution + bill of rights .. the purpose of a military is to defend the country from a clear and present danger.

To some extent this differentiates the national guard and state militias from a "professional" army who might be required to help others out or perform police actions.

I believe (but this is my personal viewpoint) signing up to defend your country/state in dire need is not the same as being sent around the world to perform police actions... (without geting in to the justification or not of those actions)... indeed from memory only the 12th ammendment actually applies and then only to slavery... from memory the text saying "or any territory over which we hold sway" (or similar)... No point this becoming political... I don't mean it like that...

Regarding celiac... etc. there is a very clear difference between fighting to defend your country from someone actively trying to occupy it ... with the possible intent to kill or imprison your family and subjegate your population and performing actions elsewhere when there is no direct threat.

Our job is not to take a bullet. Our job is to do our best to avoid taking the bullet so we can take out as many of their guys as possible.

To a point because it really depends on the situation....

At the point at which your country is occupied or in the process of being occupied everything changes...

Whereby it seems acceptable to cluster bomb civilians and follow it up with a gunship in a far away place in order to "take out" a a few possible "insurgents" and minimise losses of your own.. most people wouldn't be that happy if the target happened to be one of your own cities with your own population....

As this hasn't actually happened to the US since the civil war... Americans tend to have a different opinion over this than countries that lost huge percentages of their civilian population during WWII.... however I really think the whole celiac issue is kinda pointless at the point where you are put in a position of defending somewhere until the last man is killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glad you didn't take it the wrong way....

With all due respect and taking your constitution + bill of rights .. the purpose of a military is to defend the country from a clear and present danger.

To some extent this differentiates the national guard and state militias from a "professional" army who might be required to help others out or perform police actions.

I believe (but this is my personal viewpoint) signing up to defend your country/state in dire need is not the same as being sent around the world to perform police actions... (without geting in to the justification or not of those actions)... indeed from memory only the 12th ammendment actually applies and then only to slavery... from memory the text saying "or any territory over which we hold sway" (or similar)... No point this becoming political... I don't mean it like that...

Regarding celiac... etc. there is a very clear difference between fighting to defend your country from someone actively trying to occupy it ... with the possible intent to kill or imprison your family and subjegate your population and performing actions elsewhere when there is no direct threat.

To a point because it really depends on the situation....

At the point at which your country is occupied or in the process of being occupied everything changes...

Whereby it seems acceptable to cluster bomb civilians and follow it up with a gunship in a far away place in order to "take out" a a few possible "insurgents" and minimise losses of your own.. most people wouldn't be that happy if the target happened to be one of your own cities with your own population....

As this hasn't actually happened to the US since the civil war... Americans tend to have a different opinion over this than countries that lost huge percentages of their civilian population during WWII.... however I really think the whole celiac issue is kinda pointless at the point where you are put in a position of defending somewhere until the last man is killed.

The National Guard can be, and has been, called on to do all the same functions as active duty. In fact, we are being used in large numbers in the current conflict. Our base, which is solely an Air National Guard base, actually had to train additional security forces personnel because they were sent over in large numbers to the Middle East. I actually tried to volunteer for security forces (my career field is combat communications), but they had cut off funding at that point. Besides that, my unit has been deployed to the Middle East and will most likely be deployed again in the near future. Anyone who is deployed, regardless of their job classification, is prepared and trained to deal with some level of combat.

All combat communications personnel (of which I am one), including guard members, go to a special school to train for direct combat. They give us M-16s fitted with lasers, and we do very real war games where there are well-trained aggressors with night vision and high powered scopes attacking us. A lot of these "aggressors" have had war experience. They train us to dig fox holes, about "friendly fire," how to sweep out snipers, how to keep moving because a moving target is a more difficult target. They train us in how to address various outsiders who might try to gain access to our area and when to use force and not use force, as well as how and when to detain and/or disarm aggressors. The aggressors sometimes stormed our camp, and we had to respond. We could get "killed" and "wounded" (the lasers could set off sounds that would indicate a kill or a "near miss"). Some of us were captured. They teach us how to survive on our own without supply - how to test for poison in possible foodstuffs to be found in the wild, how to treat medical situations without medical supplies.

Besides the fact that they put so much effort and expense in training us in how to avoid bullets and be prepared to resist aggressors, my military would not be throwing me out of the military if I was only a bullet-catcher to them. But they're in process of throwing me out because of gluten sensitivity. It remains to be seen whether or not I'll actually be cast out, but I think I will be. I've at least been put on a temporary hold from any service. And that's because they don't just want a bullet-catcher. They want someone who can be highly functional and capable of repelling the enemy or supporting others who are repelling the enemy in those critical moments. They do not want dead weight. They can't afford dead weight. Dead weight bullet-catchers lose battles, which is why there are medical and psychological ceriteria which determine who can and can't be in our American military, which is quite frankly currently the premier military in the world.

The reason we haven't dealt with much in the way of attacks on our land is because our government has largely had a policy of keeping the war off our shores. This is not a mean thing. This is a responsible policy used to protect our people. If we allowed people to take the fight here, our people would be in more danger. I don't think it's wrong for us to do what we can to keep the fight off our shores. We have a very, very efficient homeland defense - though not impermiable, for sure, it is quite effective. If it wasn't, we would have surely experienced a much greater direct loss by now.

Where are you from, by the way? The UK?

But I diverge from celiac disease, so I'll stop here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The National Guard can be, and has been, called on to do all the same functions as active duty. In fact, we are being used in large numbers in the current conflict. Our base, which is solely an Air National Guard base, actually had to train additional security forces personnel because they were sent over in large numbers to the Middle East. I actually tried to volunteer for security forces (my career field is combat communications), but they had cut off funding at that point. Besides that, my unit has been deployed to the Middle East and will most likely be deployed again in the near future. Anyone who is deployed, regardless of their job classification, is prepared and trained to deal with some level of combat.

All combat communications personnel (of which I am one), including guard members, go to a special school to train for direct combat. They give us M-16s fitted with lasers, and we do very real war games where there are well-trained aggressors with night vision and high powered scopes attacking us. A lot of these "aggressors" have had war experience. They train us to dig fox holes, about "friendly fire," how to sweep out snipers, how to keep moving because a moving target is a more difficult target. They train us in how to address various outsiders who might try to gain access to our area and when to use force and not use force, as well as how and when to detain and/or disarm aggressors. The aggressors sometimes stormed our camp, and we had to respond. We could get "killed" and "wounded" (the lasers could set off sounds that would indicate a kill or a "near miss"). Some of us were captured. They teach us how to survive on our own without supply - how to test for poison in possible foodstuffs to be found in the wild, how to treat medical situations without medical supplies.

Besides the fact that they put so much effort and expense in training us in how to avoid bullets and be prepared to resist aggressors, my military would not be throwing me out of the military if I was only a bullet-catcher to them. But they're in process of throwing me out because of gluten sensitivity. It remains to be seen whether or not I'll actually be cast out, but I think I will be. I've at least been put on a temporary hold from any service. And that's because they don't just want a bullet-catcher. They want someone who can be highly functional and capable of repelling the enemy or supporting others who are repelling the enemy in those critical moments. They do not want dead weight. They can't afford dead weight. Dead weight bullet-catchers lose battles, which is why there are medical and psychological ceriteria which determine who can and can't be in our American military, which is quite frankly currently the premier military in the world.

The reason we haven't dealt with much in the way of attacks on our land is because our government has largely had a policy of keeping the war off our shores. This is not a mean thing. This is a responsible policy used to protect our people. If we allowed people to take the fight here, our people would be in more danger. I don't think it's wrong for us to do what we can to keep the fight off our shores. We have a very, very efficient homeland defense - though not impermiable, for sure, it is quite effective. If it wasn't, we would have surely experienced a much greater direct loss by now.

Where are you from, by the way? The UK?

But I diverge from celiac disease, so I'll stop here.

Originally the UK....

My point was really that there is a difference between being attacked and going abroad to perform what are termed police actions....

I doubt me saying it will change anything but I personally would have different feelings about joining a militia who's purpose is defensive and joining a standing army who's purpose at best can be described as passively agressive...

The problem is perhaps the mixing up of the two.... ???

There is a huge difference between going to a foreign country where you have an overwhelming air dominance and a pretty much complete ability to protect your compounds and being invaded.

Even being on the edge of invasion as the UK was in WWII.... is completely different... again...

If you look at my generation from the UK we are really the 1st to partially start getting over the huge cultural changes brought about by rationing in WWII. This is not unimportant from a celiac perspective....

My grandmothers generation lived through severare and complete rationing... right into the 50's and this influenced the type of food we eat immensely along with the fact that most women homebuiilders lots their right to be home buiilders and were "conscripted" to work in factories and food production... and the UK was really on the periphery of this...

The thing is even in the general population niceties about food went out of the window.... celiac wasn't really known about then but if it had been the right to gluten-free food and even the right to have that food labelled would be withdrawn... even in the UK rationing was basically providing the minimum nutritional needs in the form that provided the least drain on the society and freed people up for the war effort.

My uncle tried to join the RAF as a pilot and was refused because (being too young wasn't an issue) wearing glasses was...

During the battle of Britian the average life expectancy in flying-hours was

E. B. Haslam, Journal of Strategic Studies (June, 1981)

It was estimated in the summer of the battle that every pilot kept in action for more than six months would be shot down because he was exhausted or stale, or even because he had lost the will to fight. In terms of flying hours the fighter pilot's life expectancy could be measured at eighty-seven.

Bomber command had a 75% loss rate on long term missions.... any bomber run was basically statistically suicide...

Fighter command commisioned disposable aircraft like the Mosquito made from plywood because there was an ever ending queue of young lads ready to die but only so many raw materials and so my uncle was accepted into the RAF!!

Once the ideal candidates are dead then the non ideal candidates are put forwards...

Living in an enclosed and protected compound with air superiorty and the abilty to resupply ration packs is a far cry from a real war against a power of similar strengh and technology. I have spent a fair part of my life living in paramilitary compounds in not too disimilar situations to peace keeping forces... however the largest threats have always been small arms and landmines... and the odd RPG... not living in foxholes getting shelled or bombed....

What I'm really trying to say is in a real war you don't have lines of supply... at least not consistently...people eat what they can get. The main control over most modern warfare has literally been to cut off lines of supply.... and supplying a front line with ammunition is always going to be more important than supplying them with a gluten-free ration pack....

The reason we haven't dealt with much in the way of attacks on our land is because our government has largely had a policy of keeping the war off our shores. This is not a mean thing. This is a responsible policy used to protect our people. If we allowed people to take the fight here, our people would be in more danger. I don't think it's wrong for us to do what we can to keep the fight off our shores. We have a very, very efficient homeland defense - though not impermiable, for sure, it is quite effective. If it wasn't, we would have surely experienced a much greater direct loss by now.

Its certainly no mean thing...

As to is it a good thing or bad thing...?

That basically depends on how you value human life.

I think its completly normal that people are more shocked when their compatriates are killed than some people in a country they don't even know. Its a basic human tribalism....

However the deeper implications I doubt we will agree on... I find the death of a Iraqi guy fighting to kick what he see's as invadors out of his country as equally tragic to an American guy or British guy... sure my first reaction to seeing British tropps killed is stronger perhaps but if I analyse it the two are equally tragic and no more or no less tragic than a school kid being gunned down at college...

We are more immediately affected by what we perceive as a threat at home and it makes us feel more uncomfrotable and less safe... but it doesn't make one human life worth more than another.

The UK lived for years with an ever present threat, I persopnally have witnessed (been close enough to hear) two IRA bombs go off and on one occaision close enough to feel it...

Throughout the 1970's and most of the 80's the primary funding for the IRA came from ... yep the USA...

The US allowed them through inaction (and coddling the voters) to buy weapons, set up training camps and learn how to make bombs...

Lots of people giving a few $ for "the people back home" in bars throughout NY, Chicago etc. were not specifically giving money to blow up shopping malls or train stations but they gave money all the same.. and noone thought to stop them legally... using the US as a training ground and weapons/munitions supply base.

Indeed the only people who felt strongly about the "Irish situation" were those who supported the violence and bombings... and the majority had little to think about... its just a country 3000 miles away... which doesn't mean they disagreed with it, it just wasn't a issue that anyone wanted to vote for in a positive sense... the only people who would stop voting for any candidate were those in favor of the violent methods... and the only time an average American voter might consider the "problem" was deciding to take a vacation in the UK or not...

That's not meant to be an attack, its just the way things were.... people dying thousands of miles away, even if they share culural ties and the same language is nowhere near the same as your own people dying...

Just to put this in context the tragic events of last week are of course terrible but the sort of thing the UK population lived through on a regular basis in the 70's and 80's...

So because of this I perhaps have a different view.... on "keeping the war off our shores"....

The right to a preemptive strike on a country at the other side of the world who have no means of actually attacking you in a serious way is not really something I can support.... it doesn;t make sense that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's have been killed in order to prevent a guerilla type attack.... that might claim 100 .. history seems to say that Americans are perfectly capable of doing this for themselves... excluding 9/11 which had nothing to do with Iraq anyway (and even if it did, its a tragic event but in the end 2000 people vs half a million just isn't a measured response... nor does it make it any less likely that the US is liekly to be attacked in a similar way again.... indeed it increases the chances of the number of people who feel strongly enough about it to be suicide bombers. It doesn't approach the number of US deaths each year by firearms incidents...

Whatever the arguaments there are far more Americans killing other Americans than the Iraqi's could ever have achieved...until the war was taken to them. Sorry I said excluding 9/11.... what I mean is shottings, bombings of 20-30 people are unfrtunately relatively common place... and the fact they were not done by a foreign aggressor doesn't make people any more safe???

It just makes people feel more safe....

Your chance of being killed in America in a random incident like Columbine or Virginia tech by another american or from some foreign power is proably well les than being hit by lightening and far less than dying in auto incident...

Its easy to overplay the risk.... and make people scared....when they might do better to reduce their driving by a very large margin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slightly off topic...I didn't realise that the Military was out for celiac disease'ers...I'd like to find out if we are allowed to give blood.

I have always though we couldn't, or shouldn't...anybody know???

You are allowed to give blood as long as you are not malnourished (ie your iron is high enough). The way I know it is that most of the studies that are done to detect the prevalence of Celiacs in the US have been done through blood banks. Also, the iron test and me not "bouncing back" after giving blood were the first signs that my stomach problems were back which caused me to get tested. My GI never said anything about calling the red cross to disregard my blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the magazine "living without" has an article about food allergies and celiac disease in the military in its most recent issue. the guy who was diagnosed was on submarine duty before diagnosis and was given shore duty since he was so close to getting out. otherwise, he would have been medically discharged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now VERY glad the situation is different here in Canada. The only thing that was recently done to my file, as I was supposed to be on deployment to Thule, Greenland for a year, was I was DAG'd red for remote posting only! I was starting to worry about all other postings, and that I may have been released, but there are a few people with celiac disease who are deployed now, and they just do not go outside the wire!

I would like to add that I know that us celiacs can still serve our countries as effectively as any other member! I hope the situation changes when the medical community gains a better understanding of what celiac disease is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been in the Marine Corps Reserve for 4 years with a deployment to Iraq. Before I went I had no symptoms at all, I didn't even know what celiac disease was or that I had a family history. From what I read the celiac disease genes can lay dormant until an environmental event triggers the gene. In my case I was fine before Iraq and not after. I also avoided MRE's when I was in the field because they mess up normal peoples GI tracts as it is. With other issues from Iraq the VA has already declared me 40% disabled, but if you read the details here is what it says:

Disability Compensation

Disability compensation is a monetary benefit paid to veterans who are disabled by an injury or disease that was incurred or aggravated during active military service. These disabilities are considered to be service-connected. Disability compensation varies with the degree of disability and the number of veteran’s dependents, and is paid monthly. Veterans with certain severe disabilities may be eligible for additional special monthly compensation. The benefits are not subject to federal or state income tax.

If you didn't know you had celiac disease or if it was dormant and then activated it can be a service connected disability.

I am currently in the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) which means I don't have to attend drills or anything but that can call me up at anytime (assuming I wasn't already 40% disabled).

I go to the VA Hospital tomorrow so I will see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a member of the Canadian military, I am appaled at this! There are no limitation to me AT ALL as far as where I can go or what I can do in the Canadian Forces as a person with celiac disease. In fact, there are people deployed around the world with celiac disease. I would have to think with numbers like 1 person in 133 that have celiac disease it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE that there is nobody in US military service with celiac disease!

As a fellow Canadian who is not only celiac but also trying to get into the forces do you know where I can find this information? I was told by a medical technician at the Edmonton recruiting centre that after speaking with someone from Ottawa having celiac is something that can prevent me from joining, yet you say there are no limitations at all for you!? I continued with my application anyway (I admit, part of why I am joining is so I can get my education at the college and be debt free...I just CAN'T afford reg. uni - and we don't even pay half as much as the states for tuition :-S but I also LOVE being in the military enviroment and grew up in CFB Cold Lake lol) and I'll hear back from Ottawa in about a week and I want to be ready to appeal should the need arise.

Just a side note: I was diagnosed via family screening (my mom has it) yet I have never experienced the typical symptoms and I was an extremely healthy child!! This is what makes this so frustrating! :-SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...