Yes, that's pretty much exactly my point.

If we considered it the other way (that allowing someone to join the military or any difficult job is tantamount to cyber bullying) then imagine all the blame you'd have to spread around should a recruit or veteran kill themselves.

Then think about the possibility that the suicide many have been for reasons no different than they would have encountered, even if they had never joined at all.

I think it is pretty clear that the military and the involved politicians have the blood of dead solders on their hands. Whether they eventually succumb to PTSD, or died after contact with dioxin contaminated agent orange doesn't make much difference to me. The existence of veterans who have not died does not somehow absolve those who share responsibility for the death of others. The possibility that some may have committed suicide anyway does not absolve them. There is a lot of blame to be spread around.

Well I'm glad we all agree that politicians shouldn't send people into unjust wars. I don't agree that it's on politicians for allowing people to join the military as long as they have foreknowledge of the risks to their health (both physical and mental) that are involved.

Otherwise we'd literally be in a nanny state, and where does that stop? Should we prevent people from joining the police? How about firefighting? How about firefighting for wildfires? Or roofing?

Either way you can blame people until you're blue in the face and it won't help the veterans. The action that would be of help is to treat those who are wounded, and to prevent the politicians' use of the military in unneeded/unjust conflicts in the future.

I wonder what the ratios are...