Name of accused soldier in Afghanistan released.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Hasn't he been the President now for over 3 years ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sportage, IMHO, had you pegged right, the only thing you learn from war and quagmires is partisan politics.

I can also note Isenhower, in 1952, was elected on the promise to win in Korea. And only got a stalemate. Nixon promised to have us out of Vietnam during his first term and lied.

As for me, I will settle for a non partisan judgment, GWB had zero military understanding and Obama is no better. Neither of them have even a tiny clue on what it takes to win the peace.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sportage, IMHO, had you pegged right, the only thing you learn from war and quagmires is partisan politics.

I can also note Isenhower, in 1952, was elected on the promise to win in Korea. And only got a stalemate. Nixon promised to have us out of Vietnam during his first term and lied.

As for me, I will settle for a non partisan judgment, GWB had zero military understanding and Obama is no better. Neither of them have even a tiny clue on what it takes to win the peace.

You think Eisenhower was elected in 1952 on the promise of Korea and not on his public standing after WWII? I will agree with you that Obama has zero understanding of the military. and business and honesty and integrity.........
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
You think Eisenhower was elected in 1952 on the promise of Korea and not on his public standing after WWII? I will agree with you that Obama has zero understanding of the military. and business and honesty and integrity.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, if you want to play the partisan politics game, please don't try to stuff words in my mouth as I refuse to play your stupid partisan politics game.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,917
828
126
They released the name to generate sympathy of the American people so he won't be put to death which he deserves. There is never an excuse to kill innocent children. It is as easy as black and white. Kill children then you must die.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
They released the name to generate sympathy of the American people so he won't be put to death which he deserves. There is never an excuse to kill innocent children. It is as easy as black and white. Kill children then you must die.

Who is "they"? He's not going to be put to death by the American public. It's going to be a military jury either way. At the trial, the jurors will know his name.

The American public needs to know this guy's background to be able to gauge our policy. If someone who's lived a normal life goes on a rampage after being repeatedly injured and thrown back into the fray, we probably want to prevent that from happening or get out of the conflict. If it was some guy who had a shady past and tortured animals as a child, that has different implications.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
In the big picture, this story is far more important than the Trayvon Martin story.

Of course the Trayvon Martin story is sucking up all the oxygen.

But seriously, I find it ridiculous that so far the emphasis has been on what the poor soldier-mass-killer has gone through in his life, while nothing has been said about the sixteen innocent afghanis who were killed. It seems likely he will be charged as insane and get some sort of light sentence.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Who is "they"? He's not going to be put to death by the American public. It's going to be a military jury either way. At the trial, the jurors will know his name.

The American public needs to know this guy's background to be able to gauge our policy. If someone who's lived a normal life goes on a rampage after being repeatedly injured and thrown back into the fray, we probably want to prevent that from happening or get out of the conflict. If it was some guy who had a shady past and tortured animals as a child, that has different implications.

Public smuglic!

He's gone loose cannon, now it's time to fry!

He wasn't forced to re-tour
- blame everyone except the guy that killed 9 lill' brown kiddies....

He should go Gitmo for execution after a quickie military trial!
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I saw something about this on 60 min or frontline. Not this story in particular but a bunch of these troops are coming back nuts, not getting help they need, and getting into very serious trouble. The military basically looks the other way at PTSD socially and medically and doesn't even recognize it nor give disability for it for fear of opening the flood gates. Military Drs end up just hopping these guys up on powerful antidpressants and drugs and send them right back out. There is a lot more of this than we know but sometimes some get caught. I'd like to see his real medical record.