US News
Jan 13, 2008, 18:54 GMT
Report: 121 Iraq, Afghanistan veterans kill after return to US
And Also
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
- 2. It's official: Tiger Woods' injuries were slight (3rd Lead)
- 3. Tiger Woods treated after car accident (2nd Lead)
- 4. Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident (1st Lead)
- 5. REPORT: Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident
Older Talkback
'The last post was at least slightly witty, albeit factually incorrect on every point.'
What a weak reposte. That last shot by whomever he is must have gotten Charles below the waterline. While it may have been below the belt, surely the 'great' Charles, being a former OOD should be able do better than that. But as it were, he turned turtle and surrendered. Head for shore charles, as they say, any port in a storm.
That torpedo got Charles right in the rudder.
'You guys are worse than the worst white trash redneck cliche. Its too funny.'
You powder must be wet, chuck. Either that or you're firing blanks, thinking it is a live round, a mistake easily made by a drunk on deck. You missed, again, anyway. And yes, you are too funny, we're getting a good CHUCKle out off of you.
Nice try fellows. I just found his attempt at being humorous more lyrical and refreshing than your idiotic and shrill nonsense.
You all are incapable of disputing my points with facts so you resort to threats: wanting to kill me - or insults: accusing me of being homosexual.
Keep it up.
'You all are incapable of disputing my points.'
The only point Charles has is the one on top of his head.
You all???? Chuck must be a texan. I bet that's where he got his sea legs, riding a cow. Or was it the other way around?
'accusing me of being homosexual.'
As per usual, chuck distorts things, getting them wrong. But we do wonder which postion he was accustomed to, in that third of the amerikan naval traditions - buggery. We know he is full of the other two, B.S. and booze.
to kill charles? Not that I saw anywhere on these pages. Chuck must have drunk too much of that navy rum. His mind and arguments have all the consistency of a soggy Quiche Lorraine.
For all of your words you haven't been able to put together one logical argument. At some point you ought to start getting embarassed.
Come on - there is a whole group of you it seems.
Is this the very best self professed smart liberals can come up with???
Good night folks.
Here is your homework:
By the time I get back tomorrow, you can use all of your combined brain power and wit to come up with one logical post that is on topic (i.e. not an ad hominem attack).
Good luck!
Charles goes down with his sinking ship. Here's for Chuck's next incarnation: Develope a brain. Think for yourself. Stick to the post, yourself, boy. Don't parrot the party line. Expect ad hominem attacks once more, because you start them.
And with that, goodbye to Chuckles, who isn't man enough to stick around and finish what he started. But, what else is to be expected from a cowardly drunk on deck, of the US navy? Goodbye charles you fat, old, worn out tin pot of a destroyer. One fastboat just chased you away.
is trying to lay down rules of engagement when he said this: 'not an ad hominem attack).'
Tough, charles you tiresome, old bore. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kichen. As you are not a gentleman, expect no quarter. Whining, snivelling coward. Navy, ha. Tin pot scrap heap.
January 15, 2008 -- THE New York Times is trashing our troops again. With no new 'atrocities' to report from Iraq for many a month, the limping Gray Lady turned to the home front. Front and center, above the fold, on the front page of Sunday's Times, the week's feature story sought to convince Americans that combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are turning troops into murderers when they come home.
Heart-wringing tales of madness and murder not only made the front page, but filled two entire centerfold pages and spilled onto a fourth.
The Times did get one basic fact right: Returning vets committed or are charged with 121 murders in the United States since our current wars began.
Had the Times' 'journalists' and editors bothered to put those figures in context - which they carefully avoided doing - they would've found that the murder rate that leaves them so aghast means that our vets are five times less likely to commit a murder than their demographic peers.
The Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, should crunch the numbers. I'm even willing to spot the Times a few percentage points (either way). But the hard statistics from the Justice Department tell a far different tale from the Times' anti-military propaganda.
A very conservative estimate of how many different service members have passed through Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait since 2003 is 350,000 (and no, that's not double-counting those with repeated tours of duty).
Now consider the Justice Department's numbers for murders committed by all Americans aged 18 to 34 - the key group for our men and women in uniform. To match the homicide rate of their peers, our troops would've had to come home and commit about 150 murders a year, for a total of 700 to 750 murders between 2003 and the end of 2007.
n other words, the Times unwittingly makes the case that military service reduces the likelihood of a young man or woman committing a murder by 80 percent.
Yes, the young Americans who join our military are (by self- selection) superior by far to the average stay-at-home. Still, these numbers are pretty impressive, when you consider that we're speaking of men and women trained in the tools of war, who've endured the acute stresses of fighting insurgencies and who are physically robust (rather unlike the stick-limbed weanies the Times prefers).
All in all, the Times' own data proves my long-time contention that we have the best behaved and most ethical military in history.
www.nypost.com/seven/01152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/smearing_soldi ers_265875.htm,
Hey Charles, the fact that they can't refute anything you have said isn't lost on other readers.
Maybe the treatment of vets isn't any worse than in previous combats or maybe it is, but if it is, why can't it be improve? As far as returning military turning into killers - that isn't realistic and the general scarcasm here is worse than an angry bunch of grade school kids. It has been reported that the vets are returning with severe mental problems as can be expected - they need more help than they are getting - period!
about:'he fact that they can't refute anything you have said isn't lost on other readers'
He hasn't said anything worth refuting. Like SPfool, nohartess and unRealist, it is merely neocon crap. Preprogrammed pablum. And that hasn't been lost on people who think.
Jim,
I agree. More effective care - and better directed care. I'll bet things have actually drastically improved over the years - but any big bureaucracy is a blunt instrument. Medical treatment, and especially mental health treatment, is very individualized.
'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kichen.'
Um, its just boring fellas. You may get all excited and think that accusing me of being a homosexual drunk (or whatever else) is somehow accomplishing something constructive - but it isn't. But hey - its a free country - go for it!
So actually refute 'the neocon crap' already instead of just attacking.
The libnazi media has to run this story because the news out of Iraq isn't bad enough to print. That being the case, they go to the tried-and-untrue old chestnut of the crazy vet.
We saw this all over the 1970's. Vets were broadbrushed as nutballs. The press insinuated that they all came back and went crazy, becoming risks to society.
This will die off for 6 more months and then come back on a bad news day.
Ever notice now I get preemptive insults? How's that for notoriety?
To those still reading that are confused by the liberal mindset, there's an excellent description of it on utube. No profanity, trashing etc. just food for thought. Go to utube, type in liberals and listen to the one titled 'How Modern Liberals Think' by the Heritage Foundation. I found it to be interesting and not at all nasty which in these times is refreshing.
Maybe the vets in the 70's were not nutballs as you so disgustingly put it, but still had severe mental and psychological problems that weren't correctly addressed or understood at the time - you can't sweep this under the rug. Hopefully medicine has progressed since the dark ages!!
Your Talkback on this Story