You'll see that quote in your next gun bash.

It'll be interesting to get the background of the living perp. Let's see whom he assoicates with and why he would do it.

If a safety brief is anywhere near as boring as any other required company meeting, I can see how a person could snap.

Its called fragging. A lot of this happend during Vietnam also.

Ophotfoot..."A lot of this happened during Vietnam also?" Where did you dream that up? Did fraggin' happen, sure in rare cases, but during my three tours I didn't hear of a Battalion Commander getting "fragged". Even among the less disciplined units, soldiers killing other soldiers is rare (even crappy commanders have friends and payback is always in play).

RTColorado

The term "fragging" originated during the Vietnam War. It first only meant when an actual grenade was used to kill their officers but later evolved to mean any rank was killed by a fellow soldier intentionally.

When they started keeping statistics on it in 1969 there were 239 known incidents of "fragging", 1970 there were 383 known incidents, 1971 there were 333 known incidents, and 1972 there were 58 known incidents of fragging. That seems like a lot to me. During this time another 1400 officers died "mysteriously". These are the governments own statistics.

You got google right?

The source of that information is Chris Hedges who is about as far left as they come. He's a self-declared Socialist who was so unable to contain his own personal opinions he failed to meet the outrageously low bar for opinion vs reporting set by his employer, the New York Times. He was also arrested as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York and wrote such wonderful books as American Fascists, The Christian Right and the War on America.

I suggest you find a more reputable source than Wikipedia and this joker.

You are right I can not find a government website to support these old statistics that they originally put out, however I can not find a government website that lists any information about fragging statistics. Recent history would tell me the fact that I can not find the information on a government website tells me something ominous. If the Government had statistics to the contrary they would put them up to counter these numbers at least. I dont see that happening because every time someone uses their statistics to show the truth the statistics are either changed or suppressed, in case you have not been paying attention that is how the military operates. Do you think if they cover up combat deaths like Pat Tillmans, etc (list goes on forever) they will not suppress fragging stats? I did however find the Veterans Affairs 2010 Fact Sheet that says every 80 minutes a veteran commits suicide. Active Duty Service Members commit suicide once every 36 hours. I am sure there are no murder suicides though. At least they admit to that. If anyone can find the old government statistics again that would be great.

Did fraggin' happen, sure in rare cases, but during my three tours I didn't hear of a Battalion Commander getting "fragged".

Since WWII, the army has been sending historians -- Civil Service/U.S. Army Historian (GS-170-H) -- into hot spots with the army and special forces to research, interview, and write about these conflicts. Though an individual may have served in a particular theater of operations, he doesn't necessarily have the entire picture of what happened, but only his perspective.

I don't care about statistics, I was in the military during the Viet Nam war era and promotions came easy because it was said that the troops shoot anyone they don't like in the back during fire fights. In the confusion it was hard to determine where the shot came from. So the people in charge, who had to order their troops into dangerous situations, or the ones that enjoyed crimes against the enemy, got shot first.

By the way, I met a guy, who was obviously gay, that made SSG in Viet Nam. He told me that people with rank did not live long there so he got his promotions and got out the first opportunity that came by.

As one of my NCOs and I were walking out of a battalion staff meeting during a field training exercise, he turned to me and said "Sir if we EVER go to combat and they have one of those things, DON'T GO. It's too easy for someone to throw a couple of grenades in there (it was held in a tent extension attached to the command track) and with the a-holes that are in charge in this battalion, you don't need to be there WHEN it happens." Seeing as he had served with the Marines in Vietnam and had come over to the Army later, I took him at his word. I was the only officer in my family and had a fairly low opinion of more than a couple of my superior officers. When the early transition program came along a few months later, I resigned my commission and got out. My exit interview was with the new Divarty CO and the interview started with "LT, I'm losing a lot of junior officers and I want to know why." I began explaining how senior officers were mistreating junior officers and NCOs alike, including violating Army safety regulations that put soldiers' lives at risk during training. He was particularly interested in the latter situation as it could've ended up with people getting killed through his battalion commanders' malfeasance.

Another problem is that often soldiers who are constantly in trouble don't realize that it was THEIR actions that wound them up in front of the Bn Commander's desk for punishment. I wouldn't be afraid to hazard a guess that the shooter has been in trouble before.

At first appearance, it doesn't appear to be terrorism. Why, then, has the military not released the name of the shooter? I doubt it has to do with trying to protect him/her. I've been following this since yesterday and have yet to see the name given anywhere. If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, and walks like a rat, its a rat. Somewhere in this story is a rat.

@OpHotFoot: snarky is a great word isn't it? How about looking a bit harder in Google. for guys like Cecil Adams at the thestraightdope.com His article on fragging is footnoted and referenced.

The tally of 730 fragging incidents comes from Guenter Lewy's 1978 book, America in Vietnam, which cites 1971 army testimony before Congress: 126 incidents in 1969, 271 in 1970, and 333 in 1971 (presumably as of the date of testimony). It's unlikely fragging suddenly ceased in 1972, so 730 is probably low.

Two articles on fragging, "Assaults with Explosive Devices on Superiors" by David Gillooly and Thomas Bond (Military Medicine, 1976) and Bond’s "The Why of Fragging" (American Journal of Psychiatry, 1976), were based on analysis of 28 convicted fraggers. These articles are the most detailed research on fragging we have. However, each is just three pages long.

The Center of Military History sent us an unsigned two-page report entitled "Murder of U.S. Army Company Grade Officers in Vietnam by Enlisted Men," apparently written in response to claims that 40 percent of captains and lieutenants killed in Vietnam were murdered by their men. Not likely, says the report. About 3,000 such officers died during the war; 40 percent of that number is about 1,200; no way would slaughter on that scale have escaped official notice.

@ Coffee roaster,

You are using a conservative propagandist and an unsigned two page report as resources? But my resources are unreliable? Ok.

Oh I assumed coffee roaster... now I'm an ass.

THAT is no bull@!$%#. Ft. Bragg has seen its fair share over the years. Sniper taking out his own unit during morning PT? The other soldier that went into that restaurant and killed the Greek family that owned the restaurant and afterwards he claimed that he was drunk and blacked out? Gang initiation by driving up and killing an innocent black man? That all happened between 1993-1997...I haven't heard much since, but as with all walks of life, you have different sets of people from all four corners of this nation that go through training and are vetted. Then you put them in a place like Fayetteville, NC and expect them to adapt. Most do, but sometimes you will get this one 'individual' that wants to prove something...Fayetteville and Ft Bragg are resilient; they bounce back after each major deployment that makes the town's economy dry up and they were extremely resilient when that F-16 had a mid-air collision with that C-130 and came crashing down on Green Ramp. There will be an investigation, it will be thorough and there will be lessons learned to ensure this doesn't happen again. But nothing will bring back the life of this commander.

RIP to the Batt CO...and thank you for his service to this grateful nation.

Amen, Fayetteville used to known as "Fatalburg". Hey, is the Silver Dollar Lounge still there?

We used to call it "Fayettnam" or "Fayruit"; however, this isn't the time. Man, the 525th and the BC at that. I was MI and Airborne myself until 2010, so I need to check my sources as to what happened. This is a serious tragedy that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around.

The "sniper" wasn't a sniper, he was a washed up buck sergeant that was hitting his RCP (retention control point) and was being forced out due to not performing to standard and hitting the max years for E-5 (8yrs at the time). The restaurant shooting was at Luigis' (Italian by the way), that guy was taken down by an SF Captain have dinner with his family. . The "gang initiation" was two rouge skin head types that were tried, convicted and are still in the graybar. The F-16 did not have a mid air collision with a C-130 in mid flight. The F16 was doing touch and go landings and hit a PARKED C-141B loading jumpers. Your facts are a little fuzzy.

Leslie-

Sounds like you need to adjust fire yourself because the "shooter" at Towle Stadium was taken out by a couple of SF guys running thru the housing area right before the 2nd Bde TF run. This took place prior to 0630 PT formation on Towle Stadium. Also, the F16 did hit a C-130 in mid-air! The C-130 landed but the F-16 pilot had to eject and his plane hit a parked C-141 on Green Ramp.

80Deuce is spot on... I was in the 504th that morning, the guy was hiding in the woods... sounds like "Sniping" to me. And his F-16 facts a correct also. On post when it happened...

And the soldier in Luigis restaruant was killed by a police officer, not a SF soldier.

The guy at Towle was stopped by 3 SF Soldiers though.

80Deuce's statement is correct; I was at Green Ramp when that @!$%# went down...Yes, my facts might be a little fuzzy, but I do remember vividly the mid-air mishap. You CAN blame the tower Safety of Flight (SOF) controller in the control tower that saw the mishap and told the pilot to bailout, you CAN blame the F-16 pilot for punching out without following BOLDFACE items on his checklist, but you have to understand the dynamics of the situation: SOF saw the F-16 flying without a radar nosecone- where a lot of the aircraft's avionics are stored and said that the pilot had no way of controlling the aircraft. When the pilot hears over his radio BAILOUT you don't wait for the second or third repeated order- YOU BAILOUT. In doing so, the aircraft is fly-by-wire and whatever you left your controls at is what that aircraft will stay at. It just so happened to be the pilot trying to pull up and to the right- a standard that they train to avoid collisions and he punched it in full afterburner trying to get away from the C-130. In doing so, he clipped the C-130's horizontal stabilizer and lost his nose. When he heard bailout both the pilot and the rear 'banked' pilot punched out and landed in close proximity to where the 75th and 74th Fighter Squadrons Operations Houses were. The canopy landed in the middle of the road by the 75th Fighter Squadon Ops house. The F-16 was now a guided missile on its way to Green Ramp. It DID slam into a C-141 that was loading up with airborne troops and I was just getting out of Building 900. It was a tragic day an one ingrained into my memory forever. A lot of good troops were lost that day and if you really had to blame anyone for this mishap, you can blame General Merrill Anthony McPeak. HE was the one that thought it was a really good idea to place fast movers (F-16s) with slow movers (A-10s and C-130s) and call it a composite wing. When you put fast and slow moving aircraft in one of the most busiest and tightest airspaces in the United States you have a disaster just waiting to happen. His idea of risk management stinks on ice.

Ophotfoot-
I thought there was a trial for the shooter? Why is the last name of "French" coming to mind? Didn't he blame it on alcohol and blacked out and not remembering what he did? Piss-poor excuse/defense but that is what I remember of the situation...It's been a while...

Yes you are right his name was French, he was shot by two different police officers but lived. He said he was drunk and blacked out. I was fuzzy on it also. Guess I should have checked google first :-)

Leslie-

A Fort Bragg soldier armed with three guns and shouting about President Clinton and homosexuals in the military shot people at random in a restaurant on Friday night, the police said, killing four and wounding six before he was shot down.

The soldier, Sgt. Kenneth Junior French, 22, was charged today with four counts of first-degree murder and six counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. Sergeant French, who was wounded in the leg and jaw, was listed in stable condition at Cape Fear Valley Medical Center.

The gunman killed the restaurant's owners, Peter and Ethel Parrous (GREEKS), who were 73 and 65 years old.

An off-duty police officer, Christopher Pryer, ran across the street when he heard the shots and shot Sergeant French in the leg, said Chief Ron Hansen of the Fayetteville Police Department. Sergeant French went down but got back up and continued firing, he said.

After more police officers arrived, Lieut. Bill Simons crawled through a rear door of the restaurant and shot Sergeant French again, disabling him.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/08/us/soldier-kills-4-people-and-hurts-6-in-a-restaurant-in-north-carolina.html

Sniper kills 1, wounds 20 at military base

FORT BRAGG, North Carolina (CNN) -- One soldier was killed and 20 others were hurt Friday when a sniper opened fire on an athletic field at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The sniper allegedly fired on his unit as they prepared to start a morning run, a Fort Bragg spokesman said.

Moments after the soldier opened fire from a wooded area, a group of unarmed Special Forces soldiers wrestled him to the ground. "We came under fire and we moved into the tree line because we realized we were the only ones who could do anything about it," said Staff Sgt. Anthony Minor.

Minor said that the gunman, who was firing at them, turned away. And as he did, he and Sgt. Edward Mongold tackled the man. "It was a fight for his life," Minor said. "It was a fight for our lives."

Minor, Mongold and several other soldiers disarmed the shooter and held him for the military police.

Army officials have identified the shooting suspect as 26- year-old Sgt. William J. Kreutzer, an infantry squad leader in the Second Brigade. Kreutzer's hometown is listed as Washington, D.C.

The dead soldier has been identified as 38-year-old Major Stephen Mark Badger, the intelligence officer for the Second Brigade. His hometown was not available, but his place of birth was Salt Lake City, Utah.

Maj. Rivers Johnson said about 1,300 troops from the 2nd Infantry Brigade of the 82nd Airborne were gathered at Towle Stadium at 6:30 a.m. EDT, preparing to start a 4-mile run, when shots rang out from the woods nearby.

Authorities from the Army's Criminal Investigation Division said three weapons were found when the suspect was apprehended. They included a 9mm pistol, a .22-caliber rifle, and a AR-15 rifle, the civilian equivalent of the M-16 assault rifle. Johnson said soldiers at the fort do not ordinarily carry Army-issued weapons.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9510/sniper/am/index.html

Don't forget about the "Fatal Vision" murders in 1970. Since I was using the first Apple ][ computers at the same time I became aware of the murders (and learned why that house down the road was boarded up), I still vaguely associate that computer with those murders.

Unfortunately, that was before my time; I did not get to Ft. Bragg until 1993...I will do some research on that later on today; it sounds like that was surreal moment in Fayetteville's history as well...

But my argument still stands: Fayetteville and Ft. Bragg are resilient and will bounce back from this latest incident...

Leslie-

PS: Part of my fuzzy memory comes back to me: The F-16 was conducting a Simulated Flameout (SFO) Exercise and the pilot throttled all the way down and called the tower as was proscribed on his kneeboard checklist to conduct the boldface checklist items. While he was conducting this exercise, he was NOT aware of the C-130 that was coming in on final; a low level angled approach on the runway (why does Runway 23 come to my mind?) So as he was running down the checklist his situation awareness was not about looking out his bubble canopy, it was about reading off the checklist and flying the plane in SFO mode...The phrase, "big sky, little airplane" does apply but again the airspace in question is one of the tightest and most busiest that two aircraft cannot occupy the same coordinates at the same time. This was the case.

@Telenguard,

The first Apple computer was released in 1976. Now what kind of computer were you using in 1970????

Suspect disgruntled E-4 after receiving an Article 15?

I would say, yes.

I was not too far off the mark; if they have enough for an Article 15, then they have enough for a court martial...Sad.

Doing that doesn't ensure access to resources for our largest corporations, you know, the ones that are people. So it will never happen. Our military isn't used for defense, it is used to ensure our ability to take what we want from whom we want when we want.

Ever since World War I the U.S. has allowed itself to have allies because we believe that those that live in the theater of war should shoulder some of the burden along with us. We have exercised that option ever since to include both Gulf Wars and the Afghanistan engagement. Part of that problem as we have seen with the likes of Pakistan is that every time we inform them of a pending operation, the bad guys apparently knew of our pending operation and we expend a lot of lead shooting at mountains and not achieving a thing. This includes this current Administration; they are not naive at this game. The Obama Administration even went as to try and elicit India to become engaged in the Afghanistan engagement but they resisted the peer pressure. I wonder what Obama's Administration lured them to the table with? Nevertheless, we will continue to lose lives and deposit as much lead in the mountains of Afghanistan until we finally set clear and decisive objectives for our men and women to achieve.

No, it hasn't been since the War of 1812 that we used our military in a defensive mission. And with deliberate purpose. Ever since the Spanish American War did we change the policies of how and when and where we would employ our military and then with President Teddy Roosevelt's Gunboat Diplomacy did we leverage our military might to achieve diplomatic and economic objectives. Since then, our military might has been leveraged to achieve our National Interests in the best interest to our National Security. People claimed that we were invading Iraq for cheaper oil and chanting slogans of no blood for oil. I ask you: when did our oil fall down to $1.25/gal? Here in Virginia, I haven't seen $1.25/gal in LOOOONG time.

Some thing to consider as to how and when our military will be leveraged to gain something from an economic standpoint:
SHUT DOWN THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ- Should Iran feel bold enough to close the Strait, they would prevent U.S. Corporations that have contractual agreements from being fulfilled. On top of that yes: oil prices would be artificially inflated due to pending military confrontation as well as increased demand for oil from economically developed countries. Granted, the U.S. has THE largest global presence in world, we would have other countries join us to shoulder the burden and spank Iran for their aggression. During this pending military confrontation, the risk of a LOT of countries with frail economies could teeter on the brink of destruction and set global development back by at least 30-40 years. When that occurs, if you read about the Great Depression in history, you ain't seen nothing yet.
CUTOFF/STRANGLE PRECIOUS METALS FROM THE WORLD ECONOMY- China holds the U.S. at risk by regulating how much of Earth's precious metals are released into the economy. We are not talking about gold, we are talking about iridium and platinum and other precious metals that an advanced economy such as ours needs to develop the electronics that everyone thrives upon. Yes, it is THEIR previous metals and they have every right to maintain their stockpiles and regulate it as necessary, but sooner or later a starving United States might determine that the risk of going to war with China (who has nukes by the way to include ICBMs that can reach the U.S.) is acceptable if they do not allow us to thrive in this market.
DELIBERATE EMPLOYMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS- Such activities as cutting down and burning the forests of the Amazon, or even Indonesia have already started ecological nightmares by springing El Nino and reducing the oxygen generating plant life required to regulate this planet's atmospheric temperature. In doing so, When the atmospheric temperatures rise and the Arctic Ice Caps melt, raising the waterlines of New York, Florida, New Orleans, Houston, and even Southeastern Virginia (Tidewater Region), causing economic disasters of epic proportions- displacing hundreds of thousands-perhaps millions of people in our country alone- never mind other countries, we just might go in and use our military to take over governments to change the policies that were set in motion decades ago in an attempt to reverse the damage that would occur.

Sure, we would try to use our diplomatic edge to sway change, but what if those countries involved in the scenarios I just described said, "NO."??? Then what do we do?

I know I just spewed a lot of horse @!$%#, but just think about the ramifications if one or a combination of those scenarios were to be employed. If we didn't have a strong military to ensure that checks and balances, or treaties, or morally right decisions were enforceable, the United States could be effectively brought to its knees in less than a generation's time.

I need another beer...This manifesto is done for now.

Well I would say repelling the Japanese invasion of Attu Island in the Aleutians a defensive operation. That is unless you consider Alaska prior to statehood as being other than US territory. Then there's also the Columbus NM raid by Pancho Villa that resulted in US troops crossing the border into Mexico to take care of another Mexican troublemaker. The Philippine islands were a US protectorate at the time as well, so freeing them from the Japanese invaders could be considered defensive in nature. As for Korea and Vietnam, those we probably could've stayed out of. Same goes for the wars in Iraq, but then again, without our intervention, Saddam Hussein would've had an arsenal of atomic weapons (fission weapons like we used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima) by now. We found over 50 TONS of Yellow cake uranium and over 2 tons of enriched uranium in Iraq. The IAEA was more than a little tiffed we removed the 2 tons without their permission, but the military determined that the situation wasn't safe enough to leave it there. Any one who doesn't realize how dangerous a situation that would've been doesn't have a clue. Even Walter Cronkite got it right when he ran a special on what would happen if a radiological dirty bomb were detonated in a major city. It wouldn't be as nasty as a nuke going off, but the mess would be dangerous for decades just the same.

@Lt Scrounge-4042308
Good points all around. Perhaps the Pancho Villa operations was a cross border raid and MG Pershing led an expedition into Mexico and came up dry.
Pershing publicly claimed the expedition was a success, though he complained privately to his family that President Wilson had imposed too many restrictions, which made it impossible for him to fulfill his mission.^[22] He admitted to having been "outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn"^{[cite this quote]} and wrote that "when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."

Still Lt Scrounge-4042308's inputs are valid and should be entered into record to support my foundation.

To [O.O.] #10.2 - Nobody ever said that cheaper oil was the goal for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

We invaded for the oil. Specifically, the U.S. invaded Iraq to forestall a substantial drop in the price of oil.

The goal was acheived - make sure that Iraq's oil stays in the ground.

Iraq has the #2 oil production capacity for export after #1 Saudi Arabia.

Following the First Persian Gulf war in 1991 - Iraq's ability to export their oil was limited by the United Nations sanctions.

From 1991 to 2003 Iraq was restrained from contributing to the worldwide supply of oil, thus preventing the price from falling.

The greatest beneficiary of the situation is the country with the largest volume of oil sold for export - Saudi Arabia.

For example, let's say that by preventing Iraq from adding their 3 million barrels/day to world oil suppy the price of oil was kept 10 dollars/barrel higher than it would have been.

That translates into an extra 10 dollars X 10 million barrels/day for Saudi Arabia = 100 million dollars/day extra profit.

Russia is probably the country with the 2nd largest extra profit earned on oil and gas sales by keeping Iraq's oil in the ground.

The United Nations sanctions restricting Saddam Hussein's Iraq from exporting oil are short term measures which expire periodically. A new vote is required to approve the extension of the U.N. sanctions for another term.

In early 1993 U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a historic presentation appealing to the United Nations on a vote to authorize military action against Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

At the time, the U.N. sanctions term was nearing expiration. Also the U.N. Security panel which votes the sanctions was set for another rotation of its Non-Permanent Members.

The incoming alignment of members would not be able to sustain a majority vote of approval for extending the sanctions another term. Iraq would once again be free to sell their full oil production capacity into the world market.

Correction: Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations was early 2003. The Coalition invasion of Iraq was launched in April 2003.

Doctor Cornelius-

I remember quite vividly seeing the antiwar protestors on the news with their signs that were written in red, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL"

Iraq was allowed to sell its oil so long as the revenue accrued was paid to Kuwait as part of their reparations for the atrocities the Iraqis did while occupying Kuwait. Iraq resisted the notion that they would pay Kuwait so they opted not to put their oil on global market. Later on in the timeline, Iraq was permitted to sell their oil on the global market so long as the revenues accrued were to purchase medical and humanitarian supplies to help the children and elderly of Iraq.

Iraq had every opportunity to get out of the rut they were in so long as they abided by the U.N. Resolutions that were clearly documented and that they agreed to after the ceasefire. I would say their pride and nationalism got in the way.

The notion that the U.S. or any other country deliberately inflating the cost of oil globally does NOT increase any economy except inflating costs across the board. When the cost of fuels for tankers and global freight increases the cost to the consumers and slows down growth in any economy.

If that were the case, when we started the sanctions against Iran would have artificially inflate the prices of gas again across the planet. The only time it actually DID inflate was whenever Iran did saber-rattling against us, but NOT from the sanctions themselves. Additionally, if that were the case, why then have gasoline prices gone down approx .50 cents in the last two months? If the U.S. wanted to continue artificially inflated the cost of oil, they are doing something wrong based on your original premise...

May I ask where you are citing your statements?

Doctor Cornelius-
PS: When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kuwait's oil was taken off the world market and the cost of oil skyrocketed. As part of the sanctions that the U.N. put on Iraq was an embargo to prevent Iraq from profiteering illegally from the war booty (ie: Kuwait's oil) after occupying Kuwait. It wasn't until two things occurred: The U.S. opened up it's strategic reserves and U.S. with its allies liberated Kuwait and capped off their oil wells did the cost of oil go back down.

PPS: So now that we are 'out' of Iraq and Kuwait's oil is back on the market, what is stopping Iraq from putting their oil on the global market? I mean besides the insurgent attacks on the oil pipelines in Iraq, once that situation has stabilized, what is stopping Iraq? And if you are saying that the insurgents were in on the conspiracy to prevent Iraq from putting their oil out on the market does NOT make sense. The only issues I now see are the Kurds against the Shiites as to who control's the country's oil...

"Soldier, your weapon is full of sand and crud. Would you bet your life it would fire in a combat situation?"

My dad was 91 years when he told me hated the military,having flown missions over Burma.What do you know about idiots?

geeitsme: Your dad fought in the one of the worst battle campaigns ever. All war is hell, but the Burma campaign was a particularly vile piece of hell. Having read a good deal of history of that campaign, I can only imagine why you father waited till he was 91 to speak up.

My undying regard for your father and the suffering he kept inside himself for so many years.

Jason, you're panties are in such a wad that you did not see Steve was actually defending the military.

@ED-689903....I will thank you for him.He passed in January.

They must have had an extended weekend coming up and the safety brief is a typical thing they do before releasing them. they tell you to not drive drunk, screw with a condom, don't beat your wife, stay out of trouble.

Maybe it was that cop who was giving a gun demonstration to school kids, who accidentally shot himself. "I'm the only person in this room who has the training to handle this gun." BANG!!! "Uh everybody remain calm, I seemed to have shot myself".

Hey! Everyones got jokes. Condolences to the families involved.

I will be interested to find out if this was someone returning from combat or scheduled to be sent into a combat zone. After the Army sergeant killed 16 Afghan civilians I can only hope that we've become increasing mindful of the stresses that our troops are being subject to. I'm just happy that an end is in sight in Afghanistan and that were done with combat operations in Iraq, where we never should have been in the first place.

Maybe not safer, but certainly more polite.

Yeah denver, the wild west was called the "wild west" because of the rampant politeness.

And all those countries where guns are unregulated, they're totally polite and nobody ever dies from gun violence either! You know, like most third-world nations...

Ernie, you can get one to match your purse

wlee-950886, you can get a pink one for your boyfriend.

@raddave: The "Wild West" was anything but. There were actually very few gunfights, compared to today's standards. Most of the stories people "know" were created by writers to sell penny novels. Check official records. Check the diaries and books written by many of the real gunfighters. Do the math: from 1860 until 1940 equals 80 years. Most died in the 20's or 30's though, but they did leave first-hand accounts. Uncle Sam's Library (Lib. of Congress) has many of them. So too does the Texas Rangers. Just ask.

Please explain.

Don't enlist in gov't military servitude.

Please don't, and when we need an idiot's brigrade we will draft!!!!

Jim, Do you know why the death rates for Iraq and Afghanistan are so low compared to Vietnam? Because of advances in emergency medical treatment. It's NOT because soldiers of today face less of a threat.

The military never really gets all that much better or worse. It's always been (and always will be) a strange cross section of society, populated by a combination of people that have nowhere else to go/no other opportunities (IE "The bottom 5% of the high school graduating class.") and folks that are genuine motivated to serve their country (often coming from families with long histories of military service). It gets good apples and bad apples, and just like in "normal" civilian society, you don't hear about the good apples because good apples being good isn't "news."

It's bad apples behaving badly that gets headlines, but the vast majority of our military forces are decent, hardworking people. Or at least as decent and morally sound as the bulk of society. I may not agree with the notion that military service...even in a combat zone...automatically makes someone a "hero" (and I say this as a former Army soldier), but I equally disagree with the notion that the entire military is degenerate or morally corrupt. It's not...it's basically just a smaller version of regular society.

The military cannot be brushed with such a broad stroke anymore than you can take one incident in the civilian sector and spash all Americans with that label. It is a wide cross section of our society. Some join out of patriotism, some join out of sheer desperation. Some that join have advanced degrees, some barely got by in high school Either individual has the same chance for success or failure depending on their actions. I graduated high school with high grades, went to college, decided to join the military because the jobs weren't there to allow me to start working for my living. My husband knew college wasn't for him, so he enlisted as well, but he also did well in high school.

Rather than hating on the personnel that staff our fighting force, perhaps you should rail against the politicians that put our men and women in situations that leave them will little recourse, fighting an enemy that has no respect for life, and uses children and women as barriers while we are told not to fire upon them, and still try to defend ourselves. Those same draft dodging politicians that Carter decided to pardon of their crimes (draft dodgers that caused someone elses child to fight and maybe die in their stead). The politicians worried about keeping their power to keep their $$ coming.

Those volunteers in our military? They keep a draft or required service from being mandatory. So if you didn't serve, it is because someone volunteered to take your place. So long as we have enough volunteers to man our military, it will remain a volunteer force. Once the volunteers stop showing up, you better believe the governnemt will find a way to fill its ranks.

@Just li'l Ole Me:

Well-stated.