US Soldier Kills 16 - Where Should He Face Trial?

http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-threatens-behead-u-soldiers-over-kandahar-shootings-053929285.html

Dumb, people in the military had nothing to do with a decision to go to Afghanistan, in fact at the time, under the pretense of going after Al Qaeda, support for this war was unanimous in the US and the rest of the world.

He then goes on to say that we should be doing something in Africa instead, as if the same great decision makers who decided going after Al Qaeda wasn't enough and that we should nation build in Afghanistan would somehow make a better decision in assassinating warlords in Africa. Same ***, different continent. The basic premise of his post is that somehow Afghanistan and our presence is wrong, yet our presence elsewhere is okay - rather than a logical or intelligent conclusion that either a) we shouldn't be anywhere or b) if we were really going to stop a war on terror we would be in Saudi Arabia.


Plenty of people join the military for college degrees, in fact, that's where a lot of the problem comes from. You get people who aren't really cut out for the job and think it will be easy, only to find out that they don't have what it takes to stomache being away from loved ones, seeing death, being in danger (perceived or real).

As far as employers, I just have to mention my rank and organization I worked for and I would be hired almost anywhere where the position may require leadership and experience but not technical experience in a specific field. Employers especially love medical personnel from my organization because not only are they better trained than any nurse or EMT but they know they have the experience and capability to handle any situation. So, dumb statement.


Right, because America has that capability. If you can't see the problem with handing this man over to the Afghans, so he can in turn be handed to the Taliban and made a political effigy of, I don't know what else to say.


lol

he shouldn't face trial on FFXIAH.com

He will face trial in the US, and since he has done multiple tours in Iraq/Afghanistan he will get life imprisonment or due to TBI he will be placed in a military psychiatriuc facility until he he either fit to stand trial for his Court Martial, and face his UCMJ or they will seperate him from the military he will serve sometime in jail or get time served, and be released. As for these people running there mouths you dont know what people go through being in Iraq, and Afghanistan so you run your mouths about things you'll never have to deal with, and know nothing about at all. Hand him over to the Afghan goverment thats the stupidest ***thats ever been said.

About the employers not caring thing, that just isn't true. Many employers seek out individuals with military background. I know for fact, in just the company I work for, if you have military background and a clean criminal record, you are almost a shoe-in.

"Dumb, people in the military had nothing to do with a decision to go to Afghanistan, in fact at the time, under the pretense of going after Al Qaeda, support for this war was unanimous in the US and the rest of the world."

Making statements for the world now? Not a shot in hell in was unanimous in the world but I agree it was supported by American's and allies in Nato not wanting to get in the way. And yes it was then and still is a dumb choice. We have directly funded and trained Al Qaeda members for years before finally an attacked landed in our homeland and it was to close for comfort and pretend to act shocked as if we haven't provoke them in any way. Then American eye's finally starting learning what has been going across the sea for years and years to an extent because most of them only know what the media puts out. And if you believe the news 100% of the time this is prolly a waste. Not to mention keeping are forces there is a military decision.

As far as the Africa comment, that the American pubic knew about way before this whole war on terror wasn't meant as we should be over there instead. It was a generalize statement saying there are other and much larger problems in the world like the mass genocide going on in Africa everyday.

Also mentioning your rank and mos will get you hired just about anywhere? Even if that was anywhere near true which it isn't even a glorified DD214 might get you the interview but far from the said job short of it being another ex service member. "Leadership" is shown in action not on paper.

What do you expect when you put a massive amount of guns out on the street with all Highschool drop outs?. The Gov't only shifting the problem within our street to others territory.

I don't think you have a clue about Al Qaeda, our involvement with them, reasons for attacking the US and the buildup to doing so.


Nope. Al Qaeda was established after/during the end of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia and received some support due to his heroic position as the leader of the Arab mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Many think he was the overall leader, but Afghanistan/Pakistan being a very tribal culture, it would be unlikely for them to band together behind an Arab. Osama bin Laden lead the Arabs, Hekmatyar Gulbuddin lead the Pashto in the northeast near Jalalabad, Mullah (he's not a real Mullah) Mohammad Omar lead a brutal portion of Harakati Inqilabi Islami under Nek Mohammad which later became the Taliban, and Jalalludin Haqqani secured the Waziri support in central Afghanistan. Why does this matter? It doesn't really.

So Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia and was a hero. It was here he formed many of his ties and relationships that would allow him to secure financial support in the coming decades. When the US invaded Iraq and used Saudi Arabia as a staging area, instead of having Osama bin Laden take care of the problem with his forces as he did in Afghanistan (an Islamic solution to the problem in Islamic holy lands), it really chaffed bin Laden's hide. He spent some time in Sudan with Omar al-Bashir (the guy who mercs people in Darfur). He built relationships here, including the establishment of Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (spearheaded by AMZ's successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri).

Of course, there were the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, the WTC attack in 1992 and numerous public statements from Osama bin Laden declaring open war against the United States. This was happening because of our support for Israel and our actions in the middle east. In this timeframe, Osama bin Laden would be the only person to declare war on the United States and he was mostly overlooked by Senior Intelligence and Executive Office officials. Before, during, and after attacks that he claimed responsibility for.

But you're right, you know more about this than I do.

---

Keeping our forces anywhere is not a military decision, people in the military do not choose where they go to fight wars.

I never said rank and MOS, I said rank and position within my organization. Rambling on in run on sentences with incoherent, illogical, or opinions based in pure fallacy does not an argument make.

Boom. Lawyered!

This should be at the top of every page. There are some intelligent, responsible, well informed people on this board... but even so, everyone here is very far removed from this situation. The question has devolved from "how should he be tried?" to "what punishment should he get?" And even though there are probably thousands of people doing it around the world, I am sure that one of the last things this situation needs is a bunch of random people trying to sort it out.

So you pulled up a history review, most likely a google search, of bin Laden and a few know connected persons of interest and some how you believe you're word is absolute truth is what I am suppose to get from this? Or perhaps you were on some antiterror secret society board that left you in direct contact with what bin Laden did at all times. Doesn't mean one bit that we didn't train and fund(used arms) to them as I said. I never once referenced that I know more on the subject because personally I have other things in life to do.

I mean if you honesty want to start this whole back story stuff then lets start with the real reason we ultimately went to Afgan along with terror finally getting the support needed to "invade".

IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE

America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:

Also who was said president during this time? If you can't remember it was Bush. Who is well known for substantial links with the oil industry.I can pull up information to wow I must be right and all knowing on the subject.

Oh I am sorry I assumed when you said rank you were quoting it from a military standpoint. Well forgive me. However even in the sense of stature in said "Organization" "I would be hired almost anywhere where the position may require leadership and experience" still holds the same invalid truth to it. All though it's cool that you hold yourself in such high esteem.

/tinfoilhat

I spent about 3 years combined in Afghanistan and we still haven't built that pipeline 10 years later.

It will happen in time I am sure as one thing in America never changes, Greed. Why use my own when I can use yours. Anyways I not trying to pick a fight with you or anything and this is increasing getting more and more off subject and I will stop before it gets taken as an attack towards you which it isn't.

I also spent 2 tours in Afgan but that's here no there. Gonna head to work take it easy.

What in the holy hell are you rambling about?

I like the part where you make it sound like us wanting a more western friendly government over there is a bad thing. Let me reword that for you. It's a bad thing that we want a real government and not a bunch of warlords who can't govern their way out of a wet paper bag to lead a nation that is creating the most heroine and terrorists in the world.

Was the war about oil? Who cares? It certainly hasn't helped oil prices at all. Beyond that, I firmly believe Iraq and Afghanistan needed change. Iraq needed to get rid of Saddam because he was committing genocide that is far worse than anything that occurring in Africa currently. Afghanistan had no real government which allowed for ridiculous amounts of drug trafficking and training of terrorists.

If the war was entirely about oil we failed miserably. However, some really good things came from it anyways. People don't care about that crap, they just care about what affects them now. I do believe what we did was the right thing to do. Most of the time the right thing to do is the unpopular choice.

Saddam was just one of many leaders who killed his own people to stay in power so by your logic we should be Syria right now, should have invaded Libya years ago, should have permanent bases in central Africa to wipe out the warlords, should have wiped North Korea off the map before they got nukes, should be in Venezuela overthrowing Chavez, and should be in SE Asia championing freedom.

Team America: World Police. If the government isn't friendly to us then why aren't we there shoving the stars and stripes up their ***?

What did Saddam have to do with 9/11? What imminent threat was he to security of the US? Do you have more powerpoint slides to show of those suspected WMD sites? Was Saddam planning a strike on the US?

I can see the argument for intervention in Afghanistan post-9/11 and drone strikes but the invasion of Iraq? No. It was a stupid idea all around and lives went to waste because of it, it more than likely delayed the death of Bin Laden, we wasted nearly 2 trillion dollars, it set us on a nation building adventure for nearly ten years all while we spread our resources thin.

History will remember the Iraq as a huge blunder not because it was an unpopular choice but because it was a completely misguided effort drawn up by war hawks who convinced people that there was a boogeyman in Iraq out to get us yet when we turned the lights on it was just the curtains blowing in the breeze.

200,000+ people died to Saddam who cares about the WMDs. How can you say he shouldn't have been taken down? I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Saddam was a ridiculous dictator that needed to go. There are plenty of others that need to go also. Hunt them all down I say. They all deserve their places in hell.

To your world police comment I say this: Who else has the balls to do it? The door is open to all takers. Or should we just let all these fanatics murder people?

Sparthosx your stance is far more lax than mine on the subject clearly. However, you certainly can't want to sit back and let these people murder everyone simply because it isn't happening to you. If you do then your entire argument is invalid on the sole fact that you simply don't care what isn't happening to you. I'm sure if you lived in one of these places you be crying to the world for help.

This is the default conservative rhetoric now that enough time has passed so the majority of people forgot they were sold these wars under the false pretense that Saddam was "on the verge" of nuclear capability. If you've also forgotten I will remind you. That was complete ***.


Was the war about oil? Has it helped gas prices? Nope sure as hell hasn't. You know who it has helped? Oil companies who were already rich as ***, and are making record profits as per usual without a single *** given about regular citizens or members of the armed services.

Is Iraq, and Afghanistan a complete shithole? Absolutely. Is the area experiencing any more or less atrocities then other places in the world that is debatable. What isn't debatable is that the middle East is by far, and away far richer in fossil fuels than other areas with similar conflicts.


Have some good things come out of our occupation there for the last ten years? Sure some complete pieces of ***have been removed from power. Unfortunately there is a long line of new ones ready, and eager to take their place. That area of the world has been unstable for as long as anyone can remember. We need to GTFO of that sewer, and stop wasting American lives in a war we were sold on false pretenses.

The fact is we can not afford this sort of ***anymore. The country is in serious alarming debt. We are being left in the dust by other countries in areas such as education, health care, manufacturing, etc. We need to bring our troops home, and have them focus their abilities on rebuilding America's infrastructure. While simultaneously giving them the benefits, and assistance they need to reintegrate.

I can agree we do now need to focus on ourselves and strengthen our own country so that we can further help the entire world again in the future. However, I will not back down that genocidal dictators all need to be put in their place eventually when we have the resources.

I think too many people only think "lolnoWMDs!" and too few people remember the kind of ruler he was, what he did to his own people, how he handled Kuwait - both invading in the first place, and complying with the terms of his defeat.

As far as the whole "Team America: World Police" thing goes... it's tough... on one hand, all over the world are people and countries relying on US foreign policy for survival. At the same time, as a country, we do screw up too much. So what would happen were the US to go isolationist for a decade or two? I think we'd start hearing how people really feel. I'd guess countries and causes all over the world would be begging for "US imperialism" or "US interference" or whatever. Not sure though.

It does remind me of the earthquakes in Chile last year, when the President said the usual "the US is ready to assist Chile in whatever ways we can, either by money or materials to help in the rescue and rebuilding process yada yada yada..." and Chile basically said, "no thanks, we're good." I just really liked seeing that for some reason.

Your ideal is exceedingly quixotic.

America is just one country on this planet and while we have the largest military force by far it doesn't mean we can just roll up anywhere we feel like and take down leaders because we don't agree with them. Not only does it shove the burden on our own people (who have their own issues to worry about) but it denies people around the globe from discovering their own paths. Some may choose democracy, others may choose theocracy and still others may choose monarchies but who are we to tell other nations what to do?

Like America in her infancy, let the people of other nations rise up against their dictators and if we see fit provide support assistance. This big brother, "we're gonna wipe you out" mentality does nothing but entangle our country in affairs we further complicate by being around.

It seems you want to choose the world police path but I think you fail to see that your logic leads to the bankruptcy of this country and then we'll be the ones needing assistance and it won't be there. The decision to intervene in other nations should never be taken lightly and used sparingly - like a scalpel and not a sledgehammer.

I feel for the people around the globe who are cloaked in injustices wrought by their leaders but I'd much prefer to worry about the enemies at my own gates before wondering what's going on 6000 miles away in a foreign nation.

We as a nation already donate more and frankly put out some of the most globally conscious people in the world so I can say that not every conflict where people die is a matter of our military concern. Is it troubling people die? Sure. But guess what? Intervention could lead to more deaths. There is no panacea for global conflict. Team America isn't going to save the world in time for bedtime.

Saddam is just one of many homicidal dictators. What made him special enough to take down? Did we just spin a wheel and it happen to land on Iraq for Team America to kick *** in? There were no benevolent reasons for invading Iraq, just war hawks looking to profit while selling the American people this idea of imminent Armageddon if we didn't get in there and stop Saddam from getting nukes.

Alot of people got fooled, some did join to help the Iraqi people but guess what? The jury is still out on if Iraq will turn out better than it was under Saddams rule. We've got Iran wielding a ton of influence in the region, anti-American sentiments brewing thanks to the years of occupation and we're trillions in the hole.

Democracy sure is expensive.


Except we don't need to go full-tilt isolationist. What we need to do though is stop trying to shove ideals on people who obviously aren't ready for it. We show up in a third-world country and try to ram democracy down their throats all while back at home our own democratic process is eroding from corruption and voter apathy.

It's like a really bad joke.

Instead of trying to tell people what to do and directing regime change how about we try to use our foreign military intervention less casually? Food aid? Humanitarian intervention? Logistical support? Not a problem. Action because dictator #1234 is unleashing a crusade of death upon his people? How about we think before we act or set some conditions before we get in there? You might just avoid removing one bad guy only to have him replaced by an even bigger bad guy.


And we won't be seeing much more of that if we continue to sell ourselves as the world police force. We helped Chile when they had miners trapped as we should have yet there is a distinct difference between helping during an accident or disaster and fighting a war.

Syria is an ongoing cauldron of death yet where is the international community? Where is the Arab league putting their people on the line to save the people of Syria? Oh right, America will save them and if they dont? It's Americas fault.

Like I said, a really bad joke.

Afghans are unable to understand or comprehend such a violent massacre. A lone gunman running around executing people for no reason.

Luckily Americans learn about that in school though.

No employer will put a veteran over a 4-year college grad from a respected university. You really think a veteran has a shot vs a UCSF/Berkley grad? Your forgetting we university grads acquire experience in labs and hospitals as part of our curriculum.

I compared a potential UCLA B.S. RN vs an Army RN. You do know how prestigious UCLA is right? I'm not talking about low ranked universities. If you get a decent GPA in h.s. and get decent SAT/AP scores- no reason u can't get into a good 4-year.

Its not a dumb statement you obviously know nothing regarding education programs rankings. U.S. News did not rank Nurse corps in the top 20 at all, for Nursing Schools. Nurse corps DOES have one of the top cRNA programs in the nation, i will give you that. Nurse Grad School Rankings

Another interesting link talking about veterans and the difficulties they face on the job market vs college grads with experience/internships.Veterans face tough job market
""I was in the infantry," he says. "What do you do with that in the real world?"" -USA Today Article

I wasn't actually suggesting becoming an isolationist country, The point I was trying to make was that "the rest of the world's" reactions and opinion of the US is pretty much only based on whether or not we're doing what they want. If you look at it from a spending point of view, we throw money around like it's cool. If people like what the country does, they can't get enough of it. If people don't like what it does, we're the absolute devil. To me, it doesn't make sense.

I'm not going to argue whether or not the war in Iraq was appropriate or justified, but what made it "special" was the war before that and our perceived idea of responsibility to the situation. Whether Iraq was any kind of threat or not, or whether more talking and waiting was the better solution, or whether it was really a super secret skulls and bones group of mega billionaires controlling the US government and trying to make more money, we all have our own opinions.

It has absolutely been prosecuted in the most haphazard and ineffective way. That is absurd, and I would say that its inexcusable, except that a lot of times, for the US government, "inexcusable" means "normal."

I hate this world police role we've put ourselves in. Originally, the messages of self determination and liberty and freedom from human rights abuse were good and noble. But anymore, you don't see that. You're right - we don't know if Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Syria, or ANYWHERE we screw around with) will be better or worse. And the US certainly isn't better off because of it. We can't tell if anyone is safer, happier, or more free.

Bad joke? Absolutely. I hope one day, though, we do just one thing right in a row.

Funny thing about that is, that most medics that come of of the military in 4 years are already 50-75% of the way to a completed degree. And they have real world, no sh!t experience, like trying to stop a sucking chest wound as a guy is bleeding all over, or applying a pressure bandage to someone that has a clean entry/exit wound (and no broken bones)...the vast majority of employers in the field will take a RN with experience at war and most of their degree done over a inexperienced RN with a finished cert/degree.

also lol, "i was in the infantry"...what do you do with that? you make big bank with a personal security firm that goes to other countries and guards VIP's, friend of mine that used to teach at ranger bat is make 300k+ a year right now for about 6 months of work a year...it's all about being smart enough to know how to sell yourself, like any career field.

Still all the stories of army vets that are homeless or have very hard time finding jobs, I find it hard to believe they can get a job very easily.

oh that wasnt me lol. the infantry quote is fromt hat USAtoday article. I posted a link to it up there.

You really think R.N. that go to a university like UCLA have "no experience" upon graduating, that isn't applicable to the real world. Working in a county ER is just as bad working on the battle field. U think gunshot victims dont walk into NYC and Los Angeles ER rooms in a daily basis? Experience is experience. A nice degree from a prestigious institution is just icing on the cake when you apply to a job.