Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He's not being fired because of his fight inAfghanistan. The fight is a black mark on his record. The army is reducing its number of troops, and any with black marks are the first to go.
... Which is really, really dumb. Here we have a decorated member of the armed services who wants to continue to serve. Their arbitrary means of identifying who needs to go is ridiculous. Plus, I believe that reducing the ranks now is insanity. There are other ways to cut costs. Getting rid of personnel - especially highly qualified ones - is not the answer.
Anonymous wrote:... Which is really, really dumb. Here we have a decorated member of the armed services who wants to continue to serve. Their arbitrary means of identifying who needs to go is ridiculous. Plus, I believe that reducing the ranks now is insanity. There are other ways to cut costs. Getting rid of personnel - especially highly qualified ones - is not the answer.
Anonymous wrote:He's not being fired because of his fight inAfghanistan. The fight is a black mark on his record. The army is reducing its number of troops, and any with black marks are the first to go.
Anonymous wrote:By the way it's could've ( the contraction of could have ) not could of. I am not grammar police but that's a common mistake that I would hate for you to put in a work email - lest you get disproportionately disciplined like the gentleman under question.
Anonymous wrote:They operate in outposts and make on the ground decisions. You are being purposefully obtuse. I'm sure whisking the green beret away and punishing HIM ( and thereby giving the green light to this behavior) Did not help the boy, or other future boys in his situation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not condoning the actions of the Afghan commander. But also not condoning the actions of the green beret. What do you think is still happening to the child and mother? Did the actions the green beret took help or harm the child/mother? Was there a way to get better results working within the system?
Seriously? No, of course not. The Afghan police officer was the system.
Anonymous wrote:Not condoning the actions of the Afghan commander. But also not condoning the actions of the green beret. What do you think is still happening to the child and mother? Did the actions the green beret took help or harm the child/mother? Was there a way to get better results working within the system?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For me it would depend on if he was intervening in an active assault or was he reacting to something that had already occurred?
It makes no difference to me. He was the one there, the one experiencing everything around him, the one who knew what had happened, the one who had to deal with this distraught mother, and the one who knew the only way to deal with this horrible monster. He also has to live the rest of his life with all of the crap he has seen. I don't second guess him for a minute. We should be so fortunate to have men like him in our midst. If he wants to serve us, please let him!
Would you have the same opinion if it was a police officer that did the same thing?
Police officers are apprehending someone in the clear chain of command. This green beret was trying to impress on a partner that his actions were not acceptable . We know what's happened to the green beret. What do you suppose happened to the child rapist mother beater? Anything? Or is he still on our payroll with lots of others like him?