Comments on: Lies, damn lies, and statistics

by: Jim

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:56:41 +0000

It would appear that both sides of the debate has merit. Surely a number of our youth join the military because of very few/bad choices. But, as John tries to point out, those experineces, while serving, turns a lot of those lives around. Yes, I guess, because of the trauma involved, some of the good go bad. But I would surmise that far more are rewarded with what and how it takes to be a good person. Carol’s reference to driving after to much to drink has nothing to do with this. That’s just a personal no-no on her part. And of course she is right. We all strive to do better but it does take time. The good news is that far more of our youth will come back better, stronger and with eyes far more open than we as adults could have ever given them.

by: John McCrarey

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:21:57 +0000

Well, the whole point of the article was that the returning vets are time bombs. No mention that the rate of violent crime amongst vets is lower than the general population. So, that a statistically smaller number of vets commit violent acts is news why?

And why doesn’t the Times find it worthy to write long articles about the true heroes? Answer:
because that does not fit their anti-military mind frame.

by: Carol

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:54:21 +0000

The very first sentence is a tip off that not all 121 killings were committed after they returned home. Read it again “or were charged with.” The article reads “killings” not murders. Where exactly did they fail to get their facts straight?

Since when is reporting that a vet committed murder propaganda? The liberal bias of the story is the implication that the actions of the soldiers involved is somehow attributable to war trauma-you know the “its not their fault” refrain.

The people who join the military are not cut from a finer cloth than those who choose not to join. In general they are less educated and have had fewer opportunities-hence the decision to join the military. These days a fair number of new recruits have had run-ins with the law prior to their enlistment.

My point is the men and women who make up the military have their share of bad eggs-people who would have gone driving after drinking too much, people who would kill a spouse in anger. They don’t earn halos simply by fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, they earn our gratitude. However, that gratitude does not mean we turn a blind eye to their indiscretions.

At least one branch of the military has engaged in a similar thought process (war trauma) that fueled the Times article. The U.S. Army at Ft. Bragg instituted a battery of interventions, to include counseling, for returning war veterans after 5 spouses were killed in the first wave of returning vets. Does this mean that the U.S. Army is guilty of dishonoring the troops?