Leaderboard

Of course, I'm pleased he is free. However, I do not share in your enthusiastic willingness to free 100 Al Qaeda terrorists to do it. Sounds like you'd support him making statements against the US, as long as it serves his interests to get free. Again, there is a reasonable limit. Whether he was very stupid, or just in the wrong place at the wrong time may be determined in the near future. But that has no bearing on whether he should be freed. Capitulating to our enemy by giving in to whatever works for them is not acceptable. Welcome to the military. (Surprisingly, you may even die.) Keep in mind that 3 Americans died looking for him, and the amount of resources used to find him was astronomical. For his sake, I hope his capture wasn't a result of him doing something really dumb. Ask the JPRC folks what their take on this is.

He's back. And to those thinking we don't negotiate with terrorists or anybody else it's a movie line not a reality. The state department does it under the table all the time. We did it for Durant in Somalia, we did it for guys we know broke the faith in Vietnam. The important precedent is the enemy will never have to sit there and think "will this guy be worth anything to them or should I just kill him," when it's the next guy. Would I rather a dozen snake eaters come get him in the middle of the night, absolutely but sometimes it doesn't work out that way. What he did or didn't do, that will come out a the debrief. What happens because of it will play out after all the political show is over. The important thing is we are deciding the fate of one of our own and not some goat fucking shit head in some god forsaken shithole village. It's like the rule of I can hit my kids... You do it and I will f'ing murder you.

I heard he was approved for VSP last week.

"Someone is missing? Wait...WTF? Why didn't somebody tell us? We have a right to know, goddammit!" Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

I'm glad he's back. I'm very unhappy that in doing so, we just validated that we will, in fact, negotiate with terrorists, and in doing so we put a price on every American's head.

Disagree. The BAD thing is the concept of "militarization" of civil law enforcement...and the execution of these raids w/o sufficient intel and CDA.

Yeah reading his twitter feed is unnerving. He wrote(since deleted) on 28 May "I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners, God will repay for the death of every Afghan child. Amen". He seems like a gitmo, islamist, taliban, pakistan sympathizer.

Isn't it believed he walked out the front gate of his FOB? I'm glad this guy is back but unlike O'Grady, the Vietnam guys or the humvee, they were put into enemy hands or jeopardy by hostile actions or being near hostile territory. If he was on a patrol and was captured that's one thing, if he walked out the front gate then I don't believe he or anyone should receive special treatment even if he was held for five years. Its like the idiots who go hiking on the dispited Iranian border and then complain about being picked up by Iran. Yes because of who we are we will move heaven and earth to bring you home, but once you are home you may still have to face the music for your stupidity. I'm sure though he'll be touted a hero regardless of the actual circumstances anything negative will be swepped under the rug.

Bristol brewing company actually.

I agree. But you still bring him up on charges, sentence him to 'time served' (which would just be a no-confinement judgement with it made explicit as to why the judgement included no confinement) and a bad conduct/dishonorable discharge. But I wouldn't be surprised to see him gracefully moved along with all the commensurate lifelong medical care and benefits that will come along with a normal discharge, plus a lump sum of back salary that he earned at a rank he was promoted to while in captivity. A slap in the face to those who put their lives on the line to try and get him back.

I'm betting a human version of Fast & Furious.

I left LRF right after the he took command, but the few stories I've heard aren't flattering. Although I did have the "privelage" of running into CZ again at Maxwell. My response when he starts spinning yarns about the Herk or just being himself was, "he may technically be one of ours but we don't claim him" Czecksihks and hindsight speak the truth

Holy mother fvcking shit balls--really?? Or are you just trolling? Anti-discrimination laws should 'only apply to people's physical features/sexual orientation'? Everybody else should 'change their views' (or keep them silent)? Change their views to what?? Just because you disagree with a certain faith, you are saying it is the fault of those who practice/believe that faith? The Catholic Church does not support gay marriage...do you believe that Catholics should be refused service/unemployment? Should a person wearing a t-shirt with a Catholic logo be refused service because they 'should change'? Do traditional black Baptist churches get a pass or do they have to conform as well (or never speak what is on their mind)? As a Libertarian, philosophically I believe a private business should be able refuse employment to anyone for any reason (as well as refuse service)...but until that happens, I believe you have to protect all views, not just the 'popular' ones at the moment. So tell us--what other faiths, organizations, groups should 'change' their views to suit a progressive agenda? Should Tea Party members have to conform to a certain view? What about Libertarians? What's s scary is that you're probably not trolling and that there is a growing movement of a strong minority who believes everything you posted.

Anti-discrimination laws don't apply to racists. They exist for groups that cannot change some aspect of themselves, be it race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation (I understand some people think this is still up to debate), etc. Do you really think the Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Church need the RIGHT to be served at any private business, regardless of what the owner wants? No. Because they should be able to change their views, or at least keep their ideals to themselves. But if you turned a woman away for her gender, an Asian for his heritage, or a veteran for his disabilities, that isn't fair. You can't change or hide those things. And I know that the first thing you are going to say is that you can hide your sexual orientation. But that's not really true if you want to get married or have a family, and in the last 3-5 years, it has become recognized - in some states and federal organizations - that it is their right to do that.

I don't care if we had to release 100 of those f**kers. We got our guy back. The US says it will do whatever it takes and they did.