DEAD!

[Palehorse]

My sister keeps thinking the same thing.  But I'm thinking, crime of passion? He wouldn't have shot her only once in the head.  This would have had to have been premeditated if that was the case, and a some other things might have been different in the setting that has already been described.  I'm betting McNair may have told her that he wasn't leaving his wife.

I'm not "betting" on anything such as this, personally.

A jealous bf of the girl would direct the lions share of his "passion" toward her new bf, thus giving him a double tap to the head and chest. He probably just wanted to put her down and out of his life as punishment for betrayal, or could have killed her to purposely divert police and make them assume a murder/suicide.

Anything is possible at this point though. I am sure the investigators are very busy eliminating suspects for each scenario.


EDIT: I'd like to buy a vowel; an "e".

[pariann]

Well, I don't know about you.  But I think my sister is just biased. She knew him to talk with when he was out in public, and was impressed that he was the kind of guy that remembered tidbits about people, in this case, the names of her sons.   When she first heard about the death, she was blown away.  Saying she couldn't imagine why ANYONE would want him dead.  He was just the nicest guy.  We discussed possiblities, one of which was maybe gambling debts.  My mind was changed of course when it was announced he was found dead with a woman.  It may look too pat, but it's common.  You speak of '20 year olds'.  I think of how easy it would be for the girl to have been young and stupid enough to believe that someone, a rich celebrity, would be ready to leave his wife and family after only a couple of months of dating.  And unstable enough to not accept that it wasn't going to happen.  "If I can't have you, and all you can do for me...then no one will, oh, and by the way, life ain't worth living without you in it."

[Palehorse]

Sure, anything is possible. But when you are talking "young" my instincts say never rule out the testosterone factor. . . Let it rule itself out.

[Palehorse]

Robert McNamara...DEAD!

The infamous orchestrator of the Nam. . .

Celebrity death sure seems to be the new thing, eh?

[Exterminator]

The infamous orchestrator of the Nam. . .

Too bad we didn't learn anything from his reflections on the subject.  One could easily replace South Vitenam with Iraq in his observations:

We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.

After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues."

[Henry Hawk]

Too bad we didn't learn anything from his reflections on the subject.  One could easily replace South Vitenam with Iraq in his observations:


We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

I agree with much of what he said, but this one, I have a problem with....In this day and time, If we waited on support of the International community for ANY task, it would probably never happen...the world is TOO political, and we can never make ALL the community happy with decisions that affect America.....
In Iraq's case, we DID/DO have multinational forces support.

[Exterminator]

I agree with much of what he said, but this one, I have a problem with....In this day and time, If we waited on support of the International community for ANY task, it would probably never happen...the world is TOO political, and we can never make ALL the community happy with decisions that affect America.....

Disagree all you'd like but I'll have to go with the opinion of the guy well versed in international policy.

In Iraq's case, we DID/DO have multinational forces support.

Bullshit.

[Henry Hawk]

Disagree all you'd like but I'll have to go with the opinion of the guy well versed in international policy.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't....but, the world HAS changed since Nam.....

Bullshit.

Nearly 40 countries, decided to support those efforts....

[Henry Hawk]

Disagree all you'd like but I'll have to go with the opinion of the guy well versed in international policy.

and leading 58,000 Americans to their death...

[Exterminator]

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't....but, the world HAS changed since Nam.....

Yes, it has changed a lot but you war-mongers haven't changed a bit.

Nearly 40 countries, decided to support those efforts....

Really?  Name those countries and detail what, exactly, they contributed.

[Exterminator]

and leading 58,000 Americans to their death...

You've got a lot of balls pointing the finger at someone else when you have the blood of American soldiers needlessly killed in Iraq on your hands.

[Henry Hawk]

You've got a lot of balls pointing the finger at someone else when you have the blood of American soldiers needlessly killed in Iraq on your hands.

Just point out a FACT...

[Exterminator]

Just point out a FACT...

As was I.  We're still waiting for that list of 'countries' and their contributions.

[LOsborne]

Nearly 40 countries, decided to support those efforts....

I'm with Ex. Let's have some names of countries, and numbers of troops they have deployed.

[Henry Hawk]

Shortly before the Iraq war began, the US government announced that 49 countries were joined in a "coalition of the willing" in favor of forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, with some number of other countries expressing their support in private. The 49 countries named by the White House were Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Uzbekistan. Of these, the following countries had an active or participant role, by providing either significant troops or political support: Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and (United States).

Four of these countries supplied combat forces directly participating in the invasion of Iraq: the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. Other countries have provided logistical and intelligence support, chemical and biological response teams, overflight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, and political support.

In late January 2003, a statement released to various newspapers and signed by the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic showed support for the US, saying that Saddam should not be allowed to violate U.N. resolutions. The statement went on to say that Saddam was a "clear threat to world security", and urged Europe to unite with the United States to ensure that the Iraqi regime is disarmed.

The United Kingdom has sent 45,000 personnel from the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force, including the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal to the Gulf region. The ground component included 100 Challenger tanks. The First Armoured Division's 7th Armoured Brigade and 4th Armoured Brigade took part in the war.