Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl >>> NOT GUILTY.

[JoeB131]

The military does not get to decide which wars are valid and which are not.

The military does not get to decide whether we remain engaged in War A or B or whether we do not.

The job of the military is to execute national policy.

Well, why shouldn't they? Why not have, the first day of the war, anyone who wants to resign gets an honorable discharge that day if they don't think the war is just. sounds completely reasonable to me, and maybe our scumbag politicians wouldn't lie us into wars if they could.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree, but accidents happen. Kind of like the Democrats being here

No, dumbass, it wasn't an 'accident". The army kept Hasan and Gonzalez on active duty even though it was clear they had mental problems.

Hasan's case was particularly egregious, given they transfered him from Walter Reed to Ft. Hood knowing he had issues.

 

[Obiwan]

Joe

Are you suggesting the Army took their time with them, like they did charging Bergdahl?

Looks like the fact that they took their time is possible after all, shooting down the whining about him not being charged with desertion immediately that we are hearing from the left.

 

[Contumacious]

View attachment 38540

The Constitution does not require him to fight in an Unconstitutional war.


I am sorry about Chris Kyle's death , but he was no hero serving in an UNlawful war.

Ergo, suck my rod.


.

What a ******* idiot....what the hell is going on? Did all of you idiot lefties take your stupid pills today?

Organized war Criminality


Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the author of many important books. His latest is The Globalization of War: America’s Long War Against Humanity. Chossudovsky shows that Washington has globalized war while the US president is presented as a global peace-maker, complete with the Nobel Peace Prize. Washington has military deployed in 150 countries, has the world divided up into six US military commands and has a global strike plan that includes space operations. Nuclear weapons are part of the global strike plan and have been elevated for use in a pre-emptive first strike, a dangerous departure from their Cold War role."


.

 

[Obiwan]

Joe

If you can agree that probable cause exists, then the case should go to trial
Bergdahl will get a fairer trial in a court martial than many Americans get since the military doesn't use their courts as a source of revenue, like many civilian courts do.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Since Confusedatious doesn't care for our war with some of the Islamofascist scumbags, ergo, to his way of "thinking [sic]" it is perfectly ok if a member of the military engages in the crime of desertion.

Ya can't make up this stuff. That level of dumb is not unusual for many modern American liberal guests posting here at USMB. But Confusedatious is a standard bearer for their unique imbecility.

 

[auditor0007]

He will receive a fair trial, sentenced accordingly. Frankly his conduct was deplorable and could have well jeopardized the lives of his squad. In the event he wanted out avenues were available to pursue his removal from action. But then again through the eyes of those that have no respect for honor, country, and commitment this is a foreign and hard concept to comprehend.

I imagine he will be found guilty of desertion but will be acquitted on all other charges.

 

[auditor0007]

Since Confusedatious doesn't care for our war with some of the Islamofascist scumbags, ergo, to his way of "thinking [sic]" it is perfectly ok if a member of the military engages in the crime of desertion.

Ya can't make up this stuff. That level of dumb is not unusual for many modern American liberal guests posting here at USMB. But Confusedatious is a standard bearer for their unique imbecility.

I find it humorous that a con who is wrong on almost everything would call anyone an imbecile. Do not take that to mean that I agree with the op.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Since Confusedatious doesn't care for our war with some of the Islamofascist scumbags, ergo, to his way of "thinking [sic]" it is perfectly ok if a member of the military engages in the crime of desertion.

Ya can't make up this stuff. That level of dumb is not unusual for many modern American liberal guests posting here at USMB. But Confusedatious is a standard bearer for their unique imbecility.

I find it humorous that a con who is wrong on almost everything would call anyone an imbecile. Do not take that to mean that I agree with the op.

I take it that you are attempting with no basis to claim that I am in any way a "con" man. So, I presume that you are ignorant and or dishonest.

Accordingly, I don't much care whether you agree with the OP or not. A person like you is such a small minded insignificant twit, that your opinions on topics of substance are of no consequence.

And I am not wrong on almost everything. I am generally right on almost everything. And morons like you can't even grasp that.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe

Are you suggesting the Army took their time with them, like they did charging Bergdahl?

Looks like the fact that they took their time is possible after all, shooting down the whining about him not being charged with desertion immediately that we are hearing from the left.

It looks to me like the Army is trying to cover its ass over an embarrassing situation.

 

[Kondor3]

Let me ask you this, Joe.

Have you served on active duty as a member of the US Armed Forces?

If 'yes', can you enlighten us with a few details (branch, timeframe, duty station, MOS, etc.)?

Yes.

Army. 1981-1985 as a reservist, 1986-1992 Active duty. Lots of different places. MOS 76Y30. Rank, Staff Sergeant.

After the Gulf War (which my unit thankfully didn't get sent to) I got out because I saw that we had pretty much gotten roped into a war by the Zionists and Oil Companies.

Thank your for your service.

You may very well have drawn the wrong conclusions about the Oil Companies.

We re-took Kuwait to deny Saddam an ability to interdict oil shipments - an action that benefits the nation at-large primarily, and only secondarily benefits the corporatists.

We re-took Kuwait to calm the Saudis who were pissing in their pants at the prospect of Saddam holding a major bay and seaport on the Gulf.

We re-took Kuwait to make Saddam understand that his second-rate military wasn't good enough and that his opponents had the balls to stand up to him.

You may also very well have drawn the wrong conclusions about the Israelis (Zionists, as you call them).

Israel did not benefit substantively from the re-taking of Kuwait, nor the de-clawing of Iraq, given the lack of a substantive threat on the horizon, and the SCUD missile barrage.

I have never seen (nor heard of) credible and substantive evidence that the United States re-took Kuwait, motivated in large part by Israeli interests.

Apparently, you have an inside track that many of the rest of us lack.

Not.

====================================

My own more modest service is listed elsewhere: Attn Veterans Page 23 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JoeB131]

Joe

If you can agree that probable cause exists, then the case should go to trial
Bergdahl will get a fairer trial in a court martial than many Americans get since the military doesn't use their courts as a source of revenue, like many civilian courts do.

Actually, let's be honest here. JAG's are the guys who couldn't get jobs with real law firms.

More to the point, the number of times we've caught the army lying about these sorts of things - Pat Tilman, Jessica Lynch - can we really trust them? I say, nope.

 

[Obiwan]

Joe

If you think the Army is lying, then I have a suggestion. Have a trial and let them present whatever proof they have. THAT should settle the issue.

Or are afraid the facts won't match your version?

 

[JoeB131]

Thank your for your service.

You may very well have drawn the wrong conclusions about the Oil Companies.

We re-took Kuwait to deny Saddam an ability to interdict oil shipments - an action that benefits the nation at-large primarily, and only secondarily benefits the corporatists.

We re-took Kuwait to calm the Saudis who were pissing in their pants at the prospect of Saddam holding a major bay and seaport on the Gulf.

So I'm sorry, when has "calming the Saudis" been a major part of defending America. The Saudis are a rich country, if they had a problem with Saddam, THEY should have taken him out. Of course, the main reason why Saddam WAS such a threat was because the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Oil Companies backed him in his war with IRan that dragged on for 8 years.

We re-took Kuwait to make Saddam understand that his second-rate military wasn't good enough and that his opponents had the balls to stand up to him.

Oh, I see. We needed to have a dick-measuring contest. Maybe we should have had a literal dick-measuring contest instead of a figurative one. Probably would have killed less people.

You may also very well have drawn the wrong conclusions about the Israelis (Zionists, as you call them).

Israel did not benefit substantively from the re-taking of Kuwait, nor the de-clawing of Iraq, given the lack of a substantive threat on the horizon, and the SCUD missile barrage.

I have never seen (nor heard of) credible and substantive evidence that the United States re-took Kuwait, motivated in large part by Israeli interests.

Apparently, you have an inside track that many of the rest of us lack.

Yeah, I've got a pair of eyes and I don't believe what the Zionist Media tells me. The Zionists were agitating against Saddam for YEARS, like when they bombed his nuclear reactor in 1982. Even when Reagan thought Saddam was a guy we could work with, the Israelis were screaming, well, the way they are screaming about Iran now.

You see, here's the thing. Saddam asked April Glaspie, our ambassador, if the US had an alliance with Kuwait. We didn't, and she said the US was not going to take a side in Iraq's argument with Kuwait over the Rumalia Oil Fields. We didn't have an argument there.

Until the Zionists and Oil Companies told Bush we did.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe

If you think the Army is lying, then I have a suggestion. Have a trial and let them present whatever proof they have. THAT should settle the issue.

Or are afraid the facts won't match your version?

Great idea. Let's get a civilian judge and civilian attorneys and the first thing we need to do is have a psych exam to establish Bergdahl's mental health.

This would be over in five minutes because the guy is pretty obviously nuts.

 

[Obiwan]

Joe

Sorry, but Federal Law requires a trial in a military court. Besides, NO U S civil court has jurisdiction over any part of Afghanistan, so any such trial would be illegal and a violation of Bergdahl's constitutional rights.

So, it looks like a court martial is the only option.

Unless you want to claim that any of our troops overseas shouldn't be subject to any court, freeing them up to become lawless thugs if they want to

.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, but Federal Law requires a trial in a military court. Besides, NO U S civil court has jurisdiction over any part of Afghanistan, so any such trial would be illegal and a violation of Bergdahl's constitutional rights.

So, it looks like a court martial is the only option.

Unless you want to claim that any of our troops overseas shouldn't be subject to any court, freeing them up to become lawless thugs if they want to

This could be transferred to a Federal Court, and it probably should be.

Actually, what they should do is give Bergdahl a discharge and a profuse apology.

 

[Mr.Right]

We did, indeed, push our people far too hard, with those multiple deployments. Nolo contendere. We should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. And we should have been in and out of Afghanistan within six months.

But we didn't do any of those things. Because someone was making a huge profit on it. And when working class kids stopped playing along, the Army was reduced to recruiting people like Manning and Bergdahl and that guy who shot up Ft. Hood. Well, actually, there were two guys who shot up Ft. Hood. And this is just what we are hearing about.

Your replies are getting predictable. I could write them for you. It also seems that you are the only one defending this traitor. Give it a rest.

 

[Obiwan]

This could be transferred to a Federal Court, and it probably should be.

Actually, what they should do is give Bergdahl a discharge and a profuse apology.

Joe

What part of NO can you not comprehend in your childish mind? No means no.

A Federal Court doesn't have jurisdiction in Afghanistan. Bergdahl has to be tried by a court martial or have no trial at all.

And don't worry, he'll probably get his discharge. The apology looks a little doubtful, though.

 

[JoeB131]

Your replies are getting predictable. I could write them for you. It also seems that you are the only one defending this traitor. Give it a rest.

What's predictable is you Obama-haters wanting to persecute a mentally ill man because his parents did a photo-op once.

No, wait, the word for that is Pathetic.