What a joke

[RetiredGySgt]

Desertions are less than 1 percent, but the press spends all the time in the article talking about the "drastic" increase in desertions. They mention in passing the fact more soldiers make it through the first 6 months then ever before as if that means nothing.

Enlistments are stable, reenlistments are stable and less than 1 percent desert while less than 7 percent fail during initial training. Over all those are GOOD numbers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_deserters

 

[Gunny]

Desertions are less than 1 percent, but the press spends all the time in the article talking about the "drastic" increase in desertions. They mention in passing the fact more soldiers make it through the first 6 months then ever before as if that means nothing.

Enlistments are stable, reenlistments are stable and less than 1 percent desert while less than 7 percent fail during initial training. Over all those are GOOD numbers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_deserters

Maybe I can find the link later, but did you see where the Canadian court rules that US military deserters are NOT political refugees?

Guess those boys hiding out up there need to dust off that Tony Orlando and Dawn 45.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Maybe I can find the link later, but did you see where the Canadian court rules that US military deserters are NOT political refugees?

Guess those boys hiding out up there need to dust off that Tony Orlando and Dawn 45.

Ya I saw a blurb on it. Surprised our enlightened Northern neighbors made that call. You know they have a monument that CELEBRATES their stand during the Vietnam War?

Anyone that deserts is in my opinion a coward. They all volunteered to serve and they all happily took the money training and benefits in peace time. Even those that served in Iraq once and then deserted are cowards.

There are several ways to accept your responsibility for volunteering and NOT desert and not go to combat again. But they generally entail facing a Courts martial. These cowards do not want any legal action taken for their failure to abide by a contract they WILLINGLY signed. A contract they were glad to reap the benefits of until called on to do what they signed up for.

 

[Gunny]

Ya I saw a blurb on it. Surprised our enlightened Northern neighbors made that call. You know they have a monument that CELEBRATES their stand during the Vietnam War?

Anyone that deserts is in my opinion a coward. They all volunteered to serve and they all happily took the money training and benefits in peace time. Even those that served in Iraq once and then deserted are cowards.

There are several ways to accept your responsibility for volunteering and NOT desert and not go to combat again. But they generally entail facing a Courts martial. These cowards do not want any legal action taken for their failure to abide by a contract they WILLINGLY signed. A contract they were glad to reap the benefits of until called on to do what they signed up for.

I couldn't agree more. You've pretty much covered my entire argument on the subject.

 

[Annie]

Maybe I can find the link later, but did you see where the Canadian court rules that US military deserters are NOT political refugees?

Guess those boys hiding out up there need to dust off that Tony Orlando and Dawn 45.

Here's a link on Canadian court and the wee little whiners:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/world/main3507379.shtml

U.S. Deserters Lose Bid For Canada Asylum
OTTAWA, Nov. 15, 2007 (AP) Two U.S. Army deserters who fled to Canada and sought refugee status on grounds of their opposition to the war in Iraq have lost their bids to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their cases.

The court refused Thursday to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, who were rejected by Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board in 2005.

The board ruled they would not be at risk of their lives if they returned to the United States, nor were they at risk of "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

Hinzman and Hughey deserted the U.S. Army in 2004 after learning their units were to be deployed to Iraq to fight in a war they have called immoral and illegal. The men argue that serving in Iraq would force them to commit crimes against civilians, and that they would be persecuted if forced to return to the United States.

Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal have refused to review their cases...

 

[Gunny]

Here's a link on Canadian court and the wee little whiners:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/world/main3507379.shtml

Hinzman and Hughey deserted the U.S. Army in 2004 after learning their units were to be deployed to Iraq to fight in a war they have called immoral and illegal. The men argue that serving in Iraq would force them to commit crimes against civilians, and that they would be persecuted if forced to return to the United States.

Their argument is SO lame. As RGS says ... they had NO problem taking the military's money and eating the chow, free medical dental, etc, but Heaven forbid they get called upon to ante up.

The fact they try to hide their ultimate selfishness behind some "illegal and immoral war" song and dance is contemptible.

 

[Annie]

Their argument is SO lame. As RGS says ... they had NO problem taking the military's money and eating the chow, free medical dental, etc, but Heaven forbid they get called upon to ante up.

The fact they try to hide their ultimate selfishness behind some "illegal and immoral war" song and dance is contemptible.

Yeah and right now the military is basically letting the deserters return to their units or take a 'less than honorable discharge.' I have trouble understanding that, other than it makes sense that if someone doesn't want to be there, they don't want them there?

 

[Paulie]

Here's a link on Canadian court and the wee little whiners:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/world/main3507379.shtml

Kathianne, unless you've served in the military, especially in combat, or would be ready and willing to go and fight in a foreign hot zone, I don't think you have any right to be calling them 'wee little whiners', no matter WHAT they did. Who the fuck are you?

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, unless you've served in the military, especially in combat, or would be ready and willing to go and fight in a foreign hot zone, I don't think you have any right to be calling them 'wee little whiners', no matter WHAT they did. Who the fuck are you?

I have every right to write what I wish to right. Who are you the Gestapo? Oh, maybe...

 

[Paulie]

I have every right to write what I wish to right. Who are you the Gestapo? Oh, maybe...

Good comeback, kath.

Have you ever served in the military?

 

[Annie]

Good comeback, kath.

Have you ever served in the military?

I believe you'll find that I've answered that, many a time. I also think you'll find that I respect someone like Watada, that at least manned up and went back to face the music.

Sorry, no pity for someone that uses tax dollars for fitness training, quite open to accepting the benefits, but doesn't want to face what they signed up for. Then again, if they change their minds, pay the price.

 

[Paulie]

I believe you'll find that I've answered that, many a time. I also think you'll find that I respect someone like Watada, that at least manned up and went back to face the music.

Sorry, no pity for someone that uses tax dollars for fitness training, quite open to accepting the benefits, but doesn't want to face what they signed up for. Then again, if they change their minds, pay the price.

Well i don't really have the time nor the desire to search through each and every one of your posts until I find something that shows you answering that. It would have been a hell of a lot easier for you to have just said YES or NO. But you like to play games, obviously.

My take on it is this: You assume that every single member who deserted was just using the military, and that's just ridiculous. The truth is, you don't really have a clue what each of their motivations were. What we DO know though, based on what many of them have said, is that they did it because they didn't feel the conflict they were being forced to fight in was JUST and LEGAL. You'll notice that millions of Americans agree with them about that.

Should they be required to potentially give their lives for a war they don't believe in because they signed a piece of paper? Just because YOU believe in it doesn't mean they should as well. I'm sure you'd find that many of them would be inclined to go back, if they were actually fighting an enemy who posed a direct threat to us, or had attacked us. But that's an argument that's been going on for 5 years now, isn't it?

 

[Annie]

Well i don't really have the time nor the desire to search through each and every one of your posts until I find something that shows you answering that. It would have been a hell of a lot easier for you to have just said YES or NO. But you like to play games, obviously.

My take on it is this: You assume that every single member who deserted was just using the military, and that's ridicuous. The truth is, you don't really have a clue what each of their motivations were. What we DO know though, is that many of them did it because they didn't feel the conflict they were being forced to fight in was JUST and LEGAL. You'll notice that millions of Americans agree with them about that.

Should they be required to potentially give their lives for a war they don't believe in because they signed a piece of paper? Just because YOU believe in it doesn't mean they should as well. I'm sure you'd find that many of them would be inclined to go back, if they were actually fighting an enemy who posed a direct threat to us, or had attacked us. But that's an argument that's been going on for 5 years now, isn't it?

actually as pointed out by Gunny, I believe, it's less than .1 of 1% that leave. Now yes, if they don't want to go, they shouldn't. They should stay though, for the most part the government has been issuing 'less than honorable discharge.' They should NOT be going to Canada, after leaving others to make up for their slack. I really wouldn't care if war or no war.

 

[Paulie]

This reminds me of a film I saw called Sir, No Sir!.

I have to tell you, I applaud military members for even having the balls to go against the grain to begin with.

I'm happy to know that the people in the armed forces that protect this country would be willing to challenge a war that so many people feel is illegal.

Of course, it's just another argument to divide Americans. Just like everything else.

 

[Annie]

This reminds me of a film I saw called Sir, No Sir!.

I have to tell you, I applaud military members for even having the balls to go against the grain to begin with.

I'm happy to know that the people in the armed forces that protect this country would be willing to challenge a war that so many people feel is illegal.

Of course, it's just another argument to divide Americans. Just like everything else.

So you support anarchy? There's a lot of that going on up in Olympia.

 

[Paulie]

So you support anarchy?

Kathianne, that goes BEYOND spin right there. Where did I ever imply I advocated anarchy?

Not obeying orders that are illegal, is not being an anarchist. Anarchy means having no governing body above the people. I don't support that at all. I support a governing body that is OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. You know, like the founding fathers intention of AMERICA for instance?

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, that goes BEYOND spin right there. Where did I ever imply I advocated anarchy?

Not obeying orders that are illegal, is not being an anarchist. Anarchy means having no governing body above the people. I don't support that at all. I support a governing body that is OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. You know, like the founding fathers intention of AMERICA for instance?

Encouraging widespread law breaking, which encouraging leaving their positions and heading for Canada, is anarchy. Now, Civil Disobedience says, refuse to serve, take the punishment being handed out. When that becomes widespread, then the government would have to change.

 

[Paulie]

Encouraging widespread law breaking, which encouraging leaving their positions and heading for Canada, is anarchy.

Where were we talking about widespread lawbreaking? And where do you get the idea that deserting and taking refuge in Canada is somehow synonymous with Anarchy? What dictionary are YOU using?

 

[Annie]

Where were we talking about widespread lawbreaking? And where do you get the idea that deserting and taking refuge in Canada is somehow synonymous with Anarchy? What dictionary are YOU using?

The absence of law, when encouraging law breaking and law enforcement, you are advocating a state of chaos. Absence of law is a state of anarchy. Seriously, this is getting more than tiresome. Encourage all you like.

 

[Paulie]

The absence of law, when encouraging law breaking and law enforcement, you are advocating a state of chaos. Absence of law is a state of anarchy. Seriously, this is getting more than tiresome. Encourage all you like.

Your ridiculous interpretation of what I'm stating is getting more than tiresome. As always, you make very little sense.