Right. What am I missing? X)
Right. What am I missing? X)
I hope it's never sunny in Philly again.
He maybe a freeloader and I don't agree with his actions. He should either do his duty or face court marshall. Running away is not honorable.Originally Posted by CbusRed
But I have a problem with the bigger freeloaders. You know the ones. The ones who are quick to send other people kids off to die, but do not serve themselves. Freeloading on the freedom, but don't want to pay the price.
Do people still think this war was justified?
I stopped thinking about this war last year.
I hope it's never sunny in Philly again.
It's better that way. Out of sight, out of mind. You sleep better that way. I wish I could.Originally Posted by TC81190
I think that there are some government issues of proper execution and representation in handling this war. This conflict is still very young. At this young stage in Viet Nam, how many people had been killed, how many will be at the end of this conflict that has no real end in sight? Death and destruction is a stark "comparison" for some, and we don't even list damage to family survivors and children left behind, or the soldiers that have lost much of their ability to function physically day to day. So in some ways there just might be some comparisons to this conflict/human slaughter as there was in Viet Nam in the name of some cause.Originally Posted by GAC
On desertions, do we really want people that have a mind set to dessert with whatever reasoning actually serving in active military capacities? With a bit of extension in thinking, isn’t this a type of weeding out time for those that really do not belong in this career choice? If they had really blown it in basics wouldn’t they have been booted out i.e. that is weeded out, so then it seems to me that deserting would be the real test to see if they can cut it and for whatever reason they could not. So why not just terminate his or her military career and forget it, just like firing anyone else that fails to perform?
Besides I can understand their lack of motivation to have their head, arms or legs blown off. Yet those that do serve deserve even a greater praise and acknowledgement than they receive now and greater treatment/reward tangibly for them and their immediate families.
Last edited by Spring~Fields; 01-14-2005 at 11:59 PM.
Fight the power.
Nothing like a good old fashioned half-truth to get people riled up. Here's a different take on the subject of military desertion rates.
Military desertion rates down since 2001
By Pamela Hess
Washington, DC, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- The number of annual military desertions is down to the lowest level since before 2001, according to the Pentagon.
The Army said the number of new deserters in 2004 -- 2,376 -- was just half the number of those who deserted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. That number was 4,597.
The numbers of deserters has dropped annually since the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The fiscal year 2004 total number of Army deserters is the lowest since before 1998, according to Army data.
Cumulatively, more than 6,000 service members from all branches have deserted the military since fiscal year 2003, when the war with Iraq began. About 3,500 military service members have deserted their jobs in the last 14 months.
"On average the number of soldiers, for example, who are classified as deserters is less than 1 percent, and the vast majority have committed some criminal act," said Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. Joe Richard. "It's (generally) not for political or conscientious objector purposes. Any insinuation that large numbers of military service members have deserted in opposition to the war in Iraq when in fact desertion numbers for the Army are down since 9/11 is incredibly disingenuous."
The CBS program "60 Minutes" on Dec. 8 reported on at least three deserters who fled to Canada because they did not want to fight in Iraq: Marine Pfc. Dan Felushko, Army soldiers Brandon Hughey, and Spc. Jeremy Hinzman. They will have to make their case to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board to be allowed to stay.
The Army convicted Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia in May on charges he abandoned his unit in the middle of the war in Iraq.
The Marine Corps charged Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun with desertion on Dec. 10. He went missing from his base in Fallujah in June and later turned up an apparent hostage of Iraqi insurgents. He eventually made it to Lebanon and was returned to the Marine Corps.
Calculating the number of Marines who have deserted is complicated, because the Marine Corps carries on its books those who have deserted in previous years, according to Richard. The Marines count 1,297 deserters in fiscal year 2004 and 1,236 in fiscal year 2003. Roughly 623 AWOL Marines were returned to Marine control in 2003.
The Army counts 2,520 deserters in fiscal year 1998; 2,966 in 1999; 3,949 in 2000; 4,597 in 2001; 4,483 in 2002; and 3,678 in 2003.
The Marines count 1,297 deserters in 2004; 1,236 in 2003; 1,136 in 2002; 1,603 in 2001; and 1,574 in 2000.
The Air Force had considerably lower numbers of deserters: four so far in fiscal year 2005; 50 in 2004; 56 in 2003; 88 in 2002; 62 in 2001; 46 in 2000 and 45 in 1999.
The Navy did not return its data at press time.
George Will responding to Trumps tweets...."He has an advantage on me, because he can say everything he knows about any subject in 140 characters and I can't."
I think that is the key difference here in comparison to the Nam draft dodgers. Joining the Guard or the armed forces is serious business. It should not be entered into lightly. I don't know if that's pressed upon the individuals who volunteer to join up. Are they using bait and switch techniques by promising a free ride to college in return for a few weekends of drilling or some boot camp and living on a base like Gomer Pyle for however many years? The armed forces are using slicker and slicker marketing techniques these days. It's no longer hang an Uncle Sam Wants You poster in the window anymore. It's high-tech commercials aimed at hormonally charged teens who may get the impression from the commercials that enlisting is fighting dragons, playing video games and a cool uniform. And using that kind of marketing is fine as long as the flip side is explained to them. War could break out at any time these days and there's always that possibility that you have to fight and possibly die for your country. That's what being in the armed forces is all about.Originally Posted by REDREAD
That said, Springy's comments on the punishment for deserters was very insightful and thoughtful.
There is always going to be a number that dessert, there is always a number in actual combat that do not fire their weapons because they know fire draws fire. Why go to any additional expense on desserters? Label them as such for a lifetime and move on. Put it on their credit report, put it on their license plates so the label goes with them and move on.Originally Posted by Chip R
Last edited by Spring~Fields; 01-15-2005 at 02:54 AM.
Truth has no place in the fight against the president.
Originally Posted by Steve4192
"You're drunk again. No, I'm just exhausted 'cause I've been up all night drinking."
I'm going to need a source that's not owned by Sun Myung Moon, the head of the Moonies, thanks.Originally Posted by Steve4192
And I wonder if the Pentagon has an interest in being completely truthful about their desertion rates?
I mean it couldn't possibly be in their interest to lowball that number, now could it? When they're facing a huge numbers crunch?
And by the way, this was in the original article:
So their point of view was already shared.The Pentagon says that the level of desertion is no higher than usual and denies that it is having difficulty persuading troops to fight.
Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.
So then, since you want to readily discount Steve's article, obviously because you feel it is partisan, and the stats untrustworthy... it's fair for everyone else to do the same with the article you posted from the left-leaning telegraph.co.uk. After all, they too could be manipulating the figures to suit their agenda.Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
If the Pentagon's numbers agreed with yours though, you'd be hailing them. But because they counter what your article says, you feel they could be inaccurate and maybe "doctored".
Last edited by GAC; 01-15-2005 at 10:21 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I would actually like to see a bigger breakdown of the numbers the Penagon released? Do their numbers actually include Guard and Reserves? You would assume so, but the Bush Administation (to include Rumsfeld) has never leveled with the American people, so why would they start now?
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.