RE: Bergdahl

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Bergdahl

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bergdahl

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 10:10:23 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Been that way since christ was a corporal.

Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 401

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 10:12:10 AM

ThirdWheelWanted

Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Been that way since christ was a corporal.

Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission.

I was thinking Cpl was a bit low. Maybe he decided to start at the bottom to gain respect?

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 402

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 10:15:33 AM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Been that way since christ was a corporal.

Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission.

He did.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 403

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 10:17:38 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Good point.

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 404

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 10:22:43 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

So, where exactly did you say anything about articles 85-87 in that post?

This is the sort of dishonest bullshit you are famous for. Articles 85-6-7 had already been discussed so why would it be necessary to readdress them?

Is it in code or something? Does "jack" stand for missing movement?

So now you are saying that you have no clue as to the term to "jack" someone?

I'm sorry if my ignorant opinion can't decipher the intricacies of your being caught in a lie.

That clearly is your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion.

So, either it can be used to convict (jack) anyone of anything, as you said here, or no one can ever be convicted of desertion with less then 30 days absent as you've said repeatedly in other posts.

The criteria for desertion have already been posted. That you have no ability to understand them is your problem and not mine.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 6/9/2014 10:57:51 AM >

(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)

Profile

Post #: 405

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 10:46:42 AM

ThirdWheelWanted

Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

So, where exactly did you say anything about articles 85-87 in that post?

This is the sort of dishonest bullshit you are famous for. Articles 85-6-7 had already been discussed so why would it be necessary to readdress them?

Is it in code or something? Does "jack" stand for missing movement?

So now you are saying that you have no clue as to the term to "jack" someone?

I'm sorry if my ignorant opinion can't decipher the intricacies of your being caught in a lie.

That clearly is your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion.

So, either it can be used to convict (jack) anyone of anything, as you said here, or no one can ever be convicted of desertion with less then 30 days absent as you've said repeatedly in other posts.

The criteria for desertion have already been posted. That you have no ability to undeerstand them is your problem and not mine.

Ahhh, here we go. When caught in a lie, change it around. Everyone but you is known for their dishonest bullshit, while you're pure as the driven snow.

You insist that everyone else PROVE everything. That links be provided. You jump on the slightest inaccuracy and try to discredit an entire post. You insist on the exact accuracy of every post. Yet somehow you're exempt from the same rules?

In this thread you've made two statements that can't both be true. Either the UCMJ is written so that anyone can be convicted of anything, OR it's not possible to convict someone of desertion if they are absent for less then 30 days. Both of those can't be true. That's not opinion, regardless of how much you might try to make it be one. It's not possible for two mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time. So either you were using hyperbole to make your claims sound better, or you're just a liar.

Oh, by the way, here's a link to a thesaurus. (http://thesaurus.com/) Maybe find another way of saying "ignorant unsubstantiated opinion". I've lost track of how many times you've spouted that exact same line. Makes you sound like a whiny teen trying to sound like an adult. (Oh and that is my opinion.)

< Message edited by ThirdWheelWanted -- 6/9/2014 10:54:50 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 406

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 11:04:05 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
As I've said, yes, it can work that way. It often does. But it doesn't have to. Yes, under most circumstances, under 30 days they hit you with AWOL, and it's left at that. But there is no requirement to do so.

I know a lot about the UCMJ. I went in the Army at 18 with a big mouth and a piss-poor attitude. I had a 1st Sergeant who didn't like me very much, thinking back on it, likely with good reason. At one point he threatened me with desertion, among other lesser charges, so I did a lot of reading on the subject. Since I made it out with nothing worse then an article 15, and that for nothing worse then a bit of extra duty, I must have known what I was doing.

As it happens, I know a great deal about the UCMJ. I went in and out (and via some intimate knowledge of UCMJ and inner workings of the military, did not receive any article 15's but fucked off a whole lot more than you did) (nothing special, just your average NCO)

And, I am gonna by god tell you, if it is policy (and that 30 day rule is and was policy since before my birth) it shakes out into two things...

Policy has the effect of law in the military.
And it isn't anecdotal, it is synecdoche, because it is policy.

Sgt. Melby (operations and training NCO) variously S2 and S3.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 6/9/2014 11:22:32 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)

Profile

Post #: 407

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 11:24:23 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

Ahhh, here we go. When caught in a lie,

This would be your ignorant opinion.

change it around. Everyone but you is known for their dishonest bullshit,

Not everyone just the ones who try to pass off bullshit as fact.

while you're pure as the driven snow.

I am right more often than I am wrong.

You insist that everyone else PROVE everything.

Yup

That links be provided. You jump on the slightest inaccuracy and try to discredit an entire post.

When that slight inaccuracy is the bassis for the overall lie.

You insist on the exact accuracy of every post. Yet somehow you're exempt from the same rules?

Nope

In this thread you've made two statements that can't both be true. Either the UCMJ is written so that anyone can be convicted of anything, OR it's not possible to convict someone of desertion if they are absent for less then 30 days. Both of those can't be true.

Had you the reading comprehension of a third grader you would not try to play that silly word game.
Show me where I ever said anyone could be convicted of anything I said that they could be jacked for anything....you know haseledcharged, incarcerated, restricted and then charges dismissed.
Show me where I said one could not be convicted of desertion if they were gone for less then thirty days. I said show me where it has happened.

That's not opinion, regardless of how much you might try to make it be one. It's not possible for two mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time. So either you were using hyperbole to make your claims sound better, or you're just a liar.

The criteria for being charged with desertion have been listed.
The criteria for being charged with awol have been listed.
The criteria for being charged with missing a movement have been listed.
With the information you can prove which of the above can he be charged with?
With the information you can prove is it possible that he could be charged with any of the three?
If he is charged with one could he be charged with more than one?
Now that I have explaned the stupidity of your symantic arguement try to answer the questions I have asked you?
Like why do you feel it is ok for you to call me names when I have never done so to you? I have accused you of ignorance and deciet and have proved both but still I have not resorted to name calling while you snivel about how I talk to you. Try learning how to be civil. Try learning what the motherfucking word liar means. Because you are unable to understand a concept you label others as a liar in an effort to lend some scrap of credibility to your igorant rantings. If you don't like your opinions being challanged perhaps you should research them more thoroughly before committing them to print.

Oh, by the way, here's a link to a thesaurus. (http://thesaurus.com/) Maybe find another way of saying "ignorant unsubstantiated opinion". I've lost track of how many times you've spouted that exact same line. Makes you sound like a whiny teen trying to sound like an adult. (Oh and that is my opinion.)

Ignorant,peurile and unsubstantiated as usual.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 6/9/2014 11:29:47 AM >

(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)

Profile

Post #: 408

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 11:40:39 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

When y'all get done debating the letter of military law . . .

There's a lot more to this story than is being discussed in this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/us-soldier-bowe-bergdahl-case-highlights-a-unit-known-for-troubles.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/after-release-from-taliban-bowe-bergdahl-suffers-from-skin-and-gum-disorders-but-is-physically-sound.html

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 409

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 12:07:25 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

When y'all get done debating the letter of military law . . .

There's a lot more to this story than is being discussed in this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/us-soldier-bowe-bergdahl-case-highlights-a-unit-known-for-troubles.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/after-release-from-taliban-bowe-bergdahl-suffers-from-skin-and-gum-disorders-but-is-physically-sound.html

So it would appear that some of his mates did not look upon him with a negative aspect. It would appear from first hand accounts that he was an aggressive infantryman.
Holy shit dude what the fuck do you mean posting opinion buttressed by facts?

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 410

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 1:45:13 PM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

You fail to account for the fact that 95.8% of all publications, views, broadcast media, and amateur internet posters are far-left of Sanity -- a man who has declared himself as being under siege by "affirmative action" while living in Idaho.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 6/9/2014 1:48:03 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 411

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 2:50:05 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Forget all the crap about whether this soldier is a deserter or not many Americans would still be upset with this deal even if this were a hero. This goes against what Americans feel is the right thing to do... It makes no difference that we have done this very type of thing in the past to many of us this was at best a poor decision.

I agree it's a bitter pill, Butch, but if a deal was the only way, then it needed to be done. I'm troubled though, by reports I've seen that we had good intel on where he was being held, and even the composition of the guard forces, and that someone chose not to act on that. I want to know if the risks to a potential rescue mission were higher than the risks of letting these detainees back into the game.

And even if you make a deal you don't give them 5 generals for one of our privates

Generals ? You mean the Taliban ranks these guys ? Read... don't know if the were petty officers but 4 of them they were anything but terrorists.

(in reply to BamaD)

Profile

Post #: 412

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 3:14:27 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Been that way since christ was a corporal.

Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission.

Jesus started off as a seaman. We were in boot together. He was a great guy. Tough little bastard from San Antonio.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 413

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 3:26:56 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
As I've said, yes, it can work that way. It often does. But it doesn't have to. Yes, under most circumstances, under 30 days they hit you with AWOL, and it's left at that. But there is no requirement to do so.

I know a lot about the UCMJ. I went in the Army at 18 with a big mouth and a piss-poor attitude. I had a 1st Sergeant who didn't like me very much, thinking back on it, likely with good reason. At one point he threatened me with desertion, among other lesser charges, so I did a lot of reading on the subject. Since I made it out with nothing worse then an article 15, and that for nothing worse then a bit of extra duty, I must have known what I was doing.

As it happens, I know a great deal about the UCMJ. I went in and out (and via some intimate knowledge of UCMJ and inner workings of the military, did not receive any article 15's but fucked off a whole lot more than you did) (nothing special, just your average NCO)

And, I am gonna by god tell you, if it is policy (and that 30 day rule is and was policy since before my birth) it shakes out into two things...

Policy has the effect of law in the military.
And it isn't anecdotal, it is synecdoche, because it is policy.

Sgt. Melby (operations and training NCO) variously S2 and S3.

We had guys UA all the time and they'd get NJP. The one that would get the hammer dropped was missing movement. It only happened to one guy I knew but he got a year in prison and a dishonorable and he got to the pier before we actually untied.

There were easier ways to get out if you wanted out than desertion when I was in, fail a piss test for instance.

But really I have never heard of anyone being charged with desertion who wasn't gone for less than 30 days since at least WW2.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 414

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 5:04:45 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Been that way since christ was a corporal.

Somehow I pictured Christ coming in with a commission.

Jesus started off as a seaman. We were in boot together. He was a great guy. Tough little bastard from San Antonio.

Jesus started off as a semen...when joe found out he fired the pool boy.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 6/9/2014 5:05:56 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 415

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 5:06:05 PM

Sanity

Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

You fail to account for the fact that 95.8% of all publications, views, broadcast media, and amateur internet posters are far-left of Sanity -- a man who has declared himself as being under siege by "affirmative action" while living in Idaho.

Ah, yes.. LOL

Leftist frustration is palpable

If only bitterly lashing out at conservatives could make Obama half intelligent...

(And make him quit doing moronic shit, like trading five Osama bin Ladens for one traitor)

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to cloudboy)

Profile

Post #: 416

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 5:11:56 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

We had guys UA all the time and they'd get NJP. The one that would get the hammer dropped was missing movement. It only happened to one guy I knew but he got a year in prison and a dishonorable and he got to the pier before we actually untied.

I have seen guys charged with missing a movement for not being on the right fucking bus...everybody got to where they were suppose to be at the appointed time but 1st sgt fuckwad needed to show how big his dick was.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 417

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 5:16:01 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Sanity
(And make him quit doing moronic shit, like trading five Osama bin Ladens for one traitor)

The american soldier you are calling a traitor was captured as a pfc and released as a sgt. If the army felt he was a deserter why did they continue to promote him while he was a pow?

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 418

RE: Bergdahl - 6/9/2014 6:42:47 PM

FatDomDaddy