RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky.

RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Devilslilsister -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 9:39:22 AM)
quote: I can't say that the US army is the same, but the fact that the guy that this thread is about wasn't screened better, and that the US has a shortage of recruits makes me think that if they havn't dropped standards yet then they will before long... It happens alot actually. A Shortage exists and standards are dropped.. as a surplus comes about the standards go up again.. Supply and demand basically. Because of Iraq - there is a shortage. When we get out of Iraq we'll end up having a surplus and the army will go around kicking ppl out and the standards will raise = )

mnottertail -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 9:49:46 AM)
Probably not..... Once again the armed forces are behind the times, we do the technology thing and can throw tons and tons of steel every fuckin' day at every fuckin' point on the globe and would have had a hell of a fine time in an all out gotterdammerung with the Russkies, but we are seriously undermanned for less than all out destruction. People got this way about them, and you need troops to instill order on the populous.................. I have little doubt that after the next presidential elections (to save dubyas face...lol) there will be discussions of some type of draft. Ron

Iskander -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 9:50:10 AM)
I don't think any offence was meant by anything said here, I know I didn't mean to offend anyone... I have had heated debates with people because they could not understand that although I don't agree with the current war in Iraq, I fully support and respect those that serve there... Iskander...

andal -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 10:02:26 AM)
From the article: "Anderson joined the Army in January 2003 and went to Iraq a year later with the 1st Armored Division. He was wounded and received a Purple Heart in 2004." He enlisted in 2003. Post 9-11. We were attacking Afghanistan. He KNEW he was going to war. So no sympathy there. He earned a Purple Heart, and I respect him for that. Not many people realize, but when you enlist in the Armed Forces of the United States, you are signing up for an 8 year commitment. This can be served in any combination of active duty, reserve/national guard, and inactive ready reserve (you are basically a civilian, but they can activate you at "needs of the military." Which requires an act of congress, so don't get started there.) So he knew at the start the military had him for 8 years, and that we would be at war for a significant portion of it. He knew what he was getting into. Now to address him changing his mind - tough. He signed a contract, and should honor that contract. If he wanted out, there are many ways to do it. (Just say you are gay, you are out in 30 days for instance.) If he had a moral objection to war, he shouldn't have signed up in the first place. To address the issue of him not getting the treatment he says he needed- That's the reality of the military. He made a decision, raised his right hand, knowing there was no way out for 8 years. It's the consequence of his decision, and he should have been a man and stood by his commitment, or found a way within the system to get out. He didn't want to go back to war, and instead of pursuing the options he decides to run away and go AWOL. (By the way, the punishment for desertion during a time of war is hanging or being shot IIRC.) Not to mention, he heads to Canada and becomes a vocal protester against the US. He was technically still in the Army when he did this, and I know for a fact that public speech* by a soldier against the President is punishable under the UCMJ (Military law.) I know this because when I was in and Clinton was getting impeached, the Department of Defense sent a memo to EVERY company level unit in the armed forces reminding us of the fact. (The first time in military history by the way.) Now I could have protested about going to Bosnia. I could have run away to Canada, and I believe there were a few that did. But it was a different political climate back then, and soldiers didn't have the press backing their "political protest of an unjust war." That he's simply getting Dishonorably Discharged is a major gift to him. Personally, I think he should spend 4 years in Leavenworth doing hard labor and finish out his 8 year commitment that way. He broke the law, plain and simple. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial of facts. It's an all-volunteer force, he KNEW what he was getting into and what the consequences of enlisting were. He chose to sign, he chose to raise his right hand and swear to defend and protect. When I did that, I meant every word, and knew the consequences of my decision, and I didn't even have a huge act of international terrorism and a pending major military operation in front of me like he did! (I enlisted in '94) Statements that enlistment rates are down are misleading, considering that RE-enlistment/retention rates are at all-time highs. *public speech defined as identifying yourself as a soldier (by wearing a uniform or stating you are a soldier as part of your credentials.) in a public forum (a protest, published or broadcast interview, etc) Private opinions and discussions/speech are allowed, but identifying as an active duty soldier and publicly speaking against the President is specifically against military law and has been since we had the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

sweetnurseBBW -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 10:02:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54 You dont like the war? tough. the military is VOLUNTARY, meaning YOU Signed up. no one forced you to. Did he honestly think that he could join the army and not have to go to war? the Armed Forces have one purpose, to fight and win wars. Anyone who thinks otherwise has major problems. If you join, expect to fight. Going AWOL is illegal and a crime, and he should be sentenced accordingly at Courts-martial. That means confinement at Ft Leavenworth. Exactly. My husband joined the army at age 18 and spent his whole adult life til age of 40 as special forces. He chose to do this and knew this.

gentledom099 -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 10:07:25 AM)
Do you respect Nazi soldiers? Do you respect Iraqi soldiers? Do you respect the ex soldiers of the USSR? Do you respect North Korean soldiers? Do you respect Chinese soldiers? Do you respect Libyan soldiers? Do you respect IRA soldiers? Do you respect Israeli soldiers? Soldiers are soldiers. They kill, no questions asked. Why is it that US citizens defend their own killers and condem everyone elses? I am Australian. There are Ausrtalian forces in Afganistan and Iraq. I can't respect those who kill not knowing why or worse, for reasons they know to be immoral. p.s. the world is sick of constantly being under threat from the US, especially war criminals like Bush.

Iskander -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 10:32:00 AM)
You didn't read and or comprehend my post did you? Let me say it again... "I have had heated debates with people because they could not understand that although I don't agree with the current war in Iraq, I fully support and respect those that serve there..." See that last word.. it's "there".. it is in reference to our troops in "iraq".. It has nothing to do with Nazi's, Ruskies, Koreans, Irish or any other negative example you want to give... It has nothing to do with 'soldiers' who go to war finding it a lark to humiliate and torture POW's and are stupid enough to take pictures... It has everything to do with those who sign up, and do their duty with honour and integrity regardless of their personal feelings about the job... A friend of mine is a Vet with the RSPCA, he became a vet to help animals, sadly part of his duties every so often is to put to sleep the unwanted discarded indulgences of our decadent society... (dozens of animals in one day) He hates it, he is depressed for days afterwards, unable to sleep, eat or face another human... But he does it, because it is part of his job and he knows the alternative would be far worse... I don't like what he has to do either, but I don't think less of him for it either, I respect him for doing his job regardless... I'm not going to go into 'bush' politics with you here... It's a seperate 'agenda' not relevant in this topic, and has no place at all on this board... Iskander...

MasterC46910 -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 10:43:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gentledom099 Do you respect Nazi soldiers? Do you respect Iraqi soldiers? Do you respect the ex soldiers of the USSR? Do you respect North Korean soldiers? Do you respect Chinese soldiers? Do you respect Libyan soldiers? Do you respect IRA soldiers? Do you respect Israeli soldiers? Soldiers are soldiers. They kill, no questions asked. Why is it that US citizens defend their own killers and condem everyone elses? I am Australian. There are Ausrtalian forces in Afganistan and Iraq. I can't respect those who kill not knowing why or worse, for reasons they know to be immoral. p.s. the world is sick of constantly being under threat from the US, especially war criminals like Bush. I respect all solders of all Armed Forces. Even the ones I fought against. They are doing a job. Their job is to fight. They are a needed horror for a country to be able to function. While you may be disgusted and horrified about what they do and look upon them as slime that is beneath your acknowledgment. They are the reason you have the freedom to feel that way. Try living without them protecting you. Try having any kind of organized society without them.

gypsylee -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 10:47:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iskander Seriousness aside, my initial mental image when i read the topic was some soldier doggypaddling in a vat of KY lube.. :) My second line was amusing in a BDSM context where it is frowned on subs who act up to get the spanking they want... :) Iskander... ahaha. can we mix up those ideas and have a sub getting paddled and spanked then doing it doggystyle using KY? this whole war thing is [sm=sleepy.gif]

gentledom099 -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 11:22:00 AM)
My first ever post and I get insulted by a typical neo-con. Re-read things yourself. You can't possible leave Bush and Co. out. Bush said, "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" By saying this he claimed the right to do whatever he chooses in America’s Interests'. Over 96% of the world’s population is NOT American, and what’s more we don’t want to be. We are also allowed to disagree with US policy. He should not be allowed to threaten the rest of the world. Overt hatred of such people as the French shows what the US really thinks of freedom and free speech. I applaud the person concerned for making the moral decision. I hope he lives his life in peace, free from the bigotry and hatred of so many of his "Fellow Americans" By the way, I also am a student of history. Do you remember Vietnam? Do you remember My Lai. There needs to be more soldiers going AWOL. More soldiers making moral decisions. Many, many more. To many of us, 'Deserter, or ''conscientious objector' were terms of honour during the Vietnam war. My brother went, I went to jail. he was never the same, nor were any of his friends. He would be the first to cheer those going AWOL now in another immoral war, and I can live with myself.

LordODiscipline -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 11:35:14 AM)
quote: Soldiers are soldiers. They kill, no questions asked. *Obviously, your military is not like ours is - or - you have no conception about the modern military.* *Our military people are required to NOT do anything that is illegal or immoral under the UCMJ and/or the Geneva Conventions and/or the US Consistution.* *That means that when someone performs an act that violates those, whether from a more senior military person or not -they are culpable and may be tried and convicted of it.* Your comparrisson of US soldiers to Nazi's (et al) is in no way a good comparrisson for htis reason - we have laws that are a direct result of and are refined from laws established due tothat conflict and other since then. *ALL US military personnell are scholed in what is and what is not a legal order and what the consequences are for performing an illegal order.* *Does it still happen?* *Yes - Abu Grhab was a great example of this... however, the results are always predicable and swift once it becomes known and action is taken within the construct of the laws...* *SO - stop talking about something you have absolutely no conception about and smearing the US military in such an ignorant fashion.* *Sincerely:* ~J *Ex-EMCSN-G7 (ret)*

LordODiscipline -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 11:37:52 AM)
*It figures - two posts only in this thread - and, no profile found....* Way to stand up for your beliefs and sound credible/ ~J

Noah -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 3:04:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54 Our Commander in Chief, regardless of our opinion of him is still that, our Commander in Chief. When he says Iraq is the enemy. then Iraq is the enemy. If he says go to Iraq and fight. we go and fight. that's our job. that's what we signed up for. the Armed Forces have one purpose, to fight and win wars. Anyone who thinks otherwise has major problems. If you join, expect to fight. Well this is childish malarky, unless you consider serving as a deterent to war not a purpose of the armed forces; unless you think serving on peace-keeping missions is not a purpose of the armed forces; unless you consider aiding the citizenry in times of natural disaster not a purpose of the armed forces; unless you consider securing our embassies abroad not a purpose of the armed forces; unless you consider aiding distressed ships at sea not a purpose of our armed forces etc, etc. quote: Going AWOL is illegal and a crime, and he should be sentenced accordingly at Courts-martial. That means confinement at Ft Leavenworth. All this simplistic, puppet-on-a-string bullshit. "He should be sentenced" you say. Not tried at courts-martial, just sentenced. You seem to have as much respect for the Constitution as your Commander in Chief. So if your Commander in Chief says your home town is the enemy, that's your job, right? Lay on the ordnance. Your oath did say enemies foreign and domestic. If he says your brother is an enemy combatant, based on evidence you know to be false, you off your brother without a word said in his defense and never look back. It is all so simple, right? Speaking of that oath you referred to: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). Is that still up to date? Can you show us an oath which has replaced this one, an oath which says "I will fight any war for any purpose regardless of whether that war supports, undermines, ignores or violates the Constitution of the United States"? The oath says I'll obey the president and his officers but only after it says I will support and defend the Constitution. In a case where the president orders you to act outside of the constitution, there is no question that the Consitution comes before the belligerent whims of any individual. Here is what your oath doesn't say: "Well the president said so and his word is the supreme law of the land, fuck the Constitution." I guess it comes down to what your idea of the United States is, a nation guided by laws which every citizen must follow or a dictatorship where one man's word is law and which tips its hat to the Constitution when convenience allows and/or an easy buck can be made. As another poster has illustrated there is a long history of military personel refusing to follow orders which were given beyond the scope of the Constitution. Your attempt (and those of some others here) to paint things in these false, absolute terms is just naive and silly. The minute any officer, including the Commander in Chief, places himself and his orders above and at odds with the Constitution he becomes one of the domestic enemies of the Constitution referred to in your oath. He becomes an enemy you have sworn to oppose. Insofar as you follow unconstitutional orders you are forsaking your oath and forsaking your nation.

farglebargle -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 3:22:48 PM)
Hmmm... Where WAS Bush from April 1972 to October 1972???

Iskander -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 3:25:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Obviously, your military is not like ours is - or - you have no conception about the modern military.* LOD, He has no clue, our troops enter the field with Honour, and leave the field with Honour... Regardless of the conflict I dare say that others have been proud to serve alongside our Diggers.. Respectfully, Iskander...

LordODiscipline -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 3:38:14 PM)
*The President is Commander in Chief -* *He says, the military does within the parameters of the law - unless and until there is redress in some other way, the military acts....* With the weakening of the requirement for articles of war during Korea and (most espcially) during Vietnam while recognizing that the world does not wait for Congress to act, the power vested in the execuitve branch is significantly increased and extended beyond the original intent... and, this is supported by the US Supreme Court and several laws that have been passed in the interim of these events. At some point there will have to be some balance restored - but, whether you like the thought or not - the essence and base simplicity (without the issues of party concensus, congressional fiasco, or some laws suit brought) of what Navy DDG54 (why is there a Destroyer writing on this posting board???!!!) is a fact.. the President says "Iraq is the enemy, we go...." More easy examples of the ability to wage war without any other inference (from the other two branches of the government) and without oversight except by the military as to whether it was or was not in violation of the consistution or existing laws can be garnered from any president's administration since and including Kennedy... *"Acts of War" in the old sense exist in every era and every administration - and, the president acts unilaterally to answer those in the shortest time possible without any other influence.* ~J

LordODiscipline -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 3:40:51 PM)
*I - in no way - meant to besmirch in the slightest - the ANZAC uniformed armed services, their men and women inclusive...* *I have had the honor and opportunity to serve with them in two theatres - and, they are the epitome of professionalism and rightful deserved pride.* *With Due Respect.* ~J

Noah -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 3:53:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *The President is Commander in Chief -* *He says, the military does within the parameters of the law* My point exactly.

Iskander -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 7:54:09 PM)
I know you didn't LOD, unlike a certain someone who can't see the difference between a discussion on what it means to serve ones country and leftwing antiwar Bush bashing... (What sane soldier is pro war?) He has no idea about our views on Bush, and frankly they are irrelevant here... The issue IMO opinion is about doing ones duty regardless of personal feelings of the hows and whys... His opinions of ''conscientious objector" and going AWOL may all be good and well (though not something I condone as I feel it's letting the 'team' [country] down) when there is a conscription, but when you volunteer, you damn well know what you're signing up for... Iskander...

Aine -> RE: AWOL soldier surrenders in Ky. (10/4/2006 8:27:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iskander Ahhh... Well I live in Aus, and recently it's been plastered all over the media, that due to not being able to get enough new recruits, the army is slacking off on requirements, overweight, no problem, we'll fix that, can't run 100 meters, we'll fix that, astma, no worries mate, we'll take you as a non-combatant... I can't say that the US army is the same, but the fact that the guy that this thread is about wasn't screened better, and that the US has a shortage of recruits makes me think that if they havn't dropped standards yet then they will before long... Military history has also been an interest of mine for 30 years, it was my history major.. quote: ORIGINAL: Aine But only one section of it. Generally, that's what most people do. They are limited to a smaller portion of the American armed forces (no matter what branch) A good carpenter doesn't just know how to use his hammer, he knows all his tools intimately... Iskander... See....this is the EXACT discussion that I had with my boyfriend last night. The whole screening thing was exactly what he and I debated about. Iwas skeptical as to the lengths taken when screening those that join the american army/armed forces/whateverbrachyawannatalkabout. I had the same reaction that I'm sure a lot of people had. But I also looked at it from the perspective that no matter what training that they go through (because I was honestly surprised that he was sent over only a year after joining the army) and how much training they go through....it's in their head that it is TRAINING. Nothing can ever EVER compare to the real thing. I don't think any kind of training unless you are a certain type of person, which I believe in my heart is a RARE kind of person, can prepare the average human for what you have to do in those kinds of situations. So in all honesty, I think that the way things were explained to me by my boyfriend...that there really is more screening and observation than the rest of us really know when it comes to the american armed forces. So do I think he was wrong for what he did? Absolutely not. He is having emotional and mental issues with what he had to do in Iraq. And lord knows what he had to do. For all we know he had to kill someone or even more than one person, and I think that that would be a hard thing to deal with for MOST people. Do I think he went about it in the right way? Newp. But you have to look at it as if you were in that position. He's not the same person he was before he joined and went to Iraq. I think that perhaps what he went through has pretty much skewed his general perception of things. And it seems that like many others in the past...that he ended up severely guilty and paranoid because of it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125