RE: Bergdahl

RE: Bergdahl (Full Version)

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

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 6:51:20 PM)
If you are going to feed the troll, Thirdwheelwanted, could you do us a favor and not quote him?

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 8:21:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If you are going to feed the troll, Thirdwheelwanted, could you do us a favor and not quote him? Sorry, every now and then I forget that some people don't want to have a discussion, they just want to "win" at all costs. After endless repetitions of "ignorant unsubstantiated opinion" and "Why? Why? Why", I gave up. It was like arguing with a 3yo. The Hide button has become my friend. Thompson, feel free to call this a win. I give up, you're not worth my time.

Sanity -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 8:34:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If you are going to feed the troll, Thirdwheelwanted, could you do us a favor and not quote him? Sorry, every now and then I forget that some people don't want to have a discussion, they just want to "win" at all costs. After endless repetitions of "ignorant unsubstantiated opinion" and "Why? Why? Why", I gave up. It was like arguing with a 3yo. The Hide button has become my friend. Thompson, feel free to call this a win. I give up, you're not worth my time. Most of us have been ignoring him for years

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 9:56:47 PM)
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. While I appreciate your input, I'm going to respectfully disagree. In most circumstances, you're correct, but most isn't all. Yes, the military runs on policy and tradition, but that doesn't trump regulations. Considering you age, you served in a peace-time military, just as I did. From what I can tell, most of the differences seem to stem from that factor. Declared war, being in a combat theater, and being ordered to deploy to a combat AO, seems to make the difference. Although it seems that even in peace-time there are factors that make AWOL into desertion immediately. Seeking asylum in a foreign country. Enlisting in a foreign military. Committing a felony while already AWOL. I only made SP4 myself. When I was on Ft Monmouth for a while, the reason for the threats of a charge of desertion since my Top seemed to think I should be on Ft Stewart at the time, I worked in the S2/S3 shop. Only as a gofer, and only for a few months. Although when I was in the guard I did work with our training NCO a lot.

TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 10:46:21 PM)
What I think is confusing a lot of commenters who never served is the difference between what the book says, and what the policies are, and what never gets near any sort of formal proceeding at all. I once saw a SSGT, yanked out the door of a truck by an A1C, get body slammed and kicked in the head, and the report said Sarge slipped on a wet step while dismounting the vehicle, with a letter of counseling added to his file for failing to use the grab handle. The A1C put on his next stripe before Sarge was cleared off light duty. Commander's call, for the good of the service (Sarge had worse than he got coming on that one). Somebody posted the story of Pvt. Slovik earlier in the thread. Notice how many times the Army tried to just make it go away, before they put him on death row. Nobody is going to be able to make Bergdahl's stroll into the night go away, but if he says he had a temporary breakdown of some sort, and was making his way back when he was captured, some lawyer will run with it.

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 12:26:57 AM)
Or even some crazy story, that might even be true, that he thought he could go out and negotiate some sort of peace deal with the locals and it blew up in his face. Keep in mind he was raised by devout Calvinist parents and by all accounts he was a very different young man with a different view of the world.

truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 1:12:32 AM)
quote: but if he says he had a temporary breakdown of some sort I was imagining his best possible defense earlier, and "psychotic break" was what I came up with. Obviously unprovable, imo, but it might go to mitigating circumstances at sentencing?

truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 1:15:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Or even some crazy story, that might even be true, that he thought he could go out and negotiate some sort of peace deal with the locals and it blew up in his face. Keep in mind he was raised by devout Calvinist parents and by all accounts he was a very different young man with a different view of the world. Do you think that negotiating a private peace with the locals is a legitimate defense against a desertion charge? I think it's proof of it...... The Army does not do "very different" very well.....

Sanity -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 5:20:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic What I think is confusing a lot of commenters who never served is the difference between what the book says, and what the policies are, and what never gets near any sort of formal proceeding at all. I once saw a SSGT, yanked out the door of a truck by an A1C, get body slammed and kicked in the head, and the report said Sarge slipped on a wet step while dismounting the vehicle, with a letter of counseling added to his file for failing to use the grab handle. The A1C put on his next stripe before Sarge was cleared off light duty. Commander's call, for the good of the service (Sarge had worse than he got coming on that one). Somebody posted the story of Pvt. Slovik earlier in the thread. Notice how many times the Army tried to just make it go away, before they put him on death row. Nobody is going to be able to make Bergdahl's stroll into the night go away, but if he says he had a temporary breakdown of some sort, and was making his way back when he was captured, some lawyer will run with it. The top brass is keeping him away from even his family, claims he refuses to talk with them. Knowing this administration they're feeding him his story lines

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 5:54:05 AM)
ORIGINAL: Sanity Most of us have been ignoring him for years Only the morons like you who have the intellectual capacity of a small stone have me on hide.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 5:58:43 AM)
ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted Sorry, every now and then I forget that some people don't want to have a discussion, they just want to "win" at all costs. After endless repetitions of "ignorant unsubstantiated opinion" and "Why? Why? Why", When you substantiate your ignorant childish opinions then someone besides dick the dumb will listen to you. I gave up. When you have nothing but hot air and ignorant opinion that is the best choice. The Hide button has become my friend. Those who feel intellectually incapable of having a discussion should use the hide button to protect their ignorance.

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 6:17:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Or even some crazy story, that might even be true, that he thought he could go out and negotiate some sort of peace deal with the locals and it blew up in his face. Keep in mind he was raised by devout Calvinist parents and by all accounts he was a very different young man with a different view of the world. Do you think that negotiating a private peace with the locals is a legitimate defense against a desertion charge? I think it's proof of it...... The Army does not do "very different" very well..... All he has to say is he meant to not come back and there is no desertion charge. It really is that simple.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 6:46:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All he has to say is he meant to not come back and there is no desertion charge. It really is that simple. Actually, no, it really isn't. I don't know why you keep insisting that "intent" is the only issue. There are two other sections to that article. Any of the three can be used to sustain the charge. Why you keep ignoring that I have no idea.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 7:34:51 AM)
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Take your shit and get off the thread, Cloudboy. Your unbiased opinion of free speech is most instructive.[8\|] This isn't a partisan thing. Everything you do in this section is partisan[8\|]

slaveoubliette -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 7:35:57 AM)
argument what a president does under executive authority are limited. Did we want Bergdahl becoming the poster child for the MIA movement from this conflict? The use of ultimatums are coming back to haunt us. Because we don't deal with terrorists it is better to leave a man behind.... really. How did the Cuban missle crisis and the refusal to associate wwith Castro for 50 years help us or hurt us... No you can't say your open to negotiations, but have a position of not attempting resolutions with terrorists... A terrorist is only a terrorist as long as you want to make him or her one

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 7:35:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All he has to say is he meant to not come back and there is no desertion charge. It really is that simple. Actually, no, it really isn't. I don't know why you keep insisting that "intent" is the only issue. There are two other sections to that article. Any of the three can be used to sustain the charge. Why you keep ignoring that I have no idea. Because his intent is what matters. If every guy who went beyond the wire got charged with desertion the Army would get awfully short of troops in combat theaters.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 7:42:20 AM)
ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted Actually, no, it really isn't. I don't know why you keep insisting that "intent" is the only issue. There are two other sections to that article. Any of the three can be used to sustain the charge. Why you keep ignoring that I have no idea. Here are the other two sections you quoted. (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; Since there is no proof that this happened this section does not apply. or (3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States, is guilty of desertion. Since this did not happen this section does not apply. Any idea why no one takes your ignorant bullshit seriously?

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 7:45:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveoubliette argument what a president does under executive authority are limited. Did we want Bergdahl becoming the poster child for the MIA movement from this conflict? The use of ultimatums are coming back to haunt us. Because we don't deal with terrorists it is better to leave a man behind.... really. How did the Cuban missle crisis and the refusal to associate wwith Castro for 50 years help us or hurt us... No you can't say your open to negotiations, but have a position of not attempting resolutions with terrorists... A terrorist is only a terrorist as long as you want to make him or her one And thusfar the u.s. govt has yet to label the taliban as a terrorist organization. In fact if I remember correctly they were the legally constituted government of afghanistan when we went in there and punked them.

Sanity -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 7:50:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveoubliette argument what a president does under executive authority are limited. Did we want Bergdahl becoming the poster child for the MIA movement from this conflict? The use of ultimatums are coming back to haunt us. Because we don't deal with terrorists it is better to leave a man behind.... really. How did the Cuban missle crisis and the refusal to associate wwith Castro for 50 years help us or hurt us... No you can't say your open to negotiations, but have a position of not attempting resolutions with terrorists... A terrorist is only a terrorist as long as you want to make him or her one No. With this brand of terrorist, a terrorist is a terrorist until you grovel toward Mecca, you are dead, or said terrorist gets his mansion of rooms filled with female slaves

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 7:54:43 AM)
ORIGINAL: Sanity No. With this brand of terrorist, a terrorist is a terrorist until you grovel toward Mecca, you are dead, or said terrorist gets his mansion of rooms filled with female slaves This would be your ignorant biased unsubstantiated opinion[8\|]

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125