It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are U.S. Armed Forces Chickening Out?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
It seems to be the beginning of a nightmare for US commanders.
Hundreds of deserters from the U.S. Armed Forces have crossed into Canada and are now seeking political refugee status there, arguing that violations of the rules of engagement in Iraq by the U.S. entitle them to asylum.

There are an estimated 400 in Canada out of more than 9,000 U.S. soldiers who have deserted since the conflict started in 2003.


Hundreds of deserters from the US armed forces have crossed into Canada and are now seeking political refugee status there, arguing that violations of the rules of war in Iraq by the US entitle them to asylum.
A decision on a test case involving two US servicemen is due shortly and is being watched with interest by fellow servicemen on both sides of the border. At least 20 others have already applied for asylum and there are an estimated 400 in Canada out of more than 9,000 who have deserted since the conflict started in 2003.

Guardian Unlimited


So what’s up with the American GIs?
The reasons, apart from what has been mentioned above, could be:

1. Low morale.
2. Inadequate logistics support.
3. Lack of ‘entertainment’.
4. Poor training.
5. Battle fatigue.
6. Fear of combat in a counter insurgency environment.

They could also be asking, “What am I fighting this war for? For whom am I putting my life on the line? For a bunch of self serving neo-cons?”

Nine thousand U.S. combatants have already deserted ranks. And that’s pretty alarming to say the least.

2500 U.S. soldiers killed, and counting.
For what? Oil? Spreading democracy? Obliterating terror? Furthering a fuzzy neo-con agenda?
If I were an American soldier, I would ask the same questions.

But would I desert? Hmmm…

Would you?

www.guardian.co.uk...




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I can’t find the link now that I need it, but the desertion rate is not much higher right now than it is during peace time.

Another telling number is the suicide rate among troops. Its lower now than it has been in decades.

The death rate, including all causes (even active duty) is the same or lower right now than in the last 20 years, INCLUDING PEACE TIME.

That link I have:
web1.whs.osd.mil...

Now to my opinion: This story is just left wing anti US dribble and propaganda with the sole purpose of a cheap shot as the US. Your thread, even though well written and supported by a source, is totally biased and agenda driven. You come to conclusions that stretch the scope of your source clearly defining your agenda.

Recruitment is up, death and suicide rate is down, and desertion is about the same as always. But somehow that deserves a "...So what’s up with the American GIs?..." from you.

LEFT WING PROPAGANDA!!

I also recommend you read this post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 30-3-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc


Now to my opinion: This story is just left wing anti US dribble and propaganda with the sole purpose of a cheap shot as the US. Your thread, even though well written and supported by a source, is totally biased and agenda driven. You come to conclusions that stretch the scope of your source clearly defining your agenda.


LEFT WING PROPAGANDA!!

[edit on 30-3-2006 by skippytjc]


The Guardian is an Eglish publication, so what's with "left wing anti US dribble and propaganda"?

Please provided the basis for your assessment, that the Guardian article "is totally biased and agenda driven".

You seriously think that England's "Newspaper of the year" is some sort of propaganda center for US left wing agenda?

Prove it.


"The Guardian was named newspaper of the year at the British Press Awards"

media.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind." Jed Babbin, Department of Defense"

If it wasn't for the French, we'd all be speaking Cherokee and paying taxes to the Brits. Get your priorities straight and pay some respect to the French Statue of Liberty.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I remember reading in another thread that the total percentage is just under one quarter of one percent that have deserted. (.24% IIRC) There have always been desertions, it's just getting played up more now, because they're claiming refugee status in Canada again, like in Vietnam. People join the military and suddenly realize t's not what they thought, so they go over the wire and desert. Some are caught, some aren't.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
There has been a lot said about the US cutting and running. From Lebanon, Somalia, possibly Vietnam so it's certainly a viable topic and also very prone to being used by one side or the other. On the one hand not running would seem to be the PATRIOT thing to do but on the other hand if we are involved in a unjust war perhaps we shouldn't be there. I often read that the Arabs/Muslims expect us to leave Iraq if only they can inflict enough damage on our troops to stir up public opinion. Thus the neocons use that as an excuse to stay the course ,while of course not looking too closely at why we are there in the first place. Are we involved in an unjust war? Were we repeatedly lied to about the reasons for war? Is the war being fought for monetary gain for US corporations that are openly connected to US politicians? Economic factors certainly seem to be the most important factor in any govt decision so while the politicoes claim the moral high ground the middle class and poor go to war and die for what? It looks like a resource war plain and simple. If it had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorim woundn't we have gone into Saudi Arabia?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
The Guardian is an Eglish publication, so what's with "left wing anti US dribble and propaganda"?

Just because its not american doesnt mean it cant be anti american nor left wing.
British newspapers are perhaps the WORST source of info, hell the papers said Tim Collins was a war criminal which was clearly wrong and again they said that british troops where beating men in an 8 tonner when it was clearly a fake.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
This story is nothing more then British tabloid journalists spouting off.

They are known for making more of an issue out of things then they actually are.

The sad part is we call their country our friends, yet their press does nothing but bash us. :shk:



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The sad part is we call their country our friends, yet their press does nothing but bash us. :shk:


The press over here are nothing more than a weapon used by politcal parties and special intrest groups, they insult and offend people everyday and get paid to do it.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

The press over here are nothing more than a weapon used by politcal parties and special intrest groups, they insult and offend people everyday and get paid to do it.



That may very well be the case, but I prefer to call them just tabloids since they are known to jump on almost anything and everything without asking questions first.

A good example would be the way they jumped all over Prince Charles son for some of the things he has done, or any major star if they so much as pass gas in public.

How they ever made newspaper of the year is beyond me. :shk:



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I can’t find the link now that I need it, but the desertion rate is not much higher right now than it is during peace time.


You might need a reference if you want this statement to mean something.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
It's actually LOWER than it was in 2001 before 9/11.


The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, the year of the Sept. 11 attacks, but only 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps also showed a drop in desertion numbers last year compared to 2001.

www.newsmax.com...



Army
Fiscal Year Number of Deserters Rate Per 1000
1997 2,218 4.58
1998 2,520 5.20
1999 2,966 6.13
2000 3,949 8.16
2001 4,597 9.50
2002 4,483 9.26
2003 3,678 7.60
2004 2,376 4.91
Air Force
1997 26 0.07
1998 27 0.07
1999 45 0.12
2000 46 0.12
2001 62 0.17
2002 88 0.24
2003 56 0.15
2004 50 0.14
Navy
1997 1,858 4.86
1998 2,038 5.33
1999 2,485 6.50
2000 3,255 8.51
2001 1,619 4.23
2003 Not Available
2004 Not Available
Marine Corps
1997 1,375 7.94
1998 1,460 8.43
1999 1,689 9.75
2000 2,019 11.66
2001 1,310 7.57
2002 1,136 6.56
2003 1,236 7.14
2004 1,297 7.49

usmilitary.about.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
By the way, this article in the Guardian gives no mention of desertion rates increasing. In fact, it compares:

Hundreds of deserters from the US armed forces have crossed into Canada and are now seeking political refugee status there, arguing that violations of the rules of war in Iraq by the US entitle them to asylum.

With:

During the Vietnam war between 50,000 and 60,000 Americans crossed the border to avoid serving.


I'm sure you'll find support for your hawkish war stances in the Guardian as well.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
They are known for making more of an issue out of things then they actually are.

No doubt.


Originally posted by Jamuhn
You might need a reference if you want this statement to mean something.

Here is a few:


The 2005 desertion rate was 0.24 percent of the 1.4 million members of the U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines. In 2001 there were just over 9,500 desertions from all services, while last year there were just over 4,900.
U.S. Military Desertion Rate Halves, (UPI March 2006)
Source 2



Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005.
USA Today (with nice graph)


Perhaps backing away from sensationalism and a small amount research would do the Guardian some good; however the ‘audience’ may not enjoy the abrupt changes.


mg



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by polanksi
There has been a lot said about the US cutting and running. From Lebanon, Somalia,


The US never went too Somalia to fight a war that was never the reason, it was a specificly humanitarian only mission. After the blackhawk down incident alot of the US troops wanted to go back and level Mogadishu and the could have. But the Brass never let them because they werent there to fight a war with Somalia.

Theses UN " humanitarian aide" missions are stupid and a often turn out to be debacles as are most UN actions. The US should never get invloved in them.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
If it wasn't for the French, we'd all be speaking Cherokee and paying taxes to the Brits. Get your priorities straight and pay some respect to the French Statue of Liberty.

Priorities?

Indeed!
I pay my respects everytime I pass it.
Living in the past is cool and all...
But being that the France of 1700s is not the same France of today, your rhetoric is well, simply rhetoric?







seekerof



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
Perhaps backing away from sensationalism and a small amount research would do the Guardian some good; however the ‘audience’ may not enjoy the abrupt changes.


Show me where the Guardian states that desertion rates are increasing. And show me a media outlet that doesn't have its 'audience.'



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I pay my respects everytime I pass it[The Statue of Liberty].
Living in the past is cool and all...
But being that the France of 1700s is not the same France of today, your rhetoric is well, simply rhetoric?


The Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886, not the 1700s. Try sticking to the facts.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Jamuhn as you know the Guardian story is basically a take-off on the Al Jazeera story about thousands of GI's deserting because of personal problems with the War in Iraq. As you also know, desertion rates are down significantly from past years and are nowhere near as high as during Vietnam. Al Jazeera's article is obvious propoganda. I don't know the motivation behind the Guardian article, but they have gone out of their way over the last 6 months or so to embarass the Blair govt. and attempt to do the same to the Bush govt. I could care less if they are left wing, right wing, or centerist but they obviously have their own agenda when it comes to the war in Iraq.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I posted information about desertion levels in response to the following:


Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by skippytjc
I can’t find the link now that I need it, but the desertion rate is not much higher right now than it is during peace time.


You might need a reference if you want this statement to mean something.

Agreed?


Originally posted by Jamuhn
Show me where the Guardian states that desertion rates are increasing. And show me a media outlet that doesn't have its 'audience.'


I never insinuated or mentioned that the Guardian states an increase concerning US desertions. What I provided was source material to support the claim by skippytjc, which is in fact correct. Now to the second portion of your comment.

My comment concerning the Guardian’s ‘audience’ is such that swaying a bit away from such purposeful yellow journalism; the guardian may in fact find a change in its subscriber base and readership. Sheeple obviously live on both sides of the Atlantic, yes?

Furthermore, obviously by quoting my previous statement, you will find I must in fact agree the Guardian in has an ‘audience’... otherwise my statement would have no meaning such as yours.



mg



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join