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.

 

40,000 Troops Desert since 2000

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
You cannot paint all wealthy people as neo-con's who support the war.

This is not an issue of ideology. The children of the wealthy have more opportunities available than the children of the middle class and the poor so they are less likely to choose the military as a career or as a means to get financial assistance for education. I make no judgement one way or the other as to whether this is desireable. However I would conjecture that of the 40k deserters that very few are wealthy because those with power and money have other means to get out of military service.

The best solution would be to allow folks in the military the ability to resign just like with any other job.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by df1]




posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I will say thanks this time Zappa BUT, and I know I will get a ration of poop for this, but it has always kinda bugged me when people thank me for my military service. I did not do anything especially noble, I was paid, recieved educational and other benefits and a 30% disability now for a very messed up knee injured while in. In short I was compensated for my service i.e. it was a job.


I won't quibble with your thoughts on this. As a veteran, I don't ever mind receiving any kind of thanks for my service. However, the reality is that I am rarely, if ever, thanked for my small contribution. I can understand how you feel, however, as it is not like an action movie, but more like a mundane job.


Originally posted by grover I object to military personal being called heroes (or sports figures even more so) unless they do something above and beyond the call of duty, for the very same reasons.


Very true. In the US Navy, many of our warships are named after true heroes - those who went above and beyond the call of duty to preserve the mission, or to save the lives of their shipmates, most often at the cost of their own lives. Those are real heroes. Veterans, and even combat veterans, are just that........veterans. They should be deserving of some measure of respect, and on the right occasion, perhaps a small measure of compensation or thanks. But never hero worship, or unwarranted devotion. It is the tradition of the American serviceman to serve with humble determination, with purpose of mind and clarity of thought that when the mission is over and the threat eliminated, you return to your plow, factory and family from whence you came. Its funny. The closest thing we have to an aristocracy in America is our senior military leaders, and Americans have a long history of resenting "the royals".


Originally posted by groverThere is nothing noble about war and nothing especially noble spending your youth preparing for it. There is nothing noble obeying an order to go to war, considering the club called the Military Code of Justice they hold over your head, and its penalties if you do not comply.


While I agree that there is not supposed to be public nobility for these things, there is quite often personal nobility for those who choose to lead this way of life. War is hell, and it reduces man to his most base components, often the very things we have spent millenia trying to erase. However, on rare occasions, nobility and grace do manifest and appear amidst the chaos and death. We tend to gravitate to this examples of human goodness in war, in an attempt to block out and negate the raw savagry.


Originally posted by groverFor the majority of our service people, in combat or not, it is a job, a way to get ahead, even for the lifers and like I said unless they do something above and beyond the call of duty, they are not heroes. That word should be saved for the truly heroic, like the off duty first responders who rushed to the World Trade Center, even though they didn't have, and died.


Agreed.


Originally posted by groverThis is not to disparage our military personal, but a statement of facts, or at the very least, how I see it and it is not to say there are not noble or heroic acts in war, there are, but htey are individual cases...for the rest, its just a job.


Agreed, but I think more servicemen and servicewomen (after they have separated or retired and have had some time to reflect upon it) probably will remember their time in the service as something a little more than "just a job".



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by crgintx
You cannot paint all wealthy people as neo-con's who support the war.

This is not an issue of ideology. The children of the wealthy have more opportunities available than the children of the middle class and the poor so they are less likely to choose the military as a career or as a means to get financial assistance for education. I make no judgement one way or the other as to whether this is desireable. However I would conjecture that of the 40k deserters that very few are wealthy because those with power and money have other means to get out of military service.

The best solution would be to allow folks in the military the ability to resign just like with any other job.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by df1]


Your premise is based upon the assumption that military servce is viewed as undesirable by those of the "upper class". It is also based upon the premise that poor people only join the military because they need a job or view the service as an opportunity for an education.

While your argument may be true in many cases, it is hardly representative of the majority of people who join the service. I could spend all day writing about why rich people join the service, and why poor people don't always do it for a job and schoolin'.

Its been my personal experience that the vast majority of people who went UA/AWOL/Deserted were:

a. junior enlisted (E-1 through E-4)
b. on their first tour of duty
c. occupying positions of little or no responsibility
d. drug or alcohol abusers
e. general disciple or motivation problem children
f. head cases involved with some girl they couldn't go without seeing

In all cases none of these people were of the type of personnel the military was interested in either obtaining or retaining. Wealth or poverty had little or nothing to do with it. It was simply a matter of character and responsibility.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
The seperation to Church and State is enunciated in the Bill of Rights which is the preamble to the constitution so yes it is in the constitution... to say otherwise is splitting hairs.


REPLY: I was just saying that the wording "separation of church and state" does not exist, but is spoken of as if it were. I also have issue with those who conveniently forget the second part of it: "'nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (that's close).



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Pyros...in my opinion if you really want to honor our veterans and soldiers, make sure they get what they were promised when they enlisted. This administration is so busy making new veterans and they nickel and dime them to death and eliminate benefits whenever they think that they can get away with it and it is shameful....but what do you expect from a bunch of chicken hawks?

Do you know the administration informed counselors that if a service person being discharged did not know their rights and benefits, not to tell them? There was a big stink in the DAV magazine about this a couple years back.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by grover]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Zappa if you go to my list of most recent threads and scroll down you will see one entitled "A History of Seperation of Church and State". I Think if you read it carefully you would find it very interesting.


df1

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Your premise is based upon the assumption that military servce is viewed as undesirable by those of the "upper class".

My premise is based on a fact, not an assumption. As I previously pointed out and as the numbers show, the wealthy are in fact shunning military service.


ABC News
In all, about 1 percent of U.S. representatives and senators have a child in uniform. And the Capitol building is no different from other places where the leadership class in this country gathers — no different from the boardrooms, newsrooms, ivory towers and penthouses of our nation.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
i have two questions:

1. why is the conversation still ongoing....i have clearly shown on page one that the title is misleading, as desertion rates have actually gone down since 2000, which means that there are less desertions now than there were before the war on terrorism started.

2. why wasnt this added to the already existing story War: Pentagon's blind eye to deserters written by moldmakertech instead of rehashing it in a completely new atsnn article?



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
It could be because we don't like a spoiled sport ruining the chance to have a perfectly good argument.


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 7-8-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Zappa if you go to my list of most recent threads and scroll down you will see one entitled "A History of Seperation of Church and State". I Think if you read it carefully you would find it very interesting.


REPLY: I read every link, but it has no bearing on the facts: the wording "separation of church and state" does not exist, but is spoken of as if it were. I also have issue with those who conveniently forget the second part of it: "'nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

It could be because we don't like a spoiled sport ruining the chance to have a perfectly good argument.


or it could be that you just want a new platform to spout the same old tiring arguments because you've run out of room (and people who care) in the other threads.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Well like I said thats splitting hairs and the point of sending you to that thread was for the historical context of why certian religious groups, specifically the baptists actually insisted on it.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
like those shouting for blood all the time are exciting? Talk about tired old arguments.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kachina
But how do you throw the Commander-in -Chief of the world's largest military into jail, into the defendant's box beside Saddam?


Hey, what do you have against Hu Jintao? Suddenly, you're against the Chinese as well as the US?
Do you even know how to research something before you say it? If not, just go away. This is a forum for rational debate, not the ravings of an unbalanced person. To sum up, stop..... think..... then post.

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 8/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanstheman

Originally posted by iori_komei

I think the military should be more of a voluntary thing, if you want to fight, you fight, if you don't, you don't.


Then we'd be France.


I can guarantee you will find this very funny.

Google: 'French Military Victories'
Go to the top page returned.
Read that page.

namaste

Raphael

[edit on 8-8-2006 by Kachina]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Kachina, that was funny as hell


Sporty



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by PapaHomer
Hey, what do you have against Hu Jintao? Suddenly, you're against the Chinese as well as the US?
Do you even know how to research something before you say it? If not, just go away. This is a forum for rational debate, not the ravings of an unbalanced person. To sum up, stop..... think..... then post.


Papa, this is the problem with words...they can be altered very easily, the intent behind the words is lost in your puny mind, the Black Hole known as ego.
I would further argue that as we have descended through the ages, our cultures actually have lost legitimacy and integrity of maintaining a truth.

Simple historical prooof...at one time there existed a truth etched, carved into STONE.
The smashing of the STONE tablets heralded eating from the TREE of Knowledge.
The knowledge once in STONE was now placed onto PAPYRUS...the forerunner to PAPER...thus we took the WORD and divided it into BITS and BYTES, so metaphorically we have used the SCISSORS of technology to aid us in exposing a BINARY CODE that transcends the macrocosm and the microcosm.

Stone, paper and scissors.
It is a child's game with deep profound meaning.
It also exposes a truth, and with each successive epoch, Stone > Paper > Bits and Bytes, the ability to manifest or manipulate a false TRUTH increases.
But this game also suggests their is never a clear winner, apparently a triangular relationship suggesting a balance.
So in conclusion, as you well know, I was not referring to the Chinese leader.
But I need to point that out to others who may misinterpret your words.
But you are probably correct; Hu Jintao is probably no saint.
But the one distinction Americans fail to make is the willingness to send troops 'overseas'.
I rarely see people on your shores.
Only the imaginary shadows or manufactured ones.
I have done the research, thus Papa I do more than just think, I also feel.
If the Chinese do deliver a message…America asked for it.
Yin and Yang
Universal Law triumphs over US Supreme Court Rulings, did you not know, even the Bush’s family illusions of grandeur…and any other distraction THEY throw at the sheeple and seagulliables.
What research do you suggest I do Papa?

namaste

Raphael

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 8/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

2) There were no insurgents in Iraq before we invaded them. It is a shame you are too ignorant to understand that.

3) If we have to tell you, you'd never understand.

REPLY: No insurgents in Iraq? Ever hear of the Baathist fighters? They've been there since Saddam came into power.


"...something to be said about a president who used his daddy's political connections to dodge the Vietnam draft but doesn't think twice about sending legitimate soldiers to die in his own modern day Vietnam. (in this) modern day Vietnam.


REPLY: Not even close to being the same. I was in VN, I went as an adviser to Iraq.... big difference. Bush served in the NG, which many people did; no shame there. He didn't go to Canada, like many of the cowards did, and still do.


You people who think this war is great and the soldiers who fight it are heroes should put on a uniform and request a deploying unit for your first duty station.


REPLY: Been there, done that. I'd do it again, but my age will not allow me to do so.

Grover........ I agree with you on the "heroes" issue, most definately about the first responders to 9-11.




Do me a favor and don’t insert someone else’s words between mine. If you do, at least identify who you are quoting. Doing otherwise is just plain rude.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join