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.

 

National Guard Soldier Charged With Desertion

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
You ever been to war? You ever had to kill someone?You're levelling some pretty harsh statements. There's nothing unusual about someone going through something traumatic/life-changing and then changing their vocation. It happens all the time. To judge that guy like that is just wrong. Until you walk a mile in his shoes...


Originally posted by Pyros

As far as I am concerned, he should be strung up by his heels. How bout the men back in his original unit in Iraq? What if one of them gets killed because this chicken-shyte dirtbag is off back in the states parading around in front of the cameras spouting off about a "evil war"?

You sign on the dotted line...you do your damn duty. No one made you sign up.

The fact of the matter is that war is not only Hell, but it is hard and uncomfortable. To me it smells like slacking.

If this schmuck is a conscientious objector, he should have never joined in the first place.


[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]




posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

ECK:
Why don't you tell us when the last time it was they executed someone for desertion.

If I were you I would say "use the mighty google search," but since I am not you I will tell you. It was in WWII. Need more info than that?

That is what we call antiquated. Don't worry. I didn't expect you to know what that means.





What is there to understand, you made the claim that Bush did worse than this guy in a time of war, now you agree that there was no war declared.

Again, semantics. What Bush did was far worse. First, his father used his connections to get him a plum assignment that more qualified men were in line for. Second, he took the National Guard job to get out of going to Vietnam - where his countryment were daily being maimed and killed - b/c he's a chickenshyte and third, he just walked away - for an entire year.

Keep defending the INDEFENSIBLE
.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
That is what we call antiquated. Don't worry. I didn't expect you to know what that means.

Means you, right?

What is there to understand, you made the claim that Bush did worse than this guy in a time of war, now you agree that there was no war declared.

Again, semantics. What Bush did was far worse. First, his father used his connections to get him a plum assignment that more qualified men were in line for. Second, he took the National Guard job to get out of going to Vietnam - where his countryment were daily being maimed and killed - b/c he's a chickenshyte and third, he just walked away - for an entire year.

Why was it far worse? Bush volunteered to go into the ANG. True, it wasn't like serving in Vietnam. but it also wasn't as bad as actively protesting against the armed forces like certain other people.

I have yet to see proof of how chicken he is. Can you cite some examples for us. After all, he went to visit troops in a war zone, landed on a carrier, etc. Doesn't sound too chicken to me.


Back to the subject at hand, this guy deserted in a time of war. Not only did he desert, he made it known beforehand. Since it was a planned event, there is no reason why he should not be punished to the full extent.

He failed in his duty. He failed to fulfill his obligations under his enlistment contract.

This would not be an issue if he was working for a corporation and not the government.


[Edited on 31/3/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Based on what I have read in this thread, I have come to the following conclusion.

Bush went AWOL during Vietnam.

Mejia Went AWOL after returning from Iraq.

There was never a declaration of war against the North Vietnamese.

There has never been a declaration of war against Iraq.

So - Both Bush and Mejia are guilty of the same 'crime' -
neither of them can be charged with going AWOL during a time of war since war was never officially declared, either now or during Vietnam.

They should both receive the same 'punishment'.

Since Bush got away with it, so should Mejia.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Since Bush got away with it, so should Mejia.

No, this guy deserted from a warzone. He refused to follow orders. He went AWOL. He was declared a deserter.

None of those facts can be disputed. This guy should pay for what he did.

Do you people all expect him to walk away after committing a crime? That is exactly what you are supporting.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Our job involves risks, but in exchange for taking those risks we get to leagally blow things up and shoot guns.

That statement just showed your mentality. I'd say you must be one of those dimmer bulbs.


Well, no I would say that I am not.

I choose to show the lighter side of life in the military since most people do not want to hear about how much the hours suck, how bad it is to be away from your family for months at a time, etc.


Sheesh, you try to bring a little levity here and you get accused of being dim.


Sorry. That's just how I tend to think of that, "Cool! We get to blow stuff up and kill people!", attitude. It's hard not to see it as worse than Beavis and Butthead.

I wouldn't say he "failed his duty", though. Disagreeing with the reasons for fighting is not the same as failing. I'm sure, if he believed in what the US is doing, he'd have served dutifully. I'd have a tough time fighting for something I was against. Actually, there's no way I'd do it, no matter the consequences. The guy has principles, IMO. That's not something to be looked down upon by anyone, except war mongers.

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Sorry. That's just how I tend to think of that, "Cool! We get to blow stuff up and kill people!", attitude. It's hard not to see it as worse than Beavis and Butthead.

I never said anything at all about killing people. It happens to be an unfortunate side effect of when we do our job.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Yes, but there are so many people in the services who are more than willing to kill people. They're usually the ones who think that way.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Yes, but there are so many people in the services who are more than willing to kill people. They're usually the ones who think that way.


Really, I have yet to meet them. Have you?



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
That is what we call antiquated. Don't worry. I didn't expect you to know what that means.

Means you, right?

Yet more childishness. Btw, I'll be 35 this year and I'm proud of it. It's nice to reach a place in life that you realize there is so much in life yet to learn.


I have yet to see proof of how chicken he is. Can you cite some examples for us. After all, he went to visit troops in a war zone, landed on a carrier, etc. Doesn't sound too chicken to me.

One quick trip. Yeah, Bush is a real heeero, alright.

From the article "Ultimate Betrayal" by Howard Zinn


- The quick Thanksgiving visit of Bush to Iraq, much ballyhooed in the press, was seen differently by an army nurse in Landstuhl, Germany, where casualties from the war are treated. She sent out an e-mail: "My 'Bush Thanksgiving' was a little different. I spent it at the hospital taking care of a young West Point lieutenant wounded in Iraq. . . . When he pressed his fists into his eyes and rocked his head back and forth he looked like a little boy. They all do, all nineteen on the ward that day, some missing limbs, eyes, or worse. . . . It's too bad Bush didn't add us to his holiday agenda. The men said the same, but you'll never read that in the paper."
www.progressive.org...



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Since Bush got away with it, so should Mejia.


No, this guy deserted from a warzone. He refused to follow orders. He went AWOL. He was declared a deserter.

None of those facts can be disputed. This guy should pay for what he did.


He came home for two weeks of leave. Get your facts straight.


[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Satyr
Yes, but there are so many people in the services who are more than willing to kill people. They're usually the ones who think that way.


Really, I have yet to meet them. Have you

You said it yourself, in so many words. You have to be willing to kill when you join. It's your job. They know why they're there, right? You don't join without knowing you may have to kill people. It's the same as people who carry and/or own guns. They've already decided they won't have a problem killing someone, should it become necessary.

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Yet more childishness. Btw, I'll be 35 this year and I'm proud of it. It's nice to reach a place in life that you realize there is so much in life yet to learn.

Good for you on reaching the age of 35. Makes me wonder why you have Kid in your member name?

I have yet to see proof of how chicken he is. Can you cite some examples for us. After all, he went to visit troops in a war zone, landed on a carrier, etc. Doesn't sound too chicken to me.

One quick trip. Yeah, Bush is a real heeero, alright.

Not too many other Presidents have done anything like that. Or like this:

www.snopes.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Ya gotta love it. Resident George W. Bush went AWOL for a year back in '72 - in a time of war and was never held accountable for that.

See what happens when you're not the son of a wealthy government official and you go AWOL during a war? That's what really happens - to regular folks. Those born into privelege are not held to the same standard as the rest.

It's complete Bu#!
[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]
That is what exactly happens among all areas of our Society under any type of institution. Those who are in power are basically those who remain immune from the laws. I think all these ruling elite people don't really care about everyone else, which is why I like to refer to them as a Cabal. They control every area of Society, from the oil cartel, banking and finance, health sectors, defence industries, and the police. Because they control all these, they control everybody that relies on these areas of society. Think about the CIA and their involvement with SRA and how nobody wants to help those who experience it, because the authorities are involved themselves. A Cabal I tell you.

If people still think that the law applies to everybody, that is not the real truth, as G. W. Bush's antics will illustrate to those under the elite.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IMMORTAL

That is what exactly happens among all areas of our Society under any type of institution. Those who are in power are basically those who remain immune from the laws. I think all these ruling elite people don't really care about everyone else, which is why I like to refer to them as a Cabal. They control every area of Society, from the oil cartel, banking and finance, health sectors, defence industries, and the police. Because they control all these, they control everybody that relies on these areas of society. Think about the CIA and their involvement with SRA and how nobody wants to help those who experience it, because the authorities are involved themselves. A Cabal I tell you.

If people still think that the law applies to everybody, that is not the real truth, as G. W. Bush's antics will illustrate to those under the elite.

You're exactly right.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join