1
   

8,000 desert during Iraq war

 
 
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 10:32 am
3/7/2006

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_common/_images/classified-usat.gif

Quote:
8,000 desert during Iraq war

By Bill Nichols, USA TODAYhttp://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/03/06/desertionsdrop.jpgusatoday



Quote:
Decades later, Marines hunt Vietnam-era deserters

Thirty years after the war ended, hundreds of Vietnam-era deserters are still on the loose. Conti's attorneys, Louis Font and Tod Ensign, say the Pentagon, and the Marine Corps in particular, are cracking down on long-term cases in an effort to warn current-day troops in Iraq against deserting.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,222 • Replies: 53
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 10:44 am
It's good to see the levels have decreased since 9/11.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 12:30 pm
Bushie deserted them first. He abused his authority by lying them and the world into war.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 01:25 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Bushie deserted them first. He abused his authority by lying them and the world into war.

I have repeatedly challenged liberals on the board to state for me one, and only one lie that Bush told, in their own words (not a link), and have received every possible response except an on-topic, civil answer with evidence. What is this lie you are referring to?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 01:35 pm
Would you like me to point out a good one, Brandon? I have one on Spying that is rock-solid. I'm pretty sure you know what I'm referring to.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 01:38 pm
Brandon, I repeatedly ignore your challenge. Most Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war. They did not come to that conclusion recklessly. Most Americans believe lying us into war should lead to impeachment. Your challenge despite arguments to and frow on the issue leads me to believe you're cherry picking your info.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 01:41 pm
What rag sheet are you reading from blue? Something owned by CBS?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 01:41 pm
Most leftwingers and Bush haters console themselves by stating the same tired old mantra that "Bush lied us into war" when they have not provided a shred of proof for that.

Meanwhile, it is interesting how much desertion stats have dropped in the military since 9/11. I believe the reports indicate that only one.....that is ONE.....person serving in forces dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan has deserted.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 01:48 pm
Of course, it's 'Bush haters' who are living in a fantasy world, right, Fox, and not you?

I find it to be hilariously ironic that you repeatedly are unable to provide substantial argument or facts to back up your opinion, yet refuse to accept that you could be in error; yet despite the fact that, whether or not Bush himself lied or his cabinet lied, the American people were lead to believe that there was an imminent threat from Iraq and that we would find WMD there; this was, of course, not true. Your insistance that this was not true just shows how removed from reality you are.

You forget that we were there! We remember what the Bush admin was saying at the time, the attitudes they had, the certainty they portrayed uncertain intel with. It was lies, and no amount of historical revisionism on your part will change that.

People haven't deserted in Iraq, because where the hell would they go? No, they are counted as deserters when they don't show up for their next tour, or refuse to be stop-lossed.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 01:52 pm
Foxfyre, most Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war. If it comforts you to call them Bush haters ok. But that wont change any minds. The truth is you're in an ever shrinking minority who wont admit Bushie deliberately lied us into war.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 02:04 pm
no point in spending time digging out and reposting all of the direct quotes from bush and his cadre that were either known to be wrong, such as the yellow cake line that had already been pulled from a previous speech in cincinnatti on the basis of being... uhh... incorrect.

it would convince noone who is still parrotting the bush squawks.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 02:17 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
no point in spending time digging out and reposting all of the direct quotes from bush and his cadre that were either known to be wrong, such as the yellow cake line that had already been pulled from a previous speech in cincinnatti on the basis of being... uhh... incorrect.

it would convince noone who is still parrotting the bush squawks.


Sometime we need to sit down and agree on a definition of a 'lie' DTOM. And also the concept of exaggerating the importance of one thing out of a whole list of things. And also the willingness to see new information that gives credibility to the old.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 03:03 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I have repeatedly challenged liberals on the board to state for me one, and only one lie that Bush told, in their own words (not a link), and have received every possible response except an on-topic, civil answer with evidence. What is this lie you are referring to?

I don't consider myself a "liberal", more of a moderate Republican, but I'll take a stab. So, in my own words and without links, I believed the President lied when he said:

1) He was not briefed about the risks of Hurricane Katrina and the government did everything possible to prepare for it. I'm from New Orleans, so I get more steamed about this than most.

2) The United States does not engage in torture. Three years ago, I defended the US against this charge on other boards. I was wrong. The evidence is overwhelming that the US has done this using most commonly accepted definitions of torture. Only by distorting the definition can the President claim otherwise.

3) Iraq was working with terrorists, was involved in 9/11 and was a threat to the US. His defenders may claim otherwise, but the President was clearly spinning this tale before the Iraq invasion.

4) He does not know Jack Abramoff. Jack says otherwise.

There are several other lies I think the President told, but that are not conclusive. I'll start with these for now.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 03:15 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, I repeatedly ignore your challenge. Most Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war. They did not come to that conclusion recklessly. Most Americans believe lying us into war should lead to impeachment. Your challenge despite arguments to and frow on the issue leads me to believe you're cherry picking your info.
I'm going to start ignoring a lot of the right-wingers here. They just act as a firewall to real political conversation.

I say it's time to move forward and leave them behind intill the acknowledge the truth and start making sense. There anti-productive and a waste of time, energy and typing.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
no point in spending time digging out and reposting all of the direct quotes from bush and his cadre that were either known to be wrong, such as the yellow cake line that had already been pulled from a previous speech in cincinnatti on the basis of being... uhh... incorrect.

it would convince noone who is still parrotting the bush squawks.


Sometime we need to sit down and agree on a definition of a 'lie' DTOM. And also the concept of exaggerating the importance of one thing out of a whole list of things. And also the willingness to see new information that gives credibility to the old.


huhhh... that sounds an awful lot like; "it depends on what your definition of "is" is".... :wink:
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 07:36 pm
Its real simple...
DESERTERS SHOULD BE SHOT!!!

That would greatly reduce the desertion rate.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 08:39 pm
18 year olds "desert" for a variety of reasons, and often don't make very good decisions. They might miss a ship movement and then are afraid to show up knowing that they're in trouble deep. Maybe they met a girl and got carried away or forgot about how the military is anti-drugs and are afraid the urine test is going to catch them or don't know how to get the sergent off their back or their mom is sick.... I've heard several variants of these. I never saw a case where shooting was a good choice.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 08:53 pm
engineer wrote:
18 year olds "desert" for a variety of reasons, and often don't make very good decisions. They might miss a ship movement and then are afraid to show up knowing that they're in trouble deep. Maybe they met a girl and got carried away or forgot about how the military is anti-drugs and are afraid the urine test is going to catch them or don't know how to get the sergent off their back or their mom is sick.... I've heard several variants of these. I never saw a case where shooting was a good choice.


When someone deserts,they leave a whole in their unit,that someone else has to fill.
Sure,you can get a replacement,but it doesnt always mean that the replacement will "fit in".

I was a corpsman for a marine rifle company,and all the marines knew they could count on me to be there,no matter what.
Now,if I had deserted,would they trust their new corpsman as much,or would they "bond" with him?

Every person that signs that contract and raises their right hand is an adult,and they all knew what they were signing up for.
As adults,why shouldnt they be held accountable for their actions?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 09:20 pm
i'd have to more or less agree with mystery. not so sure about being "shot", though that and hanging are the traditional punishment for desertion.

since there's no draft for the last 30 years, if ya don't want to get into battle, ya probably should do a different kind of work to begin with.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 09:36 pm
mysteryman wrote:
When someone deserts,they leave a whole in their unit,that someone else has to fill.
Sure,you can get a replacement,but it doesnt always mean that the replacement will "fit in".

I was a corpsman for a marine rifle company,and all the marines knew they could count on me to be there,no matter what.
Now,if I had deserted,would they trust their new corpsman as much,or would they "bond" with him?

Every person that signs that contract and raises their right hand is an adult,and they all knew what they were signing up for.
As adults,why shouldnt they be held accountable for their actions?


Who's not holding people accountable? Court martial works for me. But if you were a corspman, then you know that teenagers do stupid things for stupid reasons. We always told them "less than 30 days and it's just UA. Don't go over 30 days." People still did. Court martial them, some brig time and a less than honorable and justice is done. Not everyone is cut out to stand by your side in a fire fight.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 8,000 desert during Iraq war
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 04:44:41