# Berhdahl charged with desertion



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bowe-bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion-his-attorney-says/

Wow- I thought it would not happen til Obama left office.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Thank heavens someone has some sense. 

6 of our military killed trying to rescue him. Traded for 5 Taliban who, I understand, are again fighting against us. He deserves nothing but prison, then a dishonorable discharge. No time off for being in a Taliban prison or the $300,000 back pay.

Ya gotta suffer the consequences of your actions.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

I didn't think it would happen. Eddie Slovik got the right punishment.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I think he'll be found guilty of something, but we won't see a long prison term. He'll get consideration for the years he was held in Afghanistan.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Do they still use fatigues with the big P on the back and smaller p stenciled on the arm , legs and over the heart and make them drill in addition to the hard labor?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

The jury will all be military officers, most of whom most likely served in the sandbox. I doubt there'll be much leniency shown, and there shouldn't be. The politics of this case are over.

A guy just fell asleep on perimeter guard in VN, he was transferred - but was eating through a straw, with both eyes bloused shut for quite some time.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Now they say that he will mental help so that he will get a lesser sentence.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

It's about time that he got charged. I'd have the SOB shot.


----------



## SmokeEater2 (Jan 11, 2010)

I didn't think Obama would let them touch him, I'm glad they did though.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Wolf mom said:


> Thank heavens someone has some sense.
> 
> 6 of our military killed trying to rescue him. Traded for 4 Taliban who, I understand, are again fighting against us. He deserves nothing but prison, then a dishonorable discharge. No time off for being in a Taliban prison or the $300,000 back pay.
> 
> Ya gotta suffer the consequences of your actions.


6, what a disgusting waste. My head wants to burst over what the tratior in chief is allowed to get away with. Not one life is worth a thousand....Obamas and his muslim trators.


----------



## SmokeEater2 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ozarks Tom said:


> The jury will all be military officers, most of whom most likely served in the sandbox. I doubt there'll be much leniency shown, and there shouldn't be. The politics of this case are over.
> 
> A guy just fell asleep on perimeter guard in VN, he was transferred - but was eating through a straw, with both eyes bloused shut for quite some time.



The jury should be NCO's since he was enlisted. I hope that's the case anyway. 

Senior NCO's take a very dim view of what that weasel did.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Took long enuf to come out w/obvious. Makes my blood boil...Pentahon is NOT supposed to be political!


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

Sounds like some of you would be happier if we implemented the policies of Stalinist Russia, where over 10,000 Soviet soldiers were executed by the NKVD in less than 5 months for desertion and cowardice.



Stalin said:


> Panic-mongers and cowards are to be exterminated at the site.


Perhaps we should even do like Stalin and punish the families of soldiers who dared to be captured by the enemy instead of gloriously fighting to the death. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Drama Queen?

Nope.

Justice, and Punishment. 
Consequences for choices.
Honorable men lost their lives, mothers lost son's, fathers lost sons, wives lost husbands, sisters lost brothers.......TRYING TO SAVE a traitor.
Honorable men, following instructions, heading straight into danger; No Man Left Behind.........and their lives were taken for a traitor.

No, let the courts decide.
This is no hero......we (Americans) were duped.
He is a disgrace to the Military, and what she stands for.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Shoden said:


> Sounds like some of you would be happier if we implemented the policies of Stalinist Russia, where over 10,000 Soviet soldiers were executed by the NKVD in less than 5 months for desertion and cowardice.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should even do like Stalin and punish the families of soldiers who dared to be captured by the enemy instead of gloriously fighting to the death. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html


That is a pretty strange view of someone who walked away from his unit which did not surrender. 
That and what happened in Stalin's Russia was a personal vendetta to keep troops from coming back with the knowledge of failures he caused and disrupting his personal spin. 
This can be viewed as a direct opposite where it will disrupt Obama's spin to have the prosecution.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Drama Queen?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


Problem is we can't trust our courts anymore.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I hope he can get a fair trial. I'm content to let the court decide. Though after all the others deceptions by the military trying to create heroes, why not a villain? I'm a firm believer in the old maxim" the first casualty of war is the truth".


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

where I want to said:


> That is a pretty strange view of someone who walked away from his unit which did not surrender.
> That and what happened in Stalin's Russia was a personal vendetta to keep troops from coming back with the knowledge of failures he caused and disrupting his personal spin.
> This can be viewed as a direct opposite where it will disrupt Obama's spin to have the prosecution.


Separate the two statements. The first one applies to his desertion, which, based on the evidence I've seen, I don't really question. I just question the bloodthirsty punishment that some posters here want for him, and the posters that support the execution of Eddie Slovik in WW2.

The second statement could apply to his being captured after he deserted, but it was intended more to question just how brutal some of the death penalty supporters in this case really are. After all, if they support execution for cowardice or desertion, why not go full Stalin?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Shoden said:


> Separate the two statements. The first one applies to his desertion, which, based on the evidence I've seen, I don't really question. I just question the bloodthirsty punishment that some posters here want for him, and the posters that support the execution of Eddie Slovik in WW2.
> 
> The second statement could apply to his being captured after he deserted, but it was intended more to question just how brutal some of the death penalty supporters in this case really are. After all, if they support execution for cowardice or desertion, why not go full Stalin?


The great ugliness of Stalin was the lack of discrimination in the pursuit of personal power. He killed or imprisoned millions based on nothing other than political expediency. This is a trial of a man whose actions caused deaths of his fellow soldiers. 
I think that a military trial is acceptable. That military trials are effected by politics is simply acknowledging reality. 
But Obama's lack of understanding is not something to be swept under the rug.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I think that a military trial is acceptable. That military trials are effected by politics is simply acknowledging reality.
> But Obama's lack of understanding is not something to be swept under the rug.


I agree with that, and my comments have nothing to do with his military trial, or even with Obama's initially treating him as a rescued hero. My comments, once again, are about the bloodthirsty punishment some people want for him, and about the support of the death penalty for desertion.

You haven't posted that you want him shot, and you haven't liked the posts of those that do, so I'm not sure why you seem to have an issue with my comparing them to Stalin.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Shoden said:


> I agree with that, and my comments have nothing to do with his military trial, or even with Obama's initially treating him as a rescued hero. My comments, once again, are about the bloodthirsty punishment some people want for him, and about the support of the death penalty for desertion.
> 
> You haven't posted that you want him shot, and you haven't liked the posts of those that do, so I'm not sure why you seem to have an issue with my comparing them to Stalin.


I do not have the facts to have an opinion on what is just punishment. That people have an opinion on that- to the extent of wanting the death penalty- they are speaking from what they believe are the facts and their statements are very likely to change if facts support it. So it doesn't bother me.
However Stalin was a great evil and it diminishes the understanding of the nature of that evil to equate it with what is going on now. I prefer a clearer understanding of what allows a Stalin to prosper so it can be stopped before it becomes impossible to stop- to recognize evil when it is still small enough to pass unnoticed.
In simple words I believe that people saying he should die if he did such and such will reconsider if appropriate if placed in actual authority to make a decision while the idea of that being the same as Stalinist makes me scared a public will not recognize real evil when it shows up.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Shoden said:


> Separate the two statements. The first one applies to his desertion, which, based on the evidence I've seen, I don't really question. I just question the bloodthirsty punishment that some posters here want for him, and the posters that support the execution of Eddie Slovik in WW2.
> 
> The second statement could apply to his being captured after he deserted, but it was intended more to question just how brutal some of the death penalty supporters in this case really are. After all, if they support execution for cowardice or desertion, why not go full Stalin?


He should have been charged with Treason. I think he wasen't to protect Obama.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shoden said:


> Separate the two statements. The first one applies to his desertion, which, based on the evidence I've seen, I don't really question. I just question the bloodthirsty punishment that some posters here want for him, and the posters that support the execution of Eddie Slovik in WW2.
> 
> The second statement could apply to his being captured after he deserted, but it was intended more to question just how brutal some of the death penalty supporters in this case really are. After all, if they support execution for cowardice or desertion, why not go full Stalin?


He wasn't caputured he walked off his post to join them of his own admonishment. He was held but how can you say he was captured if he want off to join them. A lot of military didn't desert just because of the sentance given to Eddie Slovik. Many wanted to desert but thought better to stay and fight till the end and many didn't come back whole. If you were in the military and served in combat you already knew this.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I read the story of Hurtgen Forest from the diaries of the Germans stationed there and the Americans who fought there. Amazing story once the politics are removed. The Americans had a very high rate of desertions when the soldiers found out they were headed there. Field Marshall Model was one of Germanys best, and Hurtgen was a real grinder for the Americans. Anyway to keep this story short, Slovik was executed to be made an example. Him in particularly because Eisenhower hated Polish people. And that is from a WW2 vet I know personally who was there. This cut back on the desertions, but some still did. But Eddie was the only one shot over it. Eisenhower was practicing up for politics I guess. He was a real puke according to my friend.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

where I want to said:


> The great ugliness of Stalin was the lack of discrimination in the pursuit of personal power. He killed or imprisoned millions based on nothing other than political expediency. This is a trial of a man whose actions caused deaths of his fellow soldiers.
> I think that a military trial is acceptable. That military trials are effected by politics is simply acknowledging reality.
> But Obama's lack of understanding is not something to be swept under the rug.


His actions may have caused the deaths of fellow comrades, but did they know he was a deserter before going on the rescue mission? Would it matter if he had been captured? Is it really all the same if it ends up in a funeral?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> His actions may have caused the deaths of fellow comrades, but did they know he was a deserter before going on the rescue mission? Would it matter if he had been captured? Is it really all the same if it ends up in a funeral?


Yes it matters- the knowledge that a comrade's life was lost to save a fellow comrade might ease the pain. But to have lost a friend to try a save a man chose to desert them eliminates even that small consulation of partnership. It's the difference between pride in actions and feeling someone just used you all up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

0bama will pardon him..

Remember 0 said he served with distinction and honor. 0 is never wrong.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> I read the story of Hurtgen Forest from the diaries of the Germans stationed there and the Americans who fought there. Amazing story once the politics are removed. The Americans had a very high rate of desertions when the soldiers found out they were headed there. Field Marshall Model was one of Germanys best, and Hurtgen was a real grinder for the Americans. Anyway to keep this story short, Slovik was executed to be made an example. Him in particularly because Eisenhower hated Polish people. And that is from a WW2 vet I know personally who was there. This cut back on the desertions, but some still did. But Eddie was the only one shot over it. Eisenhower was practicing up for politics I guess. He was a real puke according to my friend.


The people in war know the grit and dirt. They have the opportunity to have their nose rubbed into it and to be abused. That makes them more knowledgeable but not necessarily wiser. They see the trees but miss the forest.
On the other hand, people not directly involved in the grit might very well miss the trees for the forst- which trees find very offensive.
I do not question your friend. I was not there. I certainly paid no personal price. But to accept his view of dirt and think that is all there could ever be to the story?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Good! 
Glad to see he finally has been charged..


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> He wasn't caputured he walked off his post to join them of his own admonishment. He was held but how can you say he was captured if he want off to join them. A lot of military didn't desert just because of the sentance given to Eddie Slovik. Many wanted to desert but thought better to stay and fight till the end and many didn't come back whole. If you were in the military and served in combat you already knew this.


I've seen the rumors that he intended to join the enemy, but I've also see info that he just intended to walk to India. If the military had evidence that he actually intended to not just desert, but to actually defect and join the enemy, then they would have charged him with that. And in that case, the possibility of the death penalty would be warranted. 

Sure, executing soldiers who don't want to fight is a great way to force other soldiers to keep fighting. That doesn't make it right.

A free country involved in a just war should not have to draft people to fight or threaten them with execution for not fighting. If enough of your soldiers don't want to fight, then maybe it's not a war you should be involved in.

And besides, if you're a good soldier on the front lines, do you really want someone there beside you that you think is unreliable and cowardly? If they've been drafted and forced to serve, it would be better if they fulfilled their duty in a non-combat role, where their actions are much less likely to get good soldiers killed. That's what Eddie Slovik wanted. He didn't just run away, he turned himself in to another Army unit and said he was willing to stay in the army and serve, but not on the front lines. Today he probably would have been diagnosed with PTSD, but back then he was just a 'coward'.

And I was in the military, but during the years I served there wasn't much in the way of combat (94-98), and my job wouldn't have seen me on the front lines anyway. Apparently that makes me a lesser veteran than those "lucky" enough to serve in combat.


----------



## fixitguy (Nov 2, 2010)

HDRider said:


> 0bama will pardon him..
> 
> Remember 0 said he served with distinction and honor. 0 is never wrong.


Yep, They will run him thru the dog and pony show. Find him guilty and Obummer will pardon him on his last day in office. 

What a waste of tax payers time and money


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nonsense. You have a perfect right to your opinion. But to make a decision opposite to what you object to is no more rational if you do not have the facts either. That is why there are trials- hopefully to develop the facts.
But, hard as it is, sometimes there is no get out of jail free card even if there is an illness involved. This is not an action without consequences.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

His platoon mates heard a radio message within a half hour of his walking off there was an American in a village looking for the taliban. Sounds like desertion with the intent of treason to me.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> His actions may have caused the deaths of fellow comrades, but did they know he was a deserter before going on the rescue mission? Would it matter if he had been captured? Is it really all the same if it ends up in a funeral?


IIRC, he left his uniform and the likes in the barricks.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

Ozarks Tom said:


> His platoon mates heard a radio message within a half hour of his walking off there was an American in a village looking for the taliban. Sounds like desertion with the intent of treason to me.


I already mentioned that I was aware of that rumor, and that's all it is. Here's a quote from his lawyer, who is speaking about the report from the military's investigation (from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/us/army-bowe-bergdahl-desertion-charges.html?_r=0)



Eugene R. Fidell said:


> âThe report properly dismisses a variety of contentions that have been made about Sergeant Bergdahl,â Mr. Fidell wrote. âNo, he was not planning to walk to China or India. No, there is no evidence that any soldier died searching for him. No, there is no evidence of misbehavior of any kind while he was held captive. Nor is there any credible evidence that Sergeant Bergdahl left in order to get in touch with the Taliban.â


You may not believe his lawyer, but the report he is speaking about was put together by Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl. If he had evidence of radio chatter that Bergdahl had intended to join the Taliban, why does his report not say that?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shoden said:


> I've seen the rumors that he intended to join the enemy, but I've also see info that he just intended to walk to India. If the military had evidence that he actually intended to not just desert, but to actually defect and join the enemy, then they would have charged him with that. And in that case, the possibility of the death penalty would be warranted.
> 
> Sure, executing soldiers who don't want to fight is a great way to force other soldiers to keep fighting. That doesn't make it right.
> 
> ...


Not at all. A veteran is a veteran but on the other hand a combat veteran sees things a little different than a not combat veteran does. Just like a persion that does not drive sees things that a driver does. You never know what the other person on the front lines is thinking until he proves himself. I was one that was drafted and served 21 years in the military and see things that one that only spent 3 years in the military doesn't. You can have your opinions but all of them stink when you stick to the facts. He deserted and went to find them to join. All of that was by his own statement.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> He deserted and went to find them to join. All of that was by his own statement.


That's not what the official report by Maj. Gen. Dahl says, at least according to Bergdahl's lawyer. Of course, the report isn't released to the public, so Bergdahl's lawyer could be lying about what it says, although I find that highly unlikely.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Drama Queen?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Shoden said:


> That's not what the official report by Maj. Gen. Dahl says, at least according to Bergdahl's lawyer. Of course, the report isn't released to the public, so Bergdahl's lawyer could be lying about what it says, although I find that highly unlikely.


He only made one statement? And Only Major General Dahl has it right? Not very likely. He was talking about this before he deserted.Ask the people that was in his unit and you will find more truth than any report by someone that wasn't there.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

HDRider said:


> 0bama will pardon him..
> 
> Remember 0 said he served with distinction and honor. 0 is never wrong.


November 9, 2016

aka the day after the national election


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Just a reminder that HT has not chanced significantly enough to accept racist or derogatory terms.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ok- I read over the whole thread and now wonder what words are thought racist or derogatory? I am not intending to be combative but I only saw one term that might qualify and even there was an opinion not able to be discussed in other terms. And why I believe the limits on speech need to be generally clarified.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

One reply used an "Archie Bunkerism " that required moderation is all.

Back to the original topic.

I remember when if a soldier deserted his post in combat , that made him eligible for a life sentence in front of a firing squad.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Shrek said:


> I remember when if a soldier deserted his post in combat , that made him eligible for a life sentence in front of a firing squad.


Oh, yes. The good old days.

So you remember that, do you? The military hasn't executed anyone since 1961. How old were you in 1961? Moreover, there has only been one desertion execution since the civil war, and that execution was in 1945. Do you really remember back that far?

Desertion only carries the death penalty during times of war, but no war was declared in Afghanistan. That almost certainly makes Bergdahl's case ineligible for the death penalty.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You remember that, do you? The military hasn't executed anyone since 1961. How old were you in 1961?
> 
> Desertion only carries the death penalty during times of war, but no war was declared in Afghanistan. That almost certainly makes Bergdahl's case ineligible for the death penalty.


I was 16 and remember that today. I was advised of it when I was drafted in 1965. What did your Sargent do? What took it 31 years to execute somebody? WWII was the last war declared the rest have been police actions.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Death as a penalty for desertion was still being drilled into the troops during the Desert Shield / Desert Storm era from what coworkers who were activated told us when they rotated back home and returned to their civvie jobs.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Oh, yes. The good old days.
> 
> So you remember that, do you? The military hasn't executed anyone since 1961. How old were you in 1961? Moreover, there has only been one desertion execution since the civil war, and that execution was in 1945. Do you really remember back that far?
> 
> Desertion only carries the death penalty during times of war, but no war was declared in Afghanistan. That almost certainly makes Bergdahl's case ineligible for the death penalty.





Shrek said:


> Death as a penalty for desertion was still being drilled into the troops during the Desert Shield / Desert Storm era from what coworkers who were activated told us when they rotated back home and returned to their civvie jobs.


That says something about the Military and the way they uphold their honor. But since you never served you wouldn't know about that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> I was 16 and remember that today. I was advised of it when I was drafted in 1965. What did your Sargent do? What took it 31 years to execute somebody? WWII was the last war declared the rest have been police actions.


But you never actually had it happen to anyone.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But you never actually had it happen to anyone.


You gave at least 3 times it happened. Just because it didn't happen while I was on duty doesn't mean that it didn't happened. There are so few that were charged with desertion in a combat role many did when state side but not once you were in combat. Everybody knew it was life in Prison or death if they got caught.Not many would try. The easy way is to commit suicide and many did. I know of one that instead of going to Vietnam he tried to swim over 1000 miles back to shore.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> Just because it didn't happen while I was on duty doesn't mean that it didn't happened.


Nobody has been executed for desertion during your entire lifetime, yet somehow you're remembering the good old days when they did it.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Nobody has been executed for desertion during your entire lifetime, yet somehow you're remembering the good old days when they did it.


No it was taught to me by the military in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But since you never served you wouldn't know about it. It has been around for a long time and good reading when in the Military.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I find it interesting that some here think you can't know about the military without taking the oath. 
I also find it hilarious that a draftee would presume to call a Veteran that joined of his own free will a coward. 
I suppose we all find ways to justify ourselves and look down on others.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I find it interesting that some here think you can't know about the military without taking the oath.
> I also find it hilarious that a draftee would presume to call a Veteran that joined of his own free will a coward.
> I suppose we all find ways to justify ourselves and look down on others.


There are those that know what the military is like and those that are clueless. If you are referring to me on that seciond statement I was drafted then spent 21 years in the Military and would never call anyone a coward.You can always find cause to look at me anyway you want but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I find it interesting that some here think you can't know about the military without taking the oath.
> I also find it hilarious that a draftee would presume to call a Veteran that joined of his own free will a coward.
> I suppose we all find ways to justify ourselves and look down on others.


I knew a couple who joined voluntarily, just like me, who were cowards. I'm sure there were many more. Most people don't know how they'll react until the time comes to find out.

From what I've discerned from all the information released so far, and observing his father, he wasn't necessarily a coward. I think he's got some philosophical contradictions going on in his head. Not mentally ill, but very mixed up.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I knew a couple who joined voluntarily, just like me, who were cowards. I'm sure there were many more. Most people don't know how they'll react until the time comes to find out.
> 
> From what I've discerned from all the information released so far, and observing his father, he wasn't necessarily a coward. I think he's got some philosophical contradictions going on in his head. Not mentally ill, but very mixed up.


Just seems like few shoulda been born muslim.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> I find it interesting that some here think you can't know about the military without taking the oath.
> I also find it hilarious that a draftee would presume to call a Veteran that joined of his own free will a coward.
> I suppose we all find ways to justify ourselves and look down on others.



There are just some things people will never understand unless you experience them firsthand..

I don't claim to understand everything..
But can tell you for a fact that my military training has saved my life on several occasion that were in non military situations.. Having that training and knowledge has been invaluable to me and my life..

A 20 yo drunk driver decided my 1985 Honda Goldwing Aspencade looked better embedded into the side of his car. I disagreed and left the scene (thrown 57 feet out over the bike and car). A PLF (parachute landing fall) saved me on the abrupt stop of me leaving the scene.. Even though my left leg (femur) was shattered, my left wrist and shoulder were broken. I still managed to land safely (that's a relative statement) and survive the idiots plan.. 

Had I not had the training to the point of it becoming an instinct/ automatic reaction I most likely would have landed on my head and died..

Do I think I'm better than anyone else..

No not really.

But I bet you do.. Do you hire an electrician to fix your plumbing?
Why not? Do you look down on the electrician simply because he doesn't have the knowledge or experience (in reference to plumbing)..
and so on...

There are just some things that those who haven't lived it / done it / learned it etc can never understand..

Oh I'm a CADD Operator / Plumbing Estimator.. So don't ask me about your electrical service.. I can't answer your questions other than to say yes I can get the conduit to your box..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Old Vet said:


> No it was taught to me by the military in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But since you never served you wouldn't know about it. It has been around for a long time and good reading when in the Military.



The quote would seem to indicate that the author believes you can't know about the UCMJ without being in the service. 
Funny but in all my years in the Army I never saw a copy marked with any level of secret classification. 
Perhaps it was too secret for me ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You can learn a lot of things in the service but there are very few that you HAVE to be in the service to learn. 
It does a disservice to this country when a Vet tries to devalue a opinion because it didn't come from a Vet .
Did you know there was a time in this country when military service disqualified you from voting. ?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The quote would seem to indicate that the author believes you know about the UCMJ without being in the service.
> Funny but in all my years in the Army I never saw a copy marked with any level of secret classification.
> Perhaps it was too secret for me ?


If you were in the Militarily and did not listen or read the UCMJ you were asleep when it was explained at basic training. You could go to any orderly room and read it from cover to cover.That was one thing that is mandatory in every company. You could get to read it on line or from any library. It is not even classified confidential and everybody can read any part of it. I spent 21 Years in the Army and read most of not all of it from time to time.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You can learn a lot of things in the service but there are very few that you HAVE to be in the service to learn.
> It does a disservice to this country when a Vet tries to devalue a opinion because it didn't come from a Vet .
> Did you know there was a time in this country when military service disqualified you from voting. ?


 Some people are trying to get that right back but it will be a long haul and bloody effort if they do it again. The Military is made up by people from most of life vocations. About the only thing left out are salesmen, drug dealers,and robbers. Just about any other vocation is available in the Military even Farriers.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> You can learn a lot of things in the service but there are very few that you HAVE to be in the service to learn.
> It does a disservice to this country when a Vet tries to devalue a opinion because it didn't come from a Vet .
> Did you know there was a time in this country when military service disqualified you from voting. ?



Did you know that there was a time in this country, that if you didn't own property you couldn't vote..

I'm not trying to devalue someones opinion, but I will take the facts as I know them into consideration..

For an example I have a leak in my kitchen.. The Plumber gives me his opinion as does the Electrician.. I will more than likely give the Plumber's opinion more credence, than the Electrician's. 

Am I wrong for doing that? 

According to you / the way you've stated it. I should give the Electrician the same level of credibility as the Plumber.

Now I know why the country is in the shape it is..
The electricians opinion doesn't carry as much weight because he isn't a plumber and doesn't have the experience(s).. 

On a side note.. Call me to fix your electrical problems.. Only $75 / hour and it's gong to take many hours to fix it.. Signed the plumber..

Clients like you are a rare find


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol ok if we are going to use the plumber and electrician To model the argument it more like saying the plumber has to be working in the dark because you have to be a electrician to understand the light switch.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Old Vet said:


> Some people are trying to get that right back but it will be a long haul and bloody effort if they do it again. The Military is made up by people from most of life vocations. About the only thing left out are salesmen, drug dealers,and robbers. Just about any other vocation is available in the Military even Farriers.



Nah, they got the 'salesmen' job in there as well.....they just call them 'Recruiters".


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol ok if we are going to use the plumber and electrician To model the argument it more like saying the plumber has to be working in the dark because you have to be a electrician to understand the light switch.


:viking:

A swing and a miss.. LOL 

If the plumber knows nothing of the switch, then non veteran/non military would know nothing of the military..
Which would invalidate your argument.

But we all understand that we all know a little something, but specifics should be left to those with experience. (that comes off sounding harsh/conceited etc, but is meant as a general idea, not a hard and fast rule). The professional's opinion carries more weight than the amateur.

The plumber would know something about the switch, such as how to turn it on and off. But would I trust him to repair the switch? 
No that is the electricians job..


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You can learn a lot of things in the service but there are very few that you HAVE to be in the service to learn.
> It does a disservice to this country when a Vet tries to devalue a opinion because it didn't come from a Vet .
> Did you know there was a time in this country when military service disqualified you from voting. ?


So some of the Presidents were not allowed to vote? That is strange.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It might sound strange now but isn't it common sense not to allow someone to vote after the government has brainwashed them. ? Not to let the government buy votes by employment. ?
That was the prevailing thought at the time. 
Funny now that I say that out loud it seems like the argument I hear all the time from the republicans claiming that the democrats buy votes with government jobs and programs.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

beowoulf90 said:


> :viking:
> 
> A swing and a miss.. LOL
> 
> ...



Lol ok obviously then most service men are not qualified to discuss the Code unless they are lawyers ?
Remember this specific argument goes back to old vet telling Nevada that he couldn't know about the code because he hadn't served. 
Is there any reason Nevada would have been prevented from familiarizing him self with UCMJ ?
Just how much time did your service spend training you on it's intricacies ? I'm Betting any Civilian with a interest to investigate could be better versed than the average GI in less than a week. 
That doesn't take anything away from our servicemen. It's not the predominate part of their training.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol ok obviously then most service men are not qualified to discuss the Code unless they are lawyers ?
> Remember this specific argument goes back to old vet telling Nevada that he couldn't know about the code because he hadn't served.
> Is there any reason Nevada would have been prevented from familiarizing him self with UCMJ ?
> Just how much time did your service spend training you on it's intricacies ? I'm Betting any Civilian with a interest to investigate could be better versed than the average GI in less than a week.
> That doesn't take anything away from our servicemen. It's not the predominate part of their training.


An employer isn't a good place to learn law. The objective of an employer pointing out law is to intimidate employees into doing their jobs a certain way, not to provide a factual foundation in law.

I knew a fire paramedic who became involved in a lawsuit when his city employer was being sued. At issue was the rescue ambulance dropping a burn victim at a hospital without a burn ward, when Sherman Oaks Burn Center was not much farther. In court, a lawyer asked him why he did it. He replied that it was because of the law that said ambulances have to take patients to the nearest ER first. The lawyer asked; what law is that? It turned out that no such law existed, despite being trained by the fire department that there was. It was important to the fire department to keep rescue ambulances available, so they simply made the law up.

I would take any law learned from a drill instructor with a few grains of salt.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Bergdahl should hang. His desertion led to the death of comrades. If he escapes death now he will be forever marked.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It might sound strange now but isn't it common sense not to allow someone to vote after the government has brainwashed them. ? Not to let the government buy votes by employment. ?
> That was the prevailing thought at the time.
> Funny now that I say that out loud it seems like the argument I hear all the time from the republicans claiming that the democrats buy votes with government jobs and programs.


I can't find the law that says that veterans were not allowed to vote prove it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Bergdahl should hang. His desertion led to the death of comrades. If he escapes death now he will be forever marked.


But Judge Oxankle, there hasn't even been a trial yet.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But Judge Oxankle, there hasn't even been a trial yet.


You convicted Zimmerman before there was a trial! We know the truth about Bergdahl already. Your just afraid that this is an impeachable offense for Obama, and your right!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> You convicted Zimmerman before there was a trial! We know the truth about Bergdahl already. Your just afraid that this is an impeachable offense for Obama, and your right!


How do you decide when to convict without a trial?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How do you decide when to convict without a trial?


Just like you did with Zimmerman.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oxankle said:


> Bergdahl should hang. His desertion led to the death of comrades. If he escapes death now he will be forever marked.



From the evidence Ive seen he didn't endanger anyone when he left.
If anything it was his superiors trying to retrieve him that led to deaths , that was on their shoulders not his.SPECIALLY if as some claim those on the unit level knew he deserted.
Sorry folks you cant have it both ways.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> From the evidence Ive seen he didn't endanger anyone when he left.
> If anything it was his superiors trying to retrieve him that led to deaths , that was on their shoulders not his.SPECIALLY if as some claim those on the unit level knew he deserted.
> Sorry folks you cant have it both ways.


Really? NOT on HIM? Do you know that even if they all yelled "DESERTION" they'd STILL have to go after him?
What a strange set of values some have...


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> I can't find the law that says that veterans were not allowed to vote prove it.


So you can't prove it or the ridicules statement you have made.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? NOT on HIM? Do you know that even if they all yelled "DESERTION" they'd STILL have to go after him?
> 
> What a strange set of values some have...



I seldom blame the stupidity of one person on another. 
I can't see any logical way to blame the failure of the leadership on him.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I seldom blame the stupidity of one person on another.
> I can't see any logical way to blame the failure of the leadership on him.


He had a contract and failed to up hold his end of it. He choose to leave instead of fulfilling his commitment. The responsibility falls directly on his shoulders. No one forced him to leave, he left on his own......desertion, plan and simple.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> He had a contract and failed to up hold his end of it. He choose to leave instead of fulfilling his commitment. The responsibility falls directly on his shoulders. No one forced him to leave, he left on his own......desertion, plan and simple.


The recruitment contract is no contract at all, since fraud is allowed. Courts have held that recruiter deception is not grounds to cancel the contract with the military. That idea goes against everything that a contract is.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> He had a contract and failed to up hold his end of it. He choose to leave instead of fulfilling his commitment. The responsibility falls directly on his shoulders. No one forced him to leave, he left on his own......desertion, plan and simple.



From the evidence I've seen so far it does sound like desertion at least AWOL , but that doesn't make him responce able for every stupid thing that happens in the service after that. 
The deaths of any killed recovering him can be laid squarely on the poor planning and execution of the officers involved.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> From the evidence I've seen so far it does sound like desertion at least AWOL , but that doesn't make him responce able for every stupid thing that happens in the service after that.
> The deaths of any killed recovering him can be laid squarely on the poor planning and execution of the officers involved.


None of which would have happened if he hadn't left. Of his own choice and free will. No one would have had to go on a rescue mission if he had stayed. Really simple. Some folks are making it anything but!


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> None of which would have happened if he hadn't left. Of his own choice and free will. No one would have had to go on a rescue mission if he had stayed. Really simple. Some folks are making but!


He has claimed that he left to go to another unit to exposed a lack of leadership. This is wrong he could insist that he see a Inspector General and stayed on duty. His unit being a brigade or division has no recourse but provide him with one.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> None of which would have happened if he hadn't left. Of his own choice and free will. No one would have had to go on a rescue mission if he had stayed. Really simple. Some folks are making it anything but!



By that logic it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been sent there. What logic do you use to pick the end point of a chain of responceability ?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> By that logic it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been sent there. What logic do you use to pick the end point of a chain of responceability ?


When he made a conscious decision to walk away, he joined the military of his own free will! If he served as he should have, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. His decision and only his. His comrades died looking for him, do they not matter?

You seem to be under the impression that he was right in his actions and there fore should not be held accountable for those actions, am i right?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> By that logic it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been sent there. What logic do you use to pick the end point of a chain of responceability ?


If we don't have military no body woulld go their. How far could you go if we didn't have a police force no body would be arrested. If we don't have a government no taxes or rules. But their would anarchy that would be fine sor some.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> When he made a conscious decision to walk away, he joined the military of his own free will! If he served as he should have, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. His decision and only his. His comrades died looking for him, do they not matter?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that he was right in his actions and there fore should not be held accountable for those actions, am i right?



No I don't think he was right in his actions. 
Plain enough ?
But I don't think he should be responce able for the stupidity of others. 
From JUST the evidence I've seen AWOL or more likely desertion seem the reasonable charges.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No I don't think he was right in his actions.
> Plain enough ?
> But I don't think he should be responce able for the stupidity of others.
> From JUST the evidence I've seen AWOL or more likely desertion seem the reasonable charges.


So your saying that it was stupid to go look for him? If he didn't leave, no one would have been hurt looking for him would they? Was it stupid for Obama to trade trained taliban killers for him? I call that treason! You know...aiding and abetting the enemy! !


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> From the evidence I've seen so far it does sound like desertion at least AWOL , but that doesn't make him responce able for every stupid thing that happens in the service after that.
> The deaths of any killed recovering him can be laid squarely on the poor planning and execution of the officers involved.


Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to change the military law. They were required to go look for him. IF the leadership did not, they'd be disiplined, called into account...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tricky what part of the law are you talking about?
Ive never seen a law requiring operations to be poorly planed and executed so that our boys died.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> No I don't think he was right in his actions.


I think when this is over that we'll learn that Bergdahl acted on misguided ideas. I don't think he belonged in the military. I read someplace that he was discharged from the Coast Guard after only a short time for psychological problems, and that was about 2 years before the Army accepted him. It's pretty obvious that Bergdahl had problems that weren't compatible with active military service.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Tricky what part of the law are you talking about?
> Ive never seen a law requiring operations to be poorly planed and executed so that our boys died.


Who gets to decide if it poorly planed and executed? Was it the congress Obama or some general or a battalion comander or a company commander? Who should we blame for a bad person?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Old Vet said:


> Who gets to decide if it poorly planed and executed? Was it the congress Obama or some general or a battalion comander or a company commander? Who should we blame for a bad person?


 Those of us that don't want our GIs killed judge it to have been done poorly when they die.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think when this is over that we'll learn that Bergdahl acted on misguided ideas. I don't think he belonged in the military. I read someplace that he was discharged from the Coast Guard after only a short time for psychological problems, and that was about 2 years before the Army accepted him. It's pretty obvious that Bergdahl had problems that weren't compatible with active military service.


You've gotta be kidding. What kind of logic is this? Is this the only way the left can get around the Idiotincharge's HUGE mistake?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I think I puked in my mouth a little bit just now..........


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Those of us that don't want our GIs killed judge it to have been done poorly when they die.


Then you blame your self fo making bad decisions. Way to go. You need to make better plains all along. People are killed most every day in that conflict.You need to let those that work for you that you are not satisfied if one person is killed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> You've gotta be kidding. What kind of logic is this? Is this the only way the left can get around the Idiotincharge's HUGE mistake?


I'm getting the impression that Bergdahl's guilt or innocence isn't about desertion, it's about discrediting Obama. This is all political to you, isn't it.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm getting the impression that Bergdahl's guilt or innocence isn't about desertion, it's about discrediting Obama. This is all political to you, isn't it.


You can take that to the bank. If not for the Obama meddling he might be charged with desertion and set free after he payed back the money he earned while in captives. Since Obama got in on the case it is now Desertion and a much more charges that can see him in prison for life.The Army is not some one to mess with.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm getting the impression that Bergdahl's guilt or innocence isn't about desertion, it's about discrediting Obama. This is all political to you, isn't it.


It is only political b/c the Idiotincharge made it so...tell me, when did this corrupt, inept admin know about Bergdahl being a deserter? And a possible traitor? Back in '09? When they were given the report? Did they then lose the report? Disregard it? Forget it? LIE about it?

I'd like real answers. B/c the huge rose garden ceremony, the one where Bergdahl was declared heroic, FIVE alqueada generals traded, ones who will again try their best to kill us all-was a giant political move. 
And then Susan Rice declaring Bergdahl "...served w/dignity and honor like all the other military..."-which is a direct slap in the face to anyone who served.

So call it what you want, I'll call it more of the same LIES political moves that are so transparent, I'm thinking that is what this admin meant when they cited transparency-its the ability for MOST of the country to now see how corrupt, how traitorous, how down right idiotic they are.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Old Vet said:


> Then you blame your self fo making bad decisions. Way to go. You need to make better plains all along. People are killed most every day in that conflict.You need to let those that work for you that you are not satisfied if one person is killed.


HUH?
In clear English please.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> HUH?
> In clear English please.


You said that it was poorly planed and poorly excused. You also said that you were the one to decide if it was poorly planed or poorly executed. By your logic D Day was poorly planed and poorly excused or more in today news the person that was killed in Afghanistan was poorly planed or poorly excused. You cant be selective because you said that any time a soilder is killed you are against it because you are the one to decide if it poorly planed and poorly excused.You may have been in the Army but I doubt that you ever came closed to combat. Any body that was in combat know that people are killed most of the time that they go out of the save zone.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You don't see a difference between D-day and a rescue mission?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> You don't see a difference between D-day and a rescue mission?


Not in the eyes of one that are going out to the rescue. You were order to go then you go or desert. If you were in the Army you know this.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> By that logic it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been sent there. What logic do you use to pick the end point of a chain of responceability ?


If WHO hadn't been sent WHERE?
Are you saying Berg was not at fault b/c he was sent into conflict?
I'm pretty much agast here...the 'code', 'rules' of the military are NOT what is in question, no matter how hard anyone tries. Perhaps Berg's lawyers will try that but pretty sure it won't stick.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> No I don't think he was right in his actions.
> Plain enough ?
> But I don't think he should be responce able for the stupidity of others.
> From JUST the evidence I've seen AWOL or more likely desertion seem the reasonable charges.


So, then...must've been waaaaay stupid to trade 5 terrorist generals for him.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Tricky what part of the law are you talking about?
> Ive never seen a law requiring operations to be poorly planed and executed so that our boys died.


What is it that you know about those operations? How is it you think they were poorly planned & executed? Do you think the military is just inept? Stupid? 
You cannot rewrite their laws/codes. 
Where is it written that we have to trade 5 terrorist generals for a traitor?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> What is it that you know about those operations? How is it you think they were poorly planned & executed? Do you think the military is just inept? Stupid?
> 
> You cannot rewrite their laws/codes.
> 
> Where is it written that we have to trade 5 terrorist generals for a traitor?



Well yes I do think that the military is both inept and stupid. 
You are wrong the code can be rewritten. 
But in the end you are very right the most moronic thing of the entire fiasco was to trade anything for him.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I'm getting the impression that Bergdahl's guilt or innocence isn't about desertion, it's about discrediting Obama. This is all political to you, isn't it.





Tricky Grama said:


> It is only political b/c the Idiotincharge made it so...tell me, when did this corrupt, inept admin know about Bergdahl being a deserter? And a possible traitor? Back in '09? When they were given the report? Did they then lose the report? Disregard it? Forget it? LIE about it?
> 
> I'd like real answers. B/c the huge rose garden ceremony, the one where Bergdahl was declared heroic, FIVE alqueada generals traded, ones who will again try their best to kill us all-was a giant political move.
> And then Susan Rice declaring Bergdahl "...served w/dignity and honor like all the other military..."-which is a direct slap in the face to anyone who served.
> ...


:clap:

Yes, well, unfortunately Nevada, Obama doesn't really need any help in discrediting himself. Apparently it's his full time job.:doh:
Also, as C-in-C, *shouldn't* he take the blame or credit where it is due?


----------

