40,000 thousand troops say they won’t fight - AirForceTimes

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1930387.php

Swept up by a wave of patriotism after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Chris Magaoay joined the Marine Corps in November 2004.

The newly married Magaoay thought a military career would allow him to continue his college education, help his country and set his life on the right path.

Less than two years later, Magaoay became one of thousands of military deserters who have chosen a lifetime of exile or possible court-martial rather than fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

“It wasn’t something I did on the spur of the moment,” said Magaoay, a native of Maui, Hawaii. “It took me a long time to realize what was going on. The war is illegal.”

Magaoay said his disillusionment with the military began in boot camp in Twentynine Palms, Calif., where a superior officer joked about killing and mistreating Iraqis. When his unit was deployed to Iraq in March, Magaoay and his wife drove to Canada, joining a small group of deserters who are trying to win permission from the Canadian government to stay. snip

Since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted, the Pentagon says. More than half served in the Army. But the Army says numbers have decreased each year since the United States began its war on terror in Afghanistan.

[NMDemDist2]

1. K&N how are they keeping this quiet?? n/t

[tanyev]

2. 40,000. How ARE they keeping this quiet?

I had no idea the number was so big.

[EFerrari]

3. And that's what they're copping to!

:wow:

[BrotherBuzz]

26. Even if these numbers are real they are contradicting themselves

I remember reading just last year the military releasing numbers in the 6000-8000 range, yet now the army says the rate is dropping. Methinks Rummy is using fuzzy math again. :shrug:

Since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted, the Pentagon says. More than half served in the Army. But the Army says numbers have decreased each year since the United States began its war on terror in Afghanistan

.

[EFerrari]

46. Lying slimebucket. n/t

[Recursion]

58. Ready for the shocker?

40,000 desertions in 6 years is actually lower than the peacetime desertion rate...

[rosesaylavee]

70. I bet if they say its 40,000 - it has to be a much

larger number... as they are ALL liars.

[Coyote_Bandit]

4. I'm still waiting

for someone to explain to me just exactly what the difference is between (1) a soldier who refuses to fight because he believes the conflict is immoral or was undertaken based on deception and (2) a pharmacist or other medical professional who refuses to dispense a product or perform a procedure because they believe it is immoral.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. The soldier get court marshalled and receives time in the brig?

[BrotherBuzz]

42. A marshal told me the Brig was for sailors prior to a court martial

and that soldiers were housed in a guardhouse or stockade. ;)

[John Q. Citizen]

47. Picky pick picky :)

[BrotherBuzz]

53. LOL, indeed!

Picky, picky, picky. ...I've upped my standards. Now, up yours. - Pat Paulsen

'If elected, I will win.'

[Jade Fox]

9. The soldier would be killing people.

Glorification aside, killing is a soldier's primary job.

Pharmacists refusing to dispense widely used medicine constitutes reducing moral standards to the petty, vindictive desire to control other people's behavior.

[ashling]

35. I think that killing other people would pretty much

control their behavior as well

[Jade Fox]

38. But the soldier doesn't get to choose....

who he/she kills, and has little say in what happens, from the immediate combat situation all the way up to who starts the war. The ONLY choice a soldier has is basic refusal to do the job.

On the other hand, a pharmacist choosing to deny medication on "moral" grounds is making choices not only for themselves, but for certain customers whom they believe they have the right to pass judgement on. If pharmacists really had moral objections to their job, they should refuse the job altogether. In other words, and find another profession.

[ashling]

50. Not true

The ONLY choice a soldier has is basic refusal to do the job.

We all have choices ... sometimes the choices suck. The consequences of the soldier's choice may be me much more onerous, but then, it could be argued that the effects of that decision are much more consequential as well.

[patrice]

10. One has raised his/her hand and sworn. The other one hasn't.

The military isn't a job in the common sense of the word.

Jobs are on terms that the employer establishes and the employee may or may not accept. If they don't accept; they are fired. An employee can't say to an employer, "I'm not going to do my job and I expect you to continue to employee me."

The military is also on terms the "employer" establishes, but if you don't accep those terms, the consequences are more severe. If military says they aren't going to do their job, they can't just quit and the employer may or may not fire them.

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. I believe that oath

is to support and defend the Constitution - which means theoretically that a soldier under oath could have moral objections if he believes his orders are in conflict with the oath he has taken.

[patrice]

20. That's one of the reasons military can't be compared to regular jobs.

Nor regular jobs compared to military.

[Coyote_Bandit]

36. I have had this argument with fundies many times

The soldier believes that his orders conflict with his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That means that he has an objective standard for his conduct and a standard which he can use to state his objections - objections which are not typically recognized or validated because doing so would invalidate or undermine the war or police effort.

The pharmacist or medical practitioner on the other hand believes that filling the script or providing the medical procedure violates his own personal values. How? In much the same way that providing a gun to someone knowing that it would be used to kill. At least that is how he sees it. His objection is not based on his employment contract and generally not on any professional oath (though some do make this particular argument with respect to certain procedures). His objection is subjective. When challenged he can argue that his refusal is protected by the Constitution under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Most fundies believe that his argument will and should succeed even if his employer has specifically required him to provide such services as a condition of employment. The issue then becomes whether one can contractually surrender rights as a citizen.

So far as I can tell the difference comes down to a soldier whose dilemma is subject to an objective standard (the Constitution) and a medical professional who is acting subjectively pursuant to a protected Constitutional right. It is a distinction between an objective objection and a subjective objection. Arguably, it is also a distinction between a voluntary oath and an inherent right. In legal terms, the soldiers almost always lose and the medical professionals almost always win.

Theoretically, it is an interesting contrast. Please note I have utmost sympathy for soldiers who find themselves in this sad situation - and contempt for medical professionals unwilling to provide services.

edit for bad spelling

[IndyOp]

14. One takes life away, one gives life.

A soldier who refuses to fight except in cases of defense against direct attack is saving lives.

A pharmacist who refuses to dispense a product or perform a procedure is, potentially, leading to a loss of life.

It is all about life.

[niallmac]

18. I'll bite.

Because the soldier is not making a moral decision and action for someone else. The soldier is making a
personal moral decision for him or her self.

[patrice]

22. That's an interesting distinction.

Soldiers don't make moral decisions at all . . . ? Just whether obediance, or disobediance, supports and defends the Constitution. Hence the UCMJ's provisions for disobeying an unlawful order.

[niallmac]

24. What? What you say I said aint so. So, no argument there.

[patrice]

32. I wasn't sure you said that, hence the question.

I meant the rest of the post as an hypothesis to be tested by discussion.

[niallmac]

54. Well, I'm sure by the sounds it I'm in over my head but

Not presuming any moral or ethical deficit of the hypothetical soldier I am just
saying that if he/she decides the war in question holds none of the values that his
family, school, religion and boot camp taught him that he was defending and killing
for and if said soldier felt killing the enemy his country had identified for him as worthy
of killing just did not fit any of his previously cast beliefs then the decision to not
participate really only impacts the soldiers' world for the most part. (Long sentence I know.)

The hypothetical pharmacist has refused service to another individual if a drug is not dispensed on moral ethical grounds.

Doesen't seem to me the soldier is refusing to save or help some one individual petitioning he/she directly.

(If this discussion goes on any further I would appreciate
being allowed to drop the he/she stuff.)

If you tell me that the pharmacist is saving a fetus, a life then this discussion will devolve into the swamp of what is viable
life and embryo murder and stuff that I personally discount as being the purvey of the female involved and none
of my business. Some folks feel I should go straight to hell for that which I would do gladly if hell means fly fishing
every day.

[SnowGoose]

23. They are exactly the opposite.

A soldier who refuses to go and participate in a war is saying "I will *not* go and take away some stranger's right to decide what happens to/in their life since they are not a threat to me." A pharmacist who will not dispense a prescribed medicine is saying, "I *will* take away someone else's right to decide what happens to/in their life because I am not comfortable with their decisions." And just to preempt a common argument, yes it is taking away their access to the medication, until the compounds in question can be obtained without a pharmacist.

I understand that you may see this differently. My gut feeling is that the difference lies in the "threshold for interference".

What situation rises to the level at which one must reach out and take away someone else's control over their own reality? For the pharmacist you describe, it is defending the fetus within the patient at the counter. For some other pharmacist, it may be the perceived sin of homosexuality that is so heinous that it cannot be enabled by filling prescriptions for HIV medication. For some Catholics, interfering with fertilization of an egg by using condoms rises to the level where one must interfere with the choices of others. In some cases, it was the perceived sin of witchcraft (you shall not suffer a witch to live).

For many, the decision to point a gun at a stranger and pull the trigger requires a rather high threshold of "need" be met - that stranger must really be a danger. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some would take away others' access to condoms, vibrators, or women voting because it violates their own ideas about how a life should be lived.

For myself, I guess, there has to be a pretty compelling need to take away someone else's freedom, which would make anti-condom crusader, witch burner, or burka-enforcement officer unsuitable professions for me. For someone who is more uncomfortable letting others make their own decisions, perhaps pharmacist isn't the most suitable profession.

I hope this message comes across in the non-hostile tone that I intended.

[hootinholler]

27. The soldier has greater moral standing.

He has greater legal standing if he believes the war to be illegal.

I'm not sure what the protocol would be to be excused on the belief that this war is illegal and thus, his orders are illegal also. There *is* a recognized albiet implied duty to disobey an illegal order.

Certainly a position I would not like to find myself in.

-Hoot

[patrice]

33. I don't think it is an "implied duty".

The UCMJ has provisions for disobeying illegal orders.

[vickitulsa]

71. My pals in Vietnam veteran groups have educated me about this,

and I understand that individual soldiers actually have a responsibility to disobey illegal orders. This topic came up when we were talking about My Lai and other instances of atrocities -- which were far more common in Vietnam than most people realize.

Using My Lai as an example, however, it appears the low-ranking soldiers who were ordered by their superiors to kill civilian Vietnamese should have refused to perform those murders -- and faced the consequences if their decision proved wrong. It's definitely NOT an easy situation to find onesself in, yet there are rules governing such matters.

But then, in practice, when such a "respected" military man as Colin Powell wrote the very first after-action report on My Lai, beginning the cover-up of that atrocity in the field, how is an individual soldier going to feel secure at all in asserting his right -- indeed, his duty -- to disobey illegal orders?....

[midnight]

64. That's what I think too!

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. The pharmacist has no right to make that

decision. It is between a woman and her doctor. There is also a great debate reagarding the immorality of prescribing this medication. Murder of innocents by a soldier, however, is not argued as moral.

[malaise]

5. The silence is

deafening.

[TahitiNut]

6. "his disillusionment with the military began in boot camp"

:rofl:

Now that's a fuckin' news flash! "Disillusioned" in Boot Camp? Tell me it isn't so!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sheesh! What was his first clue? The haircut or the push-ups?

:rofl:

[wakeme2008]

8. THIS IS FROM THE AIR FORCE TIMES

:) MSM maybe you should report this... :rofl:

[demosincebirth]

11. Why do these guys join? Didn't they know that there might

be a small chance that they may be sent into combat or to a combat zone. I wonder what they thought when they were going through basic training that these weren't toys they were playing with...or real bullets they were shooting.
Shit, I was disillusioned the first day I got off the bus at Ft. Ord, Ca. I knew i made a mistake, but I stuck with it and I got experiences that benefited me the rest of my life. When my unit got orders to ship out my stomach was in knots and never was there a thought in my head of not going.
I don't understand why they join in the first place. Maybe they didn't expect the Sargeant to yell at 'em
,

[NNN0LHI]

12. Hard to say?

For some the deal breaker may have been the Abu Ghraib prison fiasco? For others it might have been the massacre at Haditha? And for others it might have been the soldiers who are suspected of raping and killing a 14 year old Iraqi girl and killing her family?

You just never know what drove these troops to this decision.

Probably have to interview them all to get some idea?

Don

[movonne]

17. How about it is an illegal war....that is a reason not to want to go...

[demosincebirth]

61. I don't think you can put conditions on your enlistment.. If they could,

they would all be serving in Hawaii, most likely

[ronnie624]

66. We all place limits of some sort

on our own behavior. For many soldiers, that limit is the indiscriminate and or deliberate murder of women and children.

If a superior ordered you to put a pistol to your head and pull the trigger, would you do so simply because you had sworn an oath? If not, you have set a condition on your service.

[demosincebirth]

68. What I am doing here is pissing in the wind,. eom.

[JohnyCanuck]

13. But presumably you weren't concerned

that your lying leadership would order you to kill people who had done you or your country no wrong.

[demosincebirth]

16. It still doesn't change the fact that they joined of their own free will.

If we had the draft in place and they were drafted, I might have little sympathy for 'em

[JohnyCanuck]

25. Yeah but at least he has decided he isn't going to kill

(i.e. commit murder) because he naively signed up in the belief his country was being led by honourable men. I say good for him.

[demosincebirth]

49. ...and you naively believe that?

[patrice]

34. So if you choose to make a mistake, you don't need to correct it?

And if you're compelled somehow you are relieved of moral obligation?

[demosincebirth]

52. You live by the decision's you make in life.

I wish I could go back and redo some of the bad decisions that I've made in my life, but thats not the way it works...does it?
What these guys should do, then, is to go awol then this would be a non-issue and we wouldn't be here bantering back and forth. But again, there are consequences to that. Right? Oh well, "asi es la vida."

[flyarm]

28. being sent into combat is one thing..all the military take an oath

to defend the constitution..this war does not defend the constitution!

in fact it shits on the constitution !

fly

[demosincebirth]

48. I guess I'm from a different era when a handshake sealed a deal

and your word was your bond, and the decision's you made in life (good or bad) you just made the best of them. There come a time in ones life when we can't come running home to Mom just because something didn't turn out the way we wanted it to.

When you join the military, your ass belongs to them and there is no way of getting around it. You follow orders and go were they send you whether like it or not. If you can't accept that...don't join. Simple as that.

[flyarm]

65. NO WHEN YOU JOIN THE MILITARY

YOUR ASS BELONGS TO THE CONSTITUTION,.!!!!!!!!!!!

YOUR OATH IS TO THE CONSTITUTION NOT TO THE MILITARY!

FLY

[demosincebirth]

69. Keep thinking that. eom

[tomp]

73. for the record:

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)


both the constitution AND obedience to the president and officers are sworn to. the constitution is always listed first so one can only assume its greater importance, but you MUST admit that a conflict between the different aspects of the oath could occur, i.e., a president or an officer COULD act unconstitutionally (that is, if you wish to remain logical and reality-based).

so the question is, then what?

i think the most honorable/legally justifiable position would be to remain and contest the constitutionality of the order rather than desert. following an unconstitutional order is NOT an honorable/legally justifiable option.

[flyarm]

78. i believe now i could be wrong..but i believe the

constitution is mentioned in the oath first ..because enemy foreign or "domestic" could include the president!

and in this case ..this was not declared a war..by the congress..and it is an illegal occupation..and this military conflict was and is illegal according to the constitution..so i would believe the "domestic enemy" would and could be the president!

fly

[tomp]

80. you may be right.

i think it is clear that anyone could be included in the domestic and that would include the president. the problem is that the oath is also sworn TO the president, complicating the matter somewhat, but not so much as to suggest that the president should be supported and defended over the constitution.

to me the issue is: what is the appropriate way for a military person to deal with such a conflict? i don't think desertion is morally/ethically/legally in the picture, UNLESS desertion is the only or best way to carry out one's oath to defend the constitution, i.e., the swearer of the oath determines that there is NO way within the military to so defend the constitution.

what is the deserter in the op doing to defend the constitution as he is sworn to do?

[flyarm]

81. so if we have a coup..or a counter coup to the president /or a dictator

is implanted as our president

must the military defend the constitution or the the dictator/president???????

i do not believe this oath gives a free ride from Foreign or domestic enemy..to any president...
i believe the constitution trumps all!!
to defend the constitution is the key factor..

and i believe we did have a coup..and i do believe the military's primary oath and responsibility is to defend the constitution..from foreign or domestic enemies..above all else!

how could any military person taking that oath be expected to follow a war criminal..above the constitution??

that would be saying..well they have to obey Hitler..because the oath says they must take orders from the president..above the constitution...

that would be totally against our constitution i believe..

and further more..this military action was never declared a war..

so what we are in now is an illegal occupation of a foreign land..

just my 2 cents..fly

[tomp]

82. you must be misunderstanding me.

i am in agreement with you that the war is illegal/unconstitutional.

i believe the bush administration is illegal/unconstitutional.

i believe everything this administration has done is illegal/unconstitutional because they acceded to the office illegally.

i beleive they have no constitutional authority whatsoever.

i believe they should be impeached, tried for treason, sent to the hague and tried for war crimes, then hung in the public square, and every action they've taken should be rescinded. and god help us try to clean up the mess.

HOWEVER, the question remains, relative to the op: what is the obligation of military personnel in this situation? do they all have the right to desert? i don't think so. i think their oath obliges them to take ACTIVE MEASURES in defense of the constitution. they can't just run away AND remain honorable. if they do run away it has to be in order to fight the attacks on the constitution, not to get themselves out of a jam.

i hope i have made myself clearer to you this time.

[flyarm]

83. yes ..THANK YOU!!!..I DID MISUNDERSTAND ...

:hi: :hi: :hi:

FLY

[patrice]

30. It isn't about sargeants yelling at troops. It's about the legality of

this war.

The UCMJ has provision supporting refusal to obey unlawful orders. You apparently were never given an order that you thought was unlawful.

IMO, so many people joining the military without questioning anything is how/why the U.S. interferes in the internal affairs of so many other countries. We can (could) always back it up with the presence of "the greatest military ever."

I was in ANG for over ten years and trained with regulars from all branches. People joined to get away from their home towns, to see the world, to learn a trade or skill, because they were bored, to solve their personal developmental issues, to get an education, because it was family tradition, or they were looking for "family" . . . . Choosing to support efforts to kill others, or actually killing them yourself SHOULD be a moral decision. It isn't ergo we have Iraq, and soon Iran, and our whole history of killing or helping others to kill for the cause du jour.

Thank Goodness there are some who are trying to break this cycle.

P.S. I joined to get an education and *boy* did I!!

[Olney Blue]

57. augie, what about National Guard troops? Are they held to the

same standards of the army in objecting to combat? I'm been wondering, and it
sounds like you would be in the know about this.

[demosincebirth]

60. Never was in the NG, but once they put them on "full duty,"

they come under the same rules and regulations that those in the regular army, and the Code of Military Justice will apply to them, also.

They take the same oath, when they enlist, as those joining the Regular army or any other branch of the services and that is to "serve and obey," even though it is only part-time.

[Olney Blue]

62. Thanks!

:hi:

[Recursion]

76. The duties are the same but the logistics are different

A drilling guardsmen or guardswoman (or reservist) is subject to the UCMJ during weekend drills and annual training (that's the "two weeks each summer" which is realistically more often "four to six weeks at some random point in the year"). AWOL and desertion rules are a bit different -- if an active duty soldier were to not show up for 4 days he'd probably go to jail; in the Guard and Reserve you generally just get demoted and have to make up the training days. This is because 1000 things can go wrong to keep a guardsman away from drill for a weekend so it has to be a really extreme case for them to actually go after you. Three of my years were Reserve and I ended up missing two drills; all you had to do was call the duty officer and say "my car broke down" and schedule a make-up date (I didn't even lose a stripe, since I called in).

Now, once they're activated it's a different story. At least in the Marines, a new unit is actually instantiated as part of the Fleet Marine Force (before, you were part of the Fleet Marine Force Reserve) and you are legally exactly like someone with an active duty contract, except that you get a better housing allowance (I was getting 3 times my base pay as a housing allowance, even though I was living on base, since the idea is I should be able to keep my apartment back home).

My understanding is that the Guard works like that too, but the Army Reserve doesn't; individuals are activated and parcelled out to existing active units (let me stress that this strikes me as an incredibly stupid idea, so I hope my understanding of that is wrong!) And the navy reserve is even weirder; naval reservists often don't drill the (in)famous "one weekend a month two weeks each summer", but have all kinds of different training schedules, and also get parcelled out to commands and posts on activation (the nature of naval work makes that a little less stupid than the similar army plan).

At any rate, in any branch once someone is activated they have the exact same rank and legal duties as someone who has been active duty all along. We used to say "the only difference is they aren't sunburned yet".

[Olney Blue]

77. Thank you for your informative post, dmesg.

[OnionPatch]

72. My guess is that they weren't paying close enough attention

at first. They were listening to FOX news and the rest of the Bush-cheering MSM.....when they listened at all. (Sorry, but I have rarely met a young man in his late teens/early twenties who is really up on current events that aren't related to sports or music.) It would make sense that after joining, they started paying much closer attention to what was going on and getting more of an inside view. :shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Awww..just shut up and kill people like you're s'posed to.

Good for them for acting like sensible people and refusing to do what the bosses want them to do.

[sproutster]

21. I think it's fair

Say I joined the military ... I'm going to Afganistan to get bin laden.

I find out about abu - senior officers joke about killing ragheads - senior officers are competing for kills... Guys trying to stop corruptions being suicided at Mercenary headquarters. Then the other lower ranked officers being tried for warcrimes while the senior officers are scott free. Contracters killing with immunity.

Hook me up with a one way ticket to Canada - THAT would not be what I voluntarily signed up for.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. Hey, wait. Kids think they're joining to defend their country

or whatever-at 18 they're still full of all kinds of untested idealism. Then they discover they were lied to. They thought they were joining the Good Guys & then find out they've been shanghaied into a gang of pirates & thugs, torturers & killers of civilians, and their sense of decency is outraged. Thank God they have the strength of character to resist what has happened to them. These are the ones who wouldn't have gone along with the demands of the Milgram experiments. They are the "Good Germans" who would have bailed out on Hitler & gone to fight Franco. Thank God for them. An I must say I draw great encouragement to learn there are so many of them.

[Nikki Stone 1]

37. More proof that the US is on the wrong side of this ME thing

kick

[Hubert Flottz]

31. Well the CIC did the same thing!

He's their example! Maybe Chris Magaoay will be picked by the SCOTUS to be pREsident too some day?

[patrice]

39. Isn't an order illegal if it results in the opposite of "the mission"?

If the mission of Bush's War is to defend the U.S., and nothing but genocide will succeed in "winning the war on terrorism" in military terms, anything but genocide is the opposite of the mission, will result in endangering the U.S., not defend it, and is, hence, an illegal order.

P.S. Not that I'm proposing genocide here; just trying to illustrate the situation our troops are in.

[OneBlueSky]

40. Bush's mission in Iraq is itself illegal . . .

it has nothing to do with defending the U.S., and everything to do with extending U.S. hegemony in the region, controlling the oil, and making profits for oil companies, Halliburton, and arms dealers . . . none of which is legal under international law . . . or, therefore, under U.S. law, since the U.S. has signed the treaties governing these rules, and treaties approved by the Senate and signed by the president become part of U.S. law . . .

in short, soldiers refusing to participate in the Iraq war are refusing to participate in an illegality . . . which is exactly what they should do . . .

[patrice]

45. That's better than my "genocide argument". More concrete. n/t

[ComerPerro]

41. And non-serving FReepers call these people cowards

[Doctor_J]

43. More than 1/4 of the occupation force

this isn't going to end well

[EFerrari]

55. No, it won't. But it will end better because these people

have made a decision not to alllow themselves to be targets in this action. It begins to clarify how wrong this whole project was, is and will continue to be.

[AntiFascist]

51. K & R ! This sounds like a lot of deserters....

and we don't even have a Draft yet, or anything on the order of magnitude of Viet Nam. Talk about a dishonorable war!

[Generic Other]

56. Only 50,000 deserted during Vietnam

And they were mostly draftees! These 40,000 today volunteered to go!

[Recursion]

59. The rate is lower than pre 9-11, though

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/desertionrates.htm

If you check the desertion rates for each service, they tended to peak in 2000 (except for the Army, where they peaked in '01). But Army and Marine desertion rates are both lower than they were in '98, '99 or '00, and seem to be dropping each year.

[vickitulsa]

74. IF you believe the Pentagon's statistics....

It's something others have mentioned in this thread, but I think it should receive more attention.

Do you TRUST the figures given out publicly by any office or department in this administration?

I have to say I certainly do NOT!

In fact, I've been quiet here at DU lately, not only because the extreme heat has my computer crashing so much but because I've been mulling over the whole notion of what terrible SECRETS are being kept by this administration.

I mean, think about it. We keep learning, largely through leaks or accidental verbal blunders (sometimes in writing) by Bu$h officials or their underlings, about quite a number of Constitution-breaking actions on the part of this bunch of criminals in power. Time after time, especially during the last year, our jaws have dropped as more appalling crimes and just plain dirty tricks of this gang of thugs in office come to light.

Yet can we take comfort in the fact that a FEW of their criminal undertakings have been exposed? A little, maybe; but perhaps what we should be doing is stepping back from our intense pleasure in seeing a few officials stripped of the protection their LIES gave them, so we can more realistically estimate just how much perfidy is still being kept totally secret and hidden from us.

THIS is what disturbs me so much lately, and the more I try to put my unease about it aside to focus on what we do know, the more this whole idea intrudes into my thinking. What good does it do if we expose one or two criminal actions -- even if we get indictments and convictions in those cases -- if the vast bulk of their criminal and evil enterprises remain secret?

I was wondering yesterday how it could be that I'm still dreaming of a Democrat majority happening in 2006, in either House or Senate, and a Democrat winning the Presidency in 2008, when we have very little hope of having FAIR AND HONEST ELECTIONS in the near future??

I was also wondering why on earth our so-called "elected representatives" in Washington continue to pass legislation that clearly flies right in the face of the wishes Americans have made clear. Suddenly it occurred to me that these politicians now in office have NO FEAR they will be voted OUT of office next time they're up because the elections are in the pocket of their friends. NO WAY can voters expel a crook or a rep who votes against their wishes -- not any more!

And all this administration or any corrupt one following it needs in order to ensure it will never be compelled to change its criminal, wicked ways is a police force and a military whose members will always and unquestioningly OBEY THEIR ORDERS....

[Recursion]

75. Well, for anecdotal evidence...

I joined my Marine unit in 1997, between then and 9/11 the battalion had 12 desertions (that I know about). After 9/11 a "desertion amnesty" was granted by Division command and 8 of the 12 came back. Since 9/11, the battalion has had 2 desertions, and neither were people eligible for deployment (one deserted we assume to avoid a court martial for cocaine possession, the other we have no idea).

[vickitulsa]

79. I've always found anecdotal evidence to be quite persuasive,

especially when the teller was in a position to reveal what might otherwise be closely kept secrets.

I wasn't so much wanting to challenge your assertions, however, as I just keep finding it so difficult to trust any statements of "fact" made by anyone connected to this mal-administration! :)

After I posted my reply above, I went searching for some supporting evidence in either direction on the issue -- and ended up deep into some fascinating (and frightening) information on the American military's publications on the Peak Oil crisis!

Previously non-existent, such papers are now appearing fast and furiously as the U.S. military establishment comes to grips with the complex issues revolving around global crude oil availability. The fact that a huge portion of the world's remaining crude oil reserves reside in some of the most autocratic nations in the Middle East seems to be forcing the U.S. to some grim choices. Either bind itself to despicable and definitely non-democratic leaders of countries we might otherwise shun were it not for the oil crisis, or run the risk of being cut off from the crude oil supplies on which America is so dependent. OR resort to military force to try and ensure U.S. acquisition of sufficient imports of crude.

U.S. action in Iraq, thanks to the lies and deceptions of the Bu$h administration, seems to have provided a clear indication of what direction those presently in power will be taking us.

Most of my close vet pals are of the Vietnam era, by the way, and their views are not always in line with the younger, active-duty set or younger combat vets. I still get a lot of valuable information from them, and I have gained insights into the politics of the Vietnam period that I never would have had otherwise.

It's the anecdotal evidence I've been privy to through these vets that has convinced me I should never trust the statistics or the denials of ugly truths offered up by the U.S. government. My skepticism in that regard has increased manyfold since BushCo assumed power. Several people who were involved in the Nixon and the Reagan/BushI administrations have also been claiming lately that the current Bu$h administration is the most secretive ever of any previous ones. That's a point which causes me grave concern.

[midnight]

63. If the war is illegal, doesn't he have the constitution on his side.

He took an oath to defend the constitution, not illegal acts.

[Swamp Rat]

85. What constitution?

[mmonk]

67. Wow. That many? I had no idea.

[Union Label]

84. Thats funny

I haven't seen any of this is the "librul press". :sarcasm:

[Erika]

86. Joking about killing Iraqis?

How very sick. Our CIC who allows this sets the tone of our military