• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We Don’t Leave Our Men or Women in Uniform Behind

We Don’t Leave Our Men or Women in Uniform Behind


  • Total voters
    59
But you see, I'm not on the military jury that will hear his case. I'm just running off at the mouth exactly like you. It's ONLY MY OPINION that he is a deserter. Backed up by his one time compatriots in Afghanistan who ALL have verified the fact. And the fact that he cost the lives of six of his fellow soldiers just is too GD overpowering to forgive. Tie his ass to a stake, throw a blindfold over his head and shoot the SoB.

And thankfully we don't throw people in jail based on opinion.
 
Yeah, but any opinion is useless if not supported in fact. And the fact is, he hasn't been convicted of any such thing yet.

Its just a matter of time until he is Court martialed for at best being a deserter or at worse for being a traitor.
 
Yeah, but any opinion is useless if not supported in fact. And the fact is, he hasn't been convicted of any such thing yet.

Which in turn would make the opinions of those former fellow soldiers and compatriots of Bergdahl that witnessed him deserting and the six dead soldiers killed while looking for him MEANINGLESS...even though it was eyewitnessed. You sir, are just running off at the mouth exactly like I am. Of course that JMO. And not supported by fact...except for all the eyewitnesses.
 
Yeah, but any opinion is useless if not supported in fact. And the fact is, he hasn't been convicted of any such thing yet.

Sure. But like the guy found covered in blood and holding the knife, still screaming at the murder victim how much they had it coming, the facts also seem to pretty clearly lay out that he is guilty.

He's guilty of desertion. He just hasn't been convicted yet, which is why he is not being punished for desertion. Recognizing that the legal system has not yet swung into action does not require us to give up our ability to observe data or apply reason.
 
I never understood the US policy on making it very difficult for soldiers to get out of their contract. If someone wants out and is making that desire known to others then how does it make sense to get in their way? Maybe someone that was in the military can help me understand how that is beneficial to the cause, because honestly, I can't see how that is possible.

When someone clearly doesn't want to fight exactly why wouldn't they leave?
 
I never understood the US policy on making it very difficult for soldiers to get out of their contract. If someone wants out and is making that desire known to others then how does it make sense to get in their way? Maybe someone that was in the military can help me understand how that is beneficial to the cause, because honestly, I can't see how that is possible.

When someone clearly doesn't want to fight exactly why wouldn't they leave?

No one wants to fight. The point is to do your duty anyway.:peace
 
I never understood the US policy on making it very difficult for soldiers to get out of their contract. If someone wants out and is making that desire known to others then how does it make sense to get in their way? Maybe someone that was in the military can help me understand how that is beneficial to the cause, because honestly, I can't see how that is possible.

When someone clearly doesn't want to fight exactly why wouldn't they leave?

We expend a lot of time and money to train and equip them. That is why some MOS's have longer active duty requirements than others, and follow-on educational benefits come with payback periods.
 
And thankfully we don't throw people in jail based on opinion.

There have been many people released from prison after serving many years there, based upon the OPINION of 12 jurors, who, it was later proven, got the verdict WRONG. But everybody could be lying in the case of Beau Bergdahl. Right...all his former buddies and companions in the foxhole? And then there's those six who were KIA looking for the dickhead after he deserted.
 
what about traitors or deserters?

Of course Americans believe that no one can be a traitor or deserter without a fair trial and a fair trial can not be had without the opportunity of the accused to face his accuser and have the opportunity to testify on his/her behalf

What do you believe in your country?
 
No one wants to fight. The point is to do your duty anyway.:peace

If someone clearly wants to leave it's not as if you are stronger with them in your ranks. All it really does by keeping them in your ranks is that the government feels as if everyone is doing what they want, but in the meantime this individual that want to leave is a liability and could very well be getting people killed.
 
There have been many people released from prison after serving many years there, based upon the OPINION of 12 jurors, who, it was later proven, got the verdict WRONG. But everybody could be lying in the case of Beau Bergdahl. Right...all his former buddies and companions in the foxhole?
And then there's those six who were KIA looking for the dickhead after he deserted.




When was he convicted of desertion?

I missed that news release.


Do we still go by "innocent until proven guilty" ?

I don't believe that this guy has had a trial yet.

Maybe we should give him one and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Last edited:
If someone clearly wants to leave it's not as if you are stronger with them in your ranks. All it really does by keeping them in your ranks is that the government feels as if everyone is doing what they want, but in the meantime this individual that want to leave is a liability and could very well be getting people killed.

That someone is no different from anyone else. He/she does his/her duty or pays the price.:peace
 
Of course Americans believe that no one can be a traitor or deserter without a fair trial

That is inaccurate. Americans believe that no one should be punished for being a traitor or a deserter without legal proceedings except in very special and narrowly defined cases. But you are a deserter or a traitor the moment you commit the deed.
 
If someone clearly wants to leave it's not as if you are stronger with them in your ranks. All it really does by keeping them in your ranks is that the government feels as if everyone is doing what they want, but in the meantime this individual that want to leave is a liability and could very well be getting people killed.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if there really is a massive cultural divide between the military/veteran community and the rest of the country.

Suffice to say, this is wrong in several different ways.

1. Soldiers do a lot more than just patrol. We had a guy who couldn't go out because of mental issues, for example, so we had him take care of administrative tasks that the company needed doing, freeing up another Marine who could go out to do so.
2. Not wanting to be there is not the same as being ineffective at your job. I knew plenty of guys who got extended or deployed when they thought they shouldn't have been. They weren't incapable of engaging in combat, they were just pissed off at their circumstances.
3. Every single servicemember knows that as soon as one goes missing, the primary mission of everyone in the area becomes finding them and getting them back. Bergdahl knew as soon as he was discovered that his former brothers would take any risk they had to to try to find them - he deliberately chose to increase the likelihood that they would be maimed or killed.

The military is not like your civilian job.
 
When was he convicted of desertion?

I missed that news release.


Do we still go by "innocent until proven guilty" ?

I don't believe that this guy has had a trial yet.

No he hasn't...that's just me giving MY OPINION. Of course I'm going on the word of several of his former soldier buddies who have stated unequivocally, that he deserted. Which I tend to believe since six other of his former platoon mates were murdered by the Taliban while they were out looking for the deserter. But you're correct about not having a trial... you can look back at the George Zimmerman case, and see how the black community and its sympathizers and the MS Media, had old George convicted of killing Trayvon.

Have a good evening Shrub.
 
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if there really is a massive cultural divide between the military/veteran community and the rest of the country.

Suffice to say, this is wrong in several different ways.

1. Soldiers do a lot more than just patrol. We had a guy who couldn't go out because of mental issues, for example, so we had him take care of administrative tasks that the company needed doing, freeing up another Marine who could go out to do so.

Don't they already have people for that?

2. Not wanting to be there is not the same as being ineffective at your job. I knew plenty of guys who got extended or deployed when they thought they shouldn't have been. They weren't incapable of engaging in combat, they were just pissed off at their circumstances.

Sure, that is true, but it's also true that the chances of a solider being ineffective at their job is increased if they don't want to be there or in the military at all.

3. Every single servicemember knows that as soon as one goes missing, the primary mission of everyone in the area becomes finding them and getting them back. Bergdahl knew as soon as he was discovered that his former brothers would take any risk they had to to try to find them - he deliberately chose to increase the likelihood that they would be maimed or killed.

It sounds like he was increasing the likelihood that his fellow soldiers would be maimed or killed before he left.

The military is not like your civilian job.

No, it's one when you are paid to kill or be killed and forced to do so even if you don't want to. :shrug:
 
I think this question is too simplistic given that it is in regards to the Bergdahl situation. Obviously you try to recover them, but you can't just say at any cost.

The 5 for 1 is a terrible idea if you consider that those five will rejoin the fight, rally enemy forces and lead to many more U.S. soldier deaths.
 
Don't they already have people for that?

Sure. People who could be on patrol. If you get a body that is just not up to that challenge, you rotate them to where their lack of ability isn't problematic, and you push the capable fighter forward.

Sure, that is true, but it's also true that the chances of a solider being ineffective at their job is increased if they don't want to be there or in the military at all.

Not really. Some of the people I learned the most from as a young grunt were also some of the most cynical embittered bastards I ever met.

It sounds like he was increasing the likelihood that his fellow soldiers would be maimed or killed before he left.

Actually it sounds like you have never deployed in an infantry unit. Which isn't a way to cut you down, it's just to point out that you don't really have much of a basis to make that claim on, here.

No, it's one when you are paid to kill or be killed and forced to do so even if you don't want to. :shrug:

No. The military is different in many more ways than that, especially the infantry.
 
That is inaccurate. Americans believe that no one should be punished for being a traitor or a deserter without legal proceedings except in very special and narrowly defined cases. But you are a deserter or a traitor the moment you commit the deed.

Perhaps I stand corrected with that nuance.. but I am not corrected without credible third party evidence. Who gets to determine that you did, indeed, commit the deed? You certainly can be declared AWOL, but it seems that being a deserter requires a higher level determination. While I might buy the idea that being a deserter is an administrative determination, I do not buy that with being a traitor. I think your argument falls apart here. Where does it say you can be determined to be a traitor without a trial? That makes no sense. I think we need a cite.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I stand corrected with that nuance.. but I am not corrected without credible third party evidence. Your cite please.

1. The man deserted his post and unit. There is no other plausible answer for why a man would lay out his gear for his leadership to log, take the materials he thought he would need to cross the mountains, and abandon his post. It wasn't the worlds' most complicated, longest sleep-walking event. Desertion is sort of obvious.

2. Treason is not. There are reports out there that he aided the Taliban, teaching them small unit tactics and how to use phones for IED's. Given the reporting that is also available on his conversion to Islam and self-declaration that he was going to take part in Jihad, occasionally being allowed to carry weapons and the like, that is plausible, but probability is more difficult to determine.
 
1. The man deserted his post and unit. There is no other plausible answer for why a man would lay out his gear for his leadership to log, take the materials he thought he would need to cross the mountains, and abandon his post. It wasn't the worlds' most complicated, longest sleep-walking event. Desertion is sort of obvious.

2. Treason is not. There are reports out there that he aided the Taliban, teaching them small unit tactics and how to use phones for IED's. Given the reporting that is also available on his conversion to Islam and self-declaration that he was going to take part in Jihad, occasionally being allowed to carry weapons and the like, that is plausible, but probability is more difficult to determine.

I am not asking you to try and judge him. I am asking for third party evidence of how a man can be decreed a deserter and decreed a traitor without a trial.
 
Back
Top Bottom