Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desertion

braindrain said:

I can name plenty of occasions of Marines displaying a lack of discipline and bringing dishonor to the Corps. Does that mean the Corps is suffering for some giant institutional problem. This is not a Army only problem but a human one and a reflection of the society that the military draws from. And yes a big part of why the Army is effected more then the Marine Corps is due to both size and scope of missions. If tomorrow the Marines were told they needed to get as large as the Army as well as have as many MOSs they would be facing the exact same problems.

Click to expand...

That is your branch pride talking. That is not honesty. But have at it. And when you are finished trying to fit any minor issue into the internationally embarrassing box that the Army constantly provides, you will have come nowhere near the Bergdahls or the Manning or the tactical disasters. I'll help you with two recent issues off the top of my head...

1) Haditha Dam (all Marines found not guilty in civilian court)
2) Pissing on corpses (If only it were thaty simple for the Army, right?)
3) A televised hazing incident with Force Recon in the 1990s.

Let me help out with the other branches. The Navy had that Tailhook issue in the 1990s. Air Force Generals are routinely caught with their hands in the cookie jar in terms of crooked defense contracts (pick a decade).

Your excuse making and dismissals are just more of the same. "Size...other branches have issues too..." Size means that leadership stops? Because of size, soldiers walk around with rusty weapons? Because at what point in this numbers game does the discipline cease to be a complete focus and proper psychological training and assessment stop mattering? The Marines lowered recruiting standards to enlist tens of thousands more, yet.... The Air Force has over 300,000 Active Duty, yet... And because the heat of a light bulb is hot, the heat of the sun can't be measured for its obvious difference? It's a way to deny a very real and obvious problem and one that extends those problems from war to war simply because the Army and its soldiers won't face it. And the rest of us get to be lumped into it because civilians only see a "military" problem.

braindrain said:

Further you adding the black hawk down incident as an example of Army poor performance, shows that either you simply have zero actual knowledge of the entire event or that you are simply blinded by your anti Army bias. Not sure which it is.

Click to expand...

Don't be so determined to confuse the difference between a hard-fought battle and the Army errors that exacerbated the battle...

- There was no TRAP mission in place for that Somalia mission. Thus, the Army betrayed its own SOPs. (This would be where Clinton shares blame). Even worse is that by 2006 the Army admitted to the absence of TRAP missions in Iraq for years.

- As soon as RPG presence was known, all helicopter activity should have been grounded over the city. Sending more in was an error and exacerbated the need to rescue even more.

As for your typical default to "bias," this would be yet another one of the excuses that allow the Army to look away and continue the problem. Any bias is based on a reality. Did you know that despite the lessons of warfare in Somalia and Bosnia, only the Marines began stressing urban warfare (MOUT) as the future? The Army continued to focus intently on Gulf War scenarios, because it wanted to train for the wars it wanted and not the wars we were likely to get. This is why Jessica Lynch & Co. got caught like they did. Lost, absent rusty weapons, and afraid...they had absolutely no idea what they were doing. The official Army excuse was that they were "support troops" as if that means that it was alright that they were not trained properly and lacked NCO leadership.

Do you see the point at all here? It is not about some silly branch "bias." There is no way you do not see the issue. Pretending that "we all have problems" settles the matter for another war is designed denial. The Army has two choices. Own it and fix it....or just keep denying and cling to the excuses so that the ignorant civilian populace can just keep blaming "military."

One would think that this is a discussion that at least military members can have among themselves since they can see through the civilian haze of lumping it all into "military." But branch pride has you rejecting these truths and in personal denial. Be proud...just don't pretend to be blind.

RetiredUSN said:

Lynch wasn't a bad soldier. She was the result of the poor leadership above her...............NCO's and officers.

Click to expand...

Of course she was; and of course it's a wider leadership problem.

You think a Marine who leaves his weight standards and starts failing his PFTs or can't qual isn't a bad Marine? Of course he is. He has personally failed.
That's why he gets administratively bounced or released upon the end of his enlistment. One can state it's about the leadership, but when the rest of the Platoon is performing as they should, that's more of an individual issue. If so much of the rest of the Platoon is dropping performance, that would be a leadership discussion.

Another disconnect that soldiers like to have here, is that Lynch & Co. enlisted well before the Army began really lowering its recruitment standards. Poor leadership and a lack of training is exactly why she was a bad soldier. The official Army excuse was that her unit was only "support." That is no excuse and it only allows the "support" to continue playing soldier in the next war. The Army does not hold itself accountable because it relies on the same tired excuses, on its soldiers to live in denial, and the wider civilian population to remain ignorant as they perceive it all as merely a "military" problem.

Erod said:

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desertion - CNNPolitics



Obama's favorite military hero is headed for prison.

How many soldiers did we lose and terrorists did we give away to save this traitor?

Click to expand...

How about the folks who sold North Korea nuclear reactors two years before we placed them on an "axis of evil" list? How about the folks who supplied Saddam with chemical weapons? How about the folks who sell arms to Wahabists, the most radical of Islamists? What about the folks who sold internationally illegal cluster bombs, known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field to the Wahabists who rain them down on Yemeni fishing villages? How about the folks who lied your nation into a bogus war on the lie of Saddam's WMDs?

Terrorists? Pfffffffffffffffft.

Look at where your military is deployed. Where there is oil, precious metals or uranium.

Fenton Lum said:

How about the folks who sold North Korea nuclear reactors two years before we placed them on an "axis of evil" list? How about the folks who supplied Saddam with chemical weapons? How about the folks who sell arms to Wahabists, the most radical of Islamists? What about the folks who sold internationally illegal cluster bombs, known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field to the Wahabists who rain them down on Yemeni fishing villages? How about the folks who lied your nation into a bogus war on the lie of Saddam's WMDs?

Terrorists? Pfffffffffffffffft.

Look at where your military is deployed. Where there is oil, precious metals or uranium.

Click to expand...

I realize that the U.S. has been the world's favorite scapegoat for all that is wrong in their little societies for many decades, and a fan favorite to denigrate when it comes to Europeans since the late eighteenth-century, but.....

- Arms exports from the EU to both the Middle East and North Africa have significantly increased over the past decade, analysis by the European Union Institute for Security Studies (ISS) found. Saudi Arabia has seen some of the biggest growth, importing 144 per cent more arms from the EU since 2012 than it did in the five years preceding that.

- French politicians cannily played on old diplomatic relationships with allies in the Middle East and Asia, which accounted for nearly 70% of exports from 2010 to 2014. Egypt has been heavily re-equipping its armed forces with French gear in the face of regional instability and to avoid over-reliance on kit from America alone.

- French observers saw their country's industry soar to the number-two position of global arms exporters in 2016...

- Russia sold the most arms to African countries, mainly to Algeria, while France’s sales to Morocco made it the second-largest arms dealer to the continent.

Oh my, my, my. Sorry, did I kind of ruin your ignorant and shallow "I hate America" party?

MSgt said:

Of course she was; and of course it's a wider leadership problem.

You think a Marine who leaves his weight standards and starts failing his PFTs or can't qual isn't a bad Marine? Of course he is. He has personally failed.
That's why he gets administratively bounced or released upon the end of his enlistment. One can state it's about the leadership, but when the rest of the Platoon is performing as they should, that's more of an individual issue. If so much of the rest of the Platoon is dropping performance, that would be a leadership discussion.

Another disconnect that soldiers like to have here, is that Lynch & Co. enlisted well before the Army began really lowering its recruitment standards. Poor leadership and a lack of training is exactly why she was a bad soldier. The official Army excuse was that her unit was only "support." That is no excuse and it only allows the "support" to continue playing soldier in the next war. The Army does not hold itself accountable because it relies on the same tired excuses, on its soldiers to live in denial, and the wider civilian population to remain ignorant as they perceive it all as merely a "military" problem.

Click to expand...

NO.................her leadership made her the soldier that she is.

MSgt said:

That is your branch pride talking. That is not honesty. But have at it. And when you are finished trying to fit any minor issue into the internationally embarrassing box that the Army constantly provides, you will have come nowhere near the Bergdahls or the Manning or the tactical disasters. I'll help you with two recent issues off the top of my head...

1) Haditha Dam (all Marines found not guilty in civilian court)
2) Pissing on corpses (If only it were thaty simple for the Army, right?)
3) A televised hazing incident with Force Recon in the 1990s.

Let me help out with the other branches. The Navy had that Tailhook issue in the 1990s. Air Force Generals are routinely caught with their hands in the cookie jar in terms of crooked defense contracts (pick a decade).

.

As for your typical default to "bias," this would be yet another one of the excuses that allow the Army to look away and continue the problem. Any bias is based on a reality. Did you know that despite the lessons of warfare in Somalia and Bosnia, only the Marines began stressing urban warfare (MOUT) as the future? The Army continued to focus intently on Gulf War scenarios, because it wanted to train for the wars it wanted and not the wars we were likely to get. This is why Jessica Lynch & Co. got caught like they did. Lost, absent rusty weapons, and afraid...they had absolutely no idea what they were doing. The official Army excuse was that they were "support troops" as if that means that it was alright that they were not trained properly and lacked NCO leadership.

Do you see the point at all here? It is not about some silly branch "bias." There is no way you do not see the issue. Pretending that "we all have problems" settles the matter for another war is designed denial. The Army has two choices. Own it and fix it....or just keep denying and cling to the excuses so that the ignorant civilian populace can just keep blaming "military."

One would think that this is a discussion that at least military members can have among themselves since they can see through the civilian haze of lumping it all into "military." But branch pride has you rejecting these truths and in personal denial. Be proud...just don't pretend to be blind.

Click to expand...

Has to delete some of your post so mine would fit.
Yes I know it is your bias talking. That is what I said in my first post.
I know the Army has problems. As does every branch. But to try and pretend that having a much smaller much more narrowly focused branch which allows you to be much more selective doesn’t make a huge difference is simply you refusing to admit the truth. Like I said if tomorrow the Corps was forced to be as big and do as many jobs as the Army they would have the exact same problems.

And you are leaving out quite a few Marine displays of lack of discipline there in your little list. As well as ones for the other branches. Hmm I wonder why that is. Couldn’t be you trying to push your little agenda could it.

So helicopters shouldn’t be flying once RPGs are a known threat. Well then I guess they shouldn’t have been any helicopters flying in Iraq then huh. In your haste to blame the Army for everything you are really making yourself look silly.

Again you showing you have no idea what you are talking about. The units that were involved in BHD would embarrass any Marine unit in CQB. They could have back then and they still can today. The Army has been teaching MOUT for decades and furthermore being trained or not in MOUT has absolutely nothing to do with lynch. Poor discipline is poor discipline. But you just keep pushing you little fairytale your building. Even today I have worked with Marine units that have virtually know idea what they are doing inside a house and would be completely lost on a battlefield but just keep telling yourself there isn’t. I get a laugh out of it.

And as I said the Army does have issues. But like I also said that is hugely related to the size and scope of missions the Army is forced to into. Now could and should the Army do better. Of course. But then so should the Corps the Navy and the AF.

Fenton Lum said:

How about the folks who sold North Korea nuclear reactors two years before we placed them on an "axis of evil" list? How about the folks who supplied Saddam with chemical weapons? How about the folks who sell arms to Wahabists, the most radical of Islamists? What about the folks who sold internationally illegal cluster bombs, known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field to the Wahabists who rain them down on Yemeni fishing villages? How about the folks who lied your nation into a bogus war on the lie of Saddam's WMDs?

Terrorists? Pfffffffffffffffft.

Look at where your military is deployed. Where there is oil, precious metals or uranium.

Click to expand...

Did you figure out why a "charity" would need automatic weapons to feed kids yet?

How you can be so ridiculous as to lie about Saddam not having WMDs and whine about us "selling him WMDs" at the same?

Go back to whining about our imaginary empire.

braindrain said:

I know the Army has problems. As does every branch. But to try and pretend that having a much smaller much more narrowly focused branch which allows you to be much more selective doesn’t make a huge difference is simply you refusing to admit the truth. Like I said if tomorrow the Corps was forced to be as big and do as many jobs as the Army they would have the exact same problems.

Click to expand...

No, it would not. Each Branch has its own culture. Once again...

- Numbers don't affect the leadership in the Air Force.

- Numbers did not affect the Marine Corps' leadership when it elevated by 40,000 under lowering standards. So how can the marines lower standards and still maintain its normalcy in discipline?

You think if the Navy elevated to 50,000 it would start setting its culture aside and abandon good leadership? Numbers is a cop out and it is no excuse for bad leadership. This is an Army problem and it centers on its culture. When the lowly Private is witness to even his Generals' very publicized misconduct on and off the battlefield, one must address the wider discipline problem. Army Generals are constantly caught in inappropriate relationships with junior officers, handing over Top Secret info to girlfriends, and exhibiting disrespect towards seniors in a public manner. This is the higher Army leadership that the Bowe Bergdahls, the Jessica Lynchs, the Bradley Mannings, the Nidal Malik Hasans, the Ivan Lopez', the Robert Bales', and the Lynndie Englands watch. If the Army reduced to 200,000, it would still present the same problems.

MSgt said:

No, it would not. Each Branch has its own culture. Once again...

- Numbers don't affect the leadership in the Air Force.

- Numbers did not affect the Marine Corps' leadership when it elevated by 40,000 under lowering standards. So how can the marines lower standards and still maintain its normalcy in discipline?

You think if the Navy elevated to 50,000 it would start setting its culture aside and abandon good leadership? Numbers is a cop out and it is no excuse for bad leadership. This is an Army problem and it centers on its culture. When the lowly Private is witness to even his Generals' very publicized misconduct on and off the battlefield, one must address the wider discipline problem. Army Generals are constantly caught in inappropriate relationships with junior officers, handing over Top Secret info to girlfriends, and exhibiting disrespect towards seniors in a public manner. This is the higher Army leadership that the Bowe Bergdahls, the Jessica Lynchs, the Bradley Mannings, the Nidal Malik Hasans, the Ivan Lopez', the Robert Bales', and the Lynndie Englands watch. If the Army reduced to 200,000, it would still present the same problems.

Click to expand...

Yes it most certainly would. While it might not effect leadership it effects how selective they can be to who they allow in and who to remain in.

The majority of the Air Force is about as far from a combat branch as you can get and still be in the military. Trying to compare the leadership of what is needed in the AF to that of the Army or Marines is just silly.

Apparently you haven’t been paying much attention to what is going on in the Navy recently. And I am notsumply talking about the recent accidents with their destroyers. Look at all the recent admirals and other high level members of the Navy that have been relieved due to either lack of character or simply illegal behavior. Look at how the Navy is dealing with the rather large weight problem it has within its service.

You say the increase didn’t effect the Marine leadership. I say it did. Many of my Marine friends agree with me. They also agree with me that the normal quality of Marines coming out of basic was reduced.

It’s finny how you talk about the Army generals that get caught behaving poorly but try and use the Navy as an example of good behavior. How about you look up how many high ranking Navy officers have been released for misconduct in the last 5 years.

I can’t tell if it is simply your bias that is making you throw out ridiculous arguments or that you are simply so out of touch with what’s going on in the military that you have no real clue what you are talking about.

And I don’t blame you for ignoring the rest of my previous post. It made your whole argument look rather pathetic

braindrain said:

Yes it most certainly would. While it might not effect leadership it effects how selective they can be to who they allow in and who to remain in.

The majority of the Air Force is about as far from a combat branch as you can get and still be in the military. Trying to compare the leadership of what is needed in the AF to that of the Army or Marines is just silly.

Apparently you haven’t been paying much attention to what is going on in the Navy recently. And I am notsumply talking about the recent accidents with their destroyers. Look at all the recent admirals and other high level members of the Navy that have been relieved due to either lack of character or simply illegal behavior. Look at how the Navy is dealing with the rather large weight problem it has within its service.

You say the increase didn’t effect the Marine leadership. I say it did. Many of my Marine friends agree with me. They also agree with me that the normal quality of Marines coming out of basic was reduced.

It’s finny how you talk about the Army generals that get caught behaving poorly but try and use the Navy as an example of good behavior. How about you look up how many high ranking Navy officers have been released for misconduct in the last 5 years.

I can’t tell if it is simply your bias that is making you throw out ridiculous arguments or that you are simply so out of touch with what’s going on in the military that you have no real clue what you are talking about.

And I don’t blame you for ignoring the rest of my previous post. It made your whole argument look rather pathetic

Click to expand...

Whatever you say. Avoidance, denial, and excuses have long been the tool of choice. It's a never ending cycle, isn't it? Here's to the future Bergdahls, Mannings, and Lynchs.

braindrain said:

I can’t tell if it is simply your bias that is making you throw out ridiculous arguments or that you are simply so out of touch with what’s going on in the military that you have no real clue what you are talking about.

And I don’t blame you for ignoring the rest of my previous post. It made your whole argument look rather pathetic

Click to expand...

You have stated all of this nonsense before. I ignore what is not relevant because not doing so indulges your avoidance and denials. For example...


1) You talk of what your friends say in regards to more numbers in the Marine Corps. This really means nothing. There are no Bergdahls, Mannings, etc., right? This means that higher standards and discipline are maintained. Perhaps the problem is that the Army maintains lower standards to begin with. So dropping them even lower doesn't help. But the Army standards were at a normal level during Bosnia when soldiers refused to deploy, weren't they?
That's a lack of discipline. The fact that soldiers actually feel that they have the freedom to protest is a core problem. A lack of peer pressure is why soldiers can look bad in uniform without correction from dozens and dozens of passing leaders (PX, Fort Gordon & Bragg). But even if there were at least one international embarrassment on the Army level, it would be one, wouldn't it? Only one in the Navy. Only one in the Marines. And with the Air Force boasting as the civilian Branch of the military, certainly there should be one belligerent jerk betraying his uniform and country, right? Why is it always the Army that presents the trend? But you don't care about why, do you? That's the other half of the problem. So, again, we see the typical need to present the heat of a light bulb to write-off the heat of the sun.

2) You talk of RPGs in Iraq, without the knowledge that if an RPG was launched, helos and Ospreys were grounded until a patrol scoured the sector involved, outside of the base, and cleared it. This was routine business. This is also the SOP in Afghanistan, by the way, for at least Camp Leatherneck (Marine base) and the MOB in LashKar Gah (British base). I believe it was the same for the bases in the east, but I am not sure. In any case, even if this SOP did not exist in Iraq, it would not excuse a bungled operation in Somalia.

So you see? There is no real point in indulging your irrelevant comments that are only designed to help you ignore the very real and globally observed issue within the Army. "Nu-uh" is and has always been a poor defense. And the sad thing is that you don't have to defend this. Your pride has you refusing what you know very well to be true.

From here, you will want the entire point of my original post to be about your deflections. Indulgence. This is why I tend to ignore the irrelevancies.

MSgt said:

Whatever you say. Avoidance, denial, and excuses have long been the tool of choice. It's a never ending cycle, isn't it? Here's to the future Bergdahls, Mannings, and Lynchs.

Click to expand...

Can’t called on your bs and have no real answer. Noted

braindrain said:

Can’t called on your bs and have no real answer. Noted

Click to expand...

A real answer to your avoidance and nonsense replies? Sure. Whatever makes it all better for you. "Nu-uh" has worked for the Army since Custer. It works today. Why stop now, right?

MSgt said:

A real answer to your avoidance and nonsense replies? Sure. Whatever makes it all better for you. "Nu-uh" has worked for the Army since Custer. It works today. Why stop now, right?

Click to expand...

Sorry but it’s not me that is having trouble dealing with reality. The fact that you don’t seem to understand how a force that is much smaller and more narrowly tasked can not only be more selective on who they let in but also maintain a more well defined focus can only be explained either by an inability to think logically or simply not being able to see past your own bias.
It’s rather telling though how you pick and choose what incidents demonstrate a problem within an institution. Some how crashing in to other ships doesn’t. Getting multiple high level officers relieved of command for horrible behavior doesn’t, but that only applies to the Army if your Navy it’s ok, murdering Philippina hookers doesn’t. Being involved in a massive sex photo sharing scandal that was covered up by command doesn’t, tell me where those Marines thinking about that their behavior would bring dishonor to the Corp when they did it. Does having your brand new SOF unit kicked out of country on their first deployment for shooting up a village show a institutional lack of discipline.
The fact that you give passes to all those events plus many many more but can only focus on the Army demonstrates your bias far better then I ever could.

braindrain said:

It’s rather telling though how you pick and choose what incidents demonstrate a problem within an institution.

Click to expand...

"Pick and choose?!" Now you've done it...

Perhaps the problem with you, as an individual, is that you can't comprehend the difference between an unacceptable behavior on a battle field, that repeats itself due to institutional poor discipline, and an actual isolated indecent that gets a harsh repercussion due to harsh discipline. The rest of the Branches are supposed to look away, right? The Army needs not to cope with its constant issues, right?

THIS is the issue at hand. Does the entire world "pick and choose" when the Bergdahls do their undisciplined thing? Do they decide that this in a "U.S. Army" problem versus an American "military" problem? Do they give a damn when the Jessica Lynch's' have rusty and dirty weapons in a combat zone while having their body armor off, or even have their weapons on their person? Do they care that better trained U.S. Marines have to rescue them? They do not...and to the relief of the Army institution, right?

"Does having your brand new SOF unit kicked out of country on their first deployment for shooting up a village show a institutional lack of discipline."

What the hell are you even talking about? Robert Bales? Um...yes. I have no idea of the trivial nonsense you tried to present as an excuse for the constant bad Army behavior that catches international headlines...but...yes. Good grief. It's like you are supporting my argument while denying it.

MSgt said:

"Pick and choose?!" Now you've done it...

Perhaps the problem with you, as an individual, is that you can't comprehend the difference between an unacceptable behavior on a battle field, that repeats itself due to institutional poor discipline, and an actual isolated indecent that gets a harsh repercussion due to harsh discipline. The rest of the Branches are supposed to look away, right? The Army needs not to cope with its constant issues, right?

THIS is the issue at hand. Does the entire world "pick and choose" when the Bergdahls do their undisciplined thing? Do they decide that this in a "U.S. Army" problem versus an American "military" problem? Do they give a damn when the Jessica Lynch's' have rusty and dirty weapons in a combat zone while having their body armor off, or even have their weapons on their person? Do they care that better trained U.S. Marines have to rescue them? They do not...and to the relief of the Army institution, right?

"Does having your brand new SOF unit kicked out of country on their first deployment for shooting up a village show a institutional lack of discipline."

What the hell are you even talking about? Robert Bales? Um...yes. I have no idea of the trivial nonsense you tried to present as an excuse for the constant bad Army behavior that catches international headlines...but...yes. Good grief. It's like you are supporting my argument while denying it.

Click to expand...

Yes. Picking and choosing what demonstrations of poor discipline or lack of training count and which ones don’t is exactly what you are doing. Funny how the only ones you think count are the ones done by the Army. Wonder why that is.
It’s why you ignore the majority of the issues I brought up and only mention the ones you think you can justify. Which you really can’t.
So multiple flag officers getting flagged is trivial. Crashing destroyers into cargo ships are trivial. Running Ships aground is trivial. Scandals involving hundreds of Marines that’s covered up commands is trivial. Over 2 Navy officers being involved in a bribery scandal in Singapore is trivial. Lol Give me a break.

Not my fault you don’t seem to be to well informed with some of the instances of Marines showing a lack of discipline. My only real question is it because you said moly are not well informed or is it because you simply so caught up in your own hype that it keeps you from being able to see reality.
Look up MARSOCs Fox companies first trip to Afghanistan sometime.

braindrain said:

So multiple flag officers getting flagged is trivial. Crashing destroyers into cargo ships are trivial. Running Ships aground is trivial. Scandals involving hundreds of Marines that’s covered up commands is trivial. Over 2 Navy officers being involved in a bribery scandal in Singapore is trivial. Lol Give me a break.

Click to expand...

Running a ship into another ship is called an accident. It is not a trend. Perhaps if the Navy just slapped him on the wrist and downplayed it we would see a trend. When this happens repeatedly, get back to me. Relying on the other branches individual mistakes cannot excuse the undisciplined trend of the Army. The reason this topic angers me is that the soldier's need to personally downplay the trend is matched by the institution's need. In the mean time, our civilian population only see "military." They lump us all into the garbage.

braindrain said:

Look up MARSOCs Fox companies first trip to Afghanistan sometime.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the incident in which the Marines were cleared of wrongdoing? Galvin and his men were cleared in court a year after of any responsibility after testimony by more than 50 witnesses. So, this would be a poor attempt to deflect on your part. Sort of like your Haditha example, right? Here we see where you will go just to deflect and avoid a truth. You actually need the Marines and other branches to mess up just to be able to hide. But again, even if Courts Martial were handed out, it would be individual incident in which a trend is non-existent. You might want to cling to Marines pissing on corpses to excuse the Army Bergdhal and Lynch trends. At least you would have something solid to hide behind.

Like I stated, I ignore your irrelevancies because it only encourages your need to deny.


Here's another example of poor institutional discipline...



Behind the Air Force?! How in hell is the Army the fattest by far? Which branch is supposed to be supplying the "soldiers?" This is exactly a part of that larger discipline problem. And what do you think the Army's response to this data was? The same old excuses and downplaying. Don't worry, the Air Force and the Navy also downplayed. In the mean time, the Marine Corps didn't even bother to respond because the Marine Corps requires strict adherence to its fitness standards and over the years has seen Marines resort to even unsafe weight-loss methods for fear that failing will jeopardize their careers (and it does). As you can see, despite pointing out that there are fat Marines too in order to excuse and downplay what the Army presents, discipline is consistent for the Marines over the years. A lack of discipline gets worse over the years for the Army. And this graph represents the years after Army standards got back to its normal low. Can you cipher the graph? This would be the personal discipline that is lacking in the Army and makes room for the Bergdhal and Lynch trends. Weak in body, weak in mind.

Erod said:

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desertion - CNNPolitics



Obama's favorite military hero is headed for prison.

How many soldiers did we lose and terrorists did we give away to save this traitor?

Click to expand...

Good thing that Obama no longer has the power to pardon traitors as was is habit.

Top Cat said:

Has it not dawned upon you that Obama is no longer in office?

Click to expand...

Has it dawned on you that this doesn't mean his actions were and still are not in the best interests of the nation ? Or do just automatically forgive him for anything rotten that he did/does?

Lursa said:

I'm not sure what Obama did wrong on this issue. The Army would have proceeded to send teams out to look for him and I think (not sure of policy) our govt would have tried to get a prisoner back. It's up to us to charge him as needed, not allow the enemy to keep him and use him as leverage.

And now hopefully he'll get the punishment he deserves.

If the Army really did send an unfit man to the front lines, I hope that there is much learned from this harsh lesson where men lost their lives searching.

Click to expand...

Until Obama in all of his ego decided to change it, US policy was to not negotiate with terrorists. That is just one of the things that Obama did wrong in this case.

faithful_servant said:

20/20 hindsight is never a good thing. While there were questions about Bergdahl's actions, we didn't know for sure until now and had no way then of knowing if he had in fact deserted.

Click to expand...

If anyone had listened to his squad mates they would know that he deserted, in spite of the liberal deniers claims. Also, he left a note.

Just stupid to claim that we "didn't know" what he was doing.

Fletch said:

Maybe I shouldn't, but I feel bad for the guy. Not sure what he deserves, but I hope he doesn't get life.

Click to expand...

Failing life, how do you feel about a death sentence?

Lursa said:

And yet, the facts surrounding his disappearance were not known then. Again: did Obama's actions to get him released differ from general policy? I know that it is not black and white when dealing with terrorist demands.

The ability to use him for leverage still remained as long as he was in enemy hands.

Click to expand...

Until Obama, US policy was to not negotiate with terrorists. Obama voided that policy for personal gain.

Top Cat said:

An Obama bashing thread from you. In other news, the sun will set in the west tonight.

Click to expand...

Susan Rice doing what she does best!

RabidAlpaca said:

Obama is not president and has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Can you give one example of Obama praising Bergdahl in any way, shape or form? This is just silly partisanship injected into completely unrelated topics.



So what specifically is Obama guilty of? Did he convince Bergdahl to go AWOL? Did he praise him or shield him from prosecution? Be specific. Sounds like a serious case of ODS - Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Click to expand...

Answer to both of your demands?questions: Did you see the Rose Garden conference where Obama praised the traitors conduct and behavior, his patriotism?

Watch it and have your questions answered.