Post: #51

Samsamsam, Bergdahl was not left behind. He left everyone else behind. The trade for Bergdahl will get more people killed.

Post: #52

(03-25-2015 06:07 PM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  Samsamsam, Bergdahl was not left behind. He left everyone else behind. The trade for Bergdahl will get more people killed.

I know he left everyone behind. But regardless of his crimes, which he is being charged for, he is still an American.

Yes, I fucking get it, he quit. I don't like quitters like most people. But you still bring him home. Sometimes you have to be the bigger person about it and keep to some principles even for those who have none.

But I agree he is a fucking quitter and cost a tremendous amount of pain for others.

Edit: Also bringing him to punish him reinforces the message of honor your commitment.

Post: #53

(03-25-2015 05:24 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 04:54 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  As a soldier, whilst I think you are wrong, I understand where you are coming from and I don't think it is without merit.

In your defence, I don't think it is true that by signing up you agree to abdicate all sense of moral rectitude, or free thought. In contract law there is the concept of an Implied Term - ie something that is not explicitly written but is none-the-less an inherent part of the understanding between contracting parties. I do personally believe that there is an implied term in your contract for service that you will not be forced to do the morally repugnant, and that should the army ask you to do something heinous, they are in breach of their contract. Many western armies have a set of core values that have to be recited ad nausiam through basic training, and which you'll be reminded of annually, if not more often, throughout your service.

It simply isn't as clear cut as saying that if you join the army you simply do as your told. Where does that leave you if they told you to march millions of children barefoot across Siberia? Or machine gun a village full of women and children? Look at the Nuremberg trials, and how even a good many low level Nazi soldiers were held accountable for their actions. It is clear that in some cases you may actually be expected to exercise your own discretion and refuse to obey orders. The trouble is, there are not these in extremis clauses in a standard service contract, so it must be an implied term or condition of service that you will not act in an inherently immoral way.

With all of that said, I personally feel that any man who would put the lives of his mates at risk ahead of his principles is not a man I would want beside me in combat. When push comes to shove, it's as simple as us vs them, and that's a primal truth. If that means sacrificing some of his other principles, then he needs to make peace with that and do his job. When his tour is over, he can make his arrangements and his mates will understand if he feels a war is immoral and he can no longer serve, but you do not have a crisis of conscience in a combat zone - loyalty to your mates, even if you think the mission is fucked, comes above everything in that situation. You don't desert your friends, and you sure as hell don't create a situation where 5 of them are KIA as a result. This man betrayed his friends, men who were relying on him to do his part, and is directly responsible for 5 steadfast blokes losing their lives. So fuck him, he'll get no compassion from me, he's the lowest of the low as far as I'm concerned.

Does that mean you don't believe what he was asked to do was enough to justify ditching his unit or that even if it was enough the duty to stay with his unit was still more important? The latter leads to the question of what is enough to justify ditching the unit.

I don't believe there is ever a good enough reason to abandon your friends in a combat zone. If you object very strongly to a conflict (and the list of conflicts we've intervened in that we shouldn't have done is a long and shameful one, see Libya for the most recent example), then you should leave the army/refuse to deploy and take the punishment prior to deploying - if you feel so strongly, the most honourable thing you can do is not jeopardise the lives of your mates any further. Once you're in the fight, it's you and your boys against the world. To me, that loyalty is the highest of all principles, anything else (however morally upright you are otherwise) is incidental - us and them. There is no 'ditching the unit' once you're in the fight. But then, I would deploy to a conflict zone in a war I vehemently disagreed without hesitation before I let my mates go off to fight without me - whilst I recognise the hypocrisy in that statement, it's also a delightfully simple truth.

Post: #54

This guy is a deserter/traitor. If he wanted out, he could have said he was suicidal, been put on suicide watch and processed back stateside. I spent 3 years as a contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan and saw it happen with 2 different people in 2 different units. If he didn't intend to join the Taliban when he left, I'm sure he gave them information/training to save his ass, there were rumors that IEDs and ambushes from the Taliban got much more sophisticated/successful a few months after he left. After this is done, he will probably be offered a job as a professor at a liberal college.

Post: #55

(03-25-2015 06:15 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  I don't believe there is ever a good enough reason to abandon your friends in a combat zone. If you object very strongly to a conflict (and the list of conflicts we've intervened in that we shouldn't have done is a long and shameful one, see Libya for the most recent example), then you should leave the army/refuse to deploy and take the punishment prior to deploying - if you feel so strongly, the most honourable thing you can do is not jeopardise the lives of your mates any further. Once you're in the fight, it's you and your boys against the world. To me, that loyalty is the highest of all principles, anything else (however morally upright you are otherwise) is incidental - us and them. There is no 'ditching the unit' once you're in the fight. But then, I would deploy to a conflict zone in a war I vehemently disagreed without hesitation before I let my mates go off to fight without me - whilst I recognise the hypocrisy in that statement, it's also a delightfully simple truth.

I appreciate your frankness.

Post: #56

(03-25-2015 06:58 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 06:15 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  I don't believe there is ever a good enough reason to abandon your friends in a combat zone. If you object very strongly to a conflict (and the list of conflicts we've intervened in that we shouldn't have done is a long and shameful one, see Libya for the most recent example), then you should leave the army/refuse to deploy and take the punishment prior to deploying - if you feel so strongly, the most honourable thing you can do is not jeopardise the lives of your mates any further. Once you're in the fight, it's you and your boys against the world. To me, that loyalty is the highest of all principles, anything else (however morally upright you are otherwise) is incidental - us and them. There is no 'ditching the unit' once you're in the fight. But then, I would deploy to a conflict zone in a war I vehemently disagreed without hesitation before I let my mates go off to fight without me - whilst I recognise the hypocrisy in that statement, it's also a delightfully simple truth.

I appreciate your frankness.

On reflection, I realise that this is the internet, and things are taken at face value without necessarily knowing much about the person who makes the comment, so I feel a slight clarification is in order.

My beliefs are clear from the above. However, I have a very high standard of character that I expect from anyone I am willing to give that kind of loyalty to. In person, it would go without saying that someone who was not a man of good character would not be able to earn such loyalty. The army does generally succeed in producing men of good character, and high standards for dress, behaviour, and self-discipline tend to be infectious.

Post: #57

Charged with desertion

Post: #58

(03-25-2015 05:47 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  If the Army now has enough intel to make a case for desertion among other charges, then there's a good chance that they had this info a year ago when he was released. I mean he was being held captive by the Taliban for 5 years, it's not like they had 0 intel on him. This likely means Obama and his advisers knew full and well the actions that Bergdahl took, and in spite of that still went ahead with the prisoner swap.

I'm really looking forward to how Obama explains his way out of this one...

Obama has absolutely ZERO incentive or desire to explain anything. He is accountable to no one, and no one in a position to, will even try hold him accountable. Obama has a 100% pass to say or do anything with his remaining time in office.

Post: #59

(03-25-2015 06:12 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 06:07 PM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  Samsamsam, Bergdahl was not left behind. He left everyone else behind. The trade for Bergdahl will get more people killed.

I know he left everyone behind. But regardless of his crimes, which he is being charged for, he is still an American.

Yes, I fucking get it, he quit. I don't like quitters like most people. But you still bring him home. Sometimes you have to be the bigger person about it and keep to some principles even for those who have none.

But I agree he is a fucking quitter and cost a tremendous amount of pain for others.

Edit: Also bringing him to punish him reinforces the message of honor your commitment.

i agree with all said in these couple sentences.... they made the right choice bringing him home and they also knew when they did it that he had deserted....... imagine the uproar if he was beheaded on camera

Post: #60

Fuck Susan Rice and fuck Obama.

Susan Rice paraded around TV saying Bergdahl was a hero and served with distinction. It was clear to every military person that he deserted, and in the process got several soldiers killed looking for him.

Obama wanted the photo op of bringing home a 'hero', and when it backfires they just fucking double down on the narrative.

That state department cunt Jen Psaki just repeats the bullshit that trading 5 senior taliban members for a traitor was somehow a fucking good deal.

Post: #61

"That state department cunt Jen Psaki just repeats the bullshit that trading 5 senior taliban members for a traitor was somehow a fucking good deal."
[/quote]

just explain how these 5 taliban members are a huge threat after release? they were already replaced, secondly the taliban was an organization mostly operating inside afghanistan..... seems to be of little future threat to anyone outside afghanistan

anyways they still living in qatar under pretty serious restrictions

Post: #62

(03-26-2015 06:48 PM)CamelToe Wrote:  "That state department cunt Jen Psaki just repeats the bullshit that trading 5 senior taliban members for a traitor was somehow a fucking good deal."

just explain how these 5 taliban members are a huge threat after release? they were already replaced, secondly the taliban was an organization mostly operating inside afghanistan..... seems to be of little future threat to anyone outside afghanistan

anyways they still living in qatar under pretty serious restrictions
[/quote]

1 that was released organized an offensive to retake a previously US secured sector that was put under afghani control.

Post: #63

(03-26-2015 08:01 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 06:48 PM)CamelToe Wrote:  "That state department cunt Jen Psaki just repeats the bullshit that trading 5 senior taliban members for a traitor was somehow a fucking good deal."

just explain how these 5 taliban members are a huge threat after release? they were already replaced, secondly the taliban was an organization mostly operating inside afghanistan..... seems to be of little future threat to anyone outside afghanistan

anyways they still living in qatar under pretty serious restrictions

1 that was released organized an offensive to retake a previously US secured sector that was put under afghani control.
[/quote]

and this is land inside afghanistan

Post: #64

Your right. No need to fight them on the beaches, just let them come inland and do the fighting there.