Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
I mean after all, what does a military do? What is it there for? WHy do armies have them? To fight... This isn't one of my better analogies, but its like joining a sales force, and then complaining because you might have to actually sell something at some point.

My analogy would be like joining a sales force, and then complaining because you are ordered to use shady and/or illegal sales techniques such as bait and switch or false advertising.

To pick one example from the thousands who have already deserted, Spc. Jeremy Hinzman says "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it, and I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do."

Another is Brandon Hughey, who volunteered for the Army to get money for college. He graduated from high school in San Angelo, Texas, just two months after the president declared war in Iraq.

What did he think about the case for going to war? "I felt it was necessary if they did have these weapons, and they could end up in our cities and threaten our safety," says Hughey. "I was supportive. At first, I didn't think to question it."

He says at first, he was willing to die "to make America safe." And while Hughey was in basic training, he didn't get much news. But when he left basic training, he started following the latest information from Iraq.

"I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destruction. They were beginning to come out and say it's not likely that we will find any -- and the claim that they made about ties to al Qaeda was coming up short, to say the least," says Hughey. "It made me angry, because I felt our lives were being thrown away as soldiers, basically."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml

At least he served and accepted the risk.

We could always discuss that other guy's military record. You know, the guy who didn't inhale.

Chez

Just out of curiosity, if it is so bad that "thousands" have deserted, then why is it each year all US armed forces branches have not only met, but exceeded their recruiting goals?

If "thousands" were deserting, and it was that bad, people wouldn't be signning up still. Might want to go back and veryify your source on that one (and I don't mean Michael Moore.com)

ORIGINAL: Slaughtermeyer

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
I mean after all, what does a military do? What is it there for? WHy do armies have them? To fight... This isn't one of my better analogies, but its like joining a sales force, and then complaining because you might have to actually sell something at some point.

My analogy would be like joining a sales force, and then complaining because you are ordered to use shady and/or illegal sales techniques such as bait and switch or false advertising.

To pick one example from the thousands who have already deserted, Spc. Jeremy Hinzman says "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it, and I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do."

Another is Brandon Hughey, who volunteered for the Army to get money for college. He graduated from high school in San Angelo, Texas, just two months after the president declared war in Iraq.

What did he think about the case for going to war? "I felt it was necessary if they did have these weapons, and they could end up in our cities and threaten our safety," says Hughey. "I was supportive. At first, I didn't think to question it."

He says at first, he was willing to die "to make America safe." And while Hughey was in basic training, he didn't get much news. But when he left basic training, he started following the latest information from Iraq.

"I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destruction. They were beginning to come out and say it's not likely that we will find any -- and the claim that they made about ties to al Qaeda was coming up short, to say the least," says Hughey. "It made me angry, because I felt our lives were being thrown away as soldiers, basically."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml

FWIW, I think the President has LOUSY advisors and PR people.
He did not need to invade Iraq for WOMD..
He failed utterly when he accepted a position where the onus would be put on him, personally..
However, he SHOULD have invaded Iraq JUST on the fact Hussein stood on his balcony and declared he would PERSONALLY pay the surviving families of ANY terrorists who had damaged Israel or the United States, twenty thousand dollars..............
THE TWIN TOWERS WERE STILL ON THE GROUND SMOKING WHEN HE SAID THAT
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He made that statement IN PUBLIC from his balcony, and acted the tough guy.
THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED FOR, the rest was un-necessary, but since we are there, it's better to fight them OVER THERE, than OVER HERE !!!
NICHT WEIDER

To pick one example from the thousands who have already deserted,

Can you cite some articles from the mainstream press that back up this statement?

Chez

ORIGINAL: m10bob
However, he SHOULD have invaded Iraq JUST on the fact Hussein stood on his balcony and declared he would PERSONALLY pay the surviving families of ANY terrorists who had damaged Israel or the United States, twenty thousand dollars..............
THE TWIN TOWERS WERE STILL ON THE GROUND SMOKING WHEN HE SAID THAT
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He made that statement IN PUBLIC from his balcony, and acted the tough guy.

I know that Saddam paid the families of Palestinians who attacked Israelis, but this is the first time I'm hearing that Saddam offered to pay families of terrorists who attacked the USA (prior to Iraq's invasion by the USA). It would mean that the families of the 9/11 hijackers should have received money from Saddam. Source please?

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Just out of curiosity, if it is so bad that "thousands" have deserted, then why is it each year all US armed forces branches have not only met, but exceeded their recruiting goals?

It's because the branches have lowered their standards for recruit acceptance. Even with that, it's unlikely that the army will make its goals this year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1499164,00.html

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
If "thousands" were deserting, and it was that bad, people wouldn't be signning up still. Might want to go back and veryify your source on that one (and I don't mean Michael Moore.com)

If you consider cbsnews.com to be equivalent to MichaelMoore.com and that the Pentagon really did not report 5500 deserters last year, then you can get that same figure confirmed by The Free Republic.

He did not need to invade Iraq for WOMD..

You know what gets me when the anti-war people talk about not having found WMDs? It's that they can't answer the question of what happened to them either. Saddam certainly had them at one point and most certainly used them.

And I most wholeheartedly agree with you concerning Saddam's statement of paying the terrorists.

Chez

"tis better to make a move, wrong though it may be, than to not move at all"
(If only I could remember who said that, even google didn't bring it up)

I was for the war initially because of fear of Iraqi WOMD (fog of war is always a problem) but also a slim hope that if Democracy works in Iraq, it may starts infecting the rest of the Middle East. I also feel that once pressure was removed Saddam would try to get WOMD and use them. I feel that if thing do not change in the Arab world more 9/11 will occur. Recent events in Lebanon and election in Egypt’s show the slow progress may be made, but the Arab world have a hard time with liberal democracy. The problems I have are the cost of US lives and the Iraqi inability to write a constitution.

ORIGINAL: Slaughtermeyer

If you consider cbsnews.com to be equivalent to MichaelMoore.com and that the Pentagon really did not report 5500 deserters last year, then you can get that same figure confirmed by The Free Republic.

Actually, I just read your source. Unfortuneatly, you misread it. It was not 5500 deserted last year, but 5500 deserted since the War in Iraq started. Now, if we figured 4,795 deserted in FY2001 (Stars and Stripes magazine), 5500 deserting between 2003-2005 is not a very significant number.

Not trying to be critical, but once again this shows how liberals change a few words to suite their meaning. My site and yours say 5500 since the war started (in 2003). Yet you use the 5500 figure, but say "in the last year". Sorry bud, your own source proved you wrong.

ORIGINAL: madmickey

The problems I have are the cost of US lives and the Iraqi inability to write a constitution.

I agree on that.... if not for the fact the US declared independence in 1776, and the Constitution wasn't ratified until 1783. Now if the United States is the mark by which things are measured, then there is no problem.

ORIGINAL: Slaughtermeyer

I'm hearing that Saddam offered to pay families of terrorists who attacked the USA (prior to Iraq's invasion by the USA).

Who paid for the attack on George W dad in 1993.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Actually, I just read your source. Unfortuneatly, you misread it. It was not 5500 deserted last year, but 5500 deserted since the War in Iraq started. Now, if we figured 4,795 deserted in FY2001 (Stars and Stripes magazine), 5500 deserting between 2003-2005 is not a very significant number.

Not trying to be critical, but once again this shows how liberals change a few words to suite their meaning. My site and yours say 5500 since the war started (in 2003). Yet you use the 5500 figure, but say "in the last year". Sorry bud, your own source proved you wrong.

Unfortunately you've misread my statement. Although I should have expressed myself more clearly, what I meant was that last year (2004) was when the Pentagon reported the 5500 figure, I did not mean to imply that all 5500 desertions took place in 2004. And the 5500 figure definitely does not include any desertions from 2005.

You said:

If you consider cbsnews.com to be equivalent to MichaelMoore.com and that the Pentagon really did not report 5500 deserters last year, then you can get that same figure confirmed by The Free Republic.

Being a bit selective in your facts and figures, aren't you? Here are the official Pentagon figures for desertion. (Note how Army numbers peaked in 2001, BEFORE the war in Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. Marine numbers peaked in 2000, a year before 9/11... wonder what that said about the government then?)

Note: "Rate per 1000" is approximate. The rates are based on active duty strength of 483,880 for the Army; 367,470 for the Air Force; 382,338 for the Navy; and 173,142 for the Marine Corps, and actual numbers may have fluctuated (slightly) from FY 1997 to FY 2004.

Desertion Rates

Army
Fiscal Year Number of Deserters Rate Per 1000
1997 2,218 4.58
1998 2,520 5.20
1999 2,966 6.13
2000 3,949 8.16
2001 4,597 9.50
2002 4,483 9.26
2003 3,678 7.60
2004 2,376 4.91
Air Force
1997 26 0.07
1998 27 0.07
1999 45 0.12
2000 46 0.12
2001 62 0.17
2002 88 0.24
2003 56 0.15
2004 50 0.14
Navy
1997 1,858 4.86
1998 2,038 5.33
1999 2,485 6.50
2000 3,255 8.51
2001 1,619 4.23
2003 Not Available
2004 Not Available
Marine Corps
1997 1,375 7.94
1998 1,460 8.43
1999 1,689 9.75
2000 2,019 11.66
2001 1,310 7.57
2002 1,136 6.56
2003 1,236 7.14
2004 1,297 7.49

From the Washington Times:

Military desertion rates down since 2001


By Pamela Hess
Pentagon correspondent


Washington, DC, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- The number of annual military desertions is down to the lowest level since before 2001, according to the Pentagon.

The Army said the number of new deserters in 2004 -- 2,376 -- was just half the number of those who deserted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. That number was 4,597.

The numbers of deserters has dropped annually since the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The fiscal year 2004 total number of Army deserters is the lowest since before 1998, according to Army data.

Cumulatively, more than 6,000 service members from all branches have deserted the military since fiscal year 2003, when the war with Iraq began. About 3,500 military service members have deserted their jobs in the last 14 months.

"On average the number of soldiers, for example, who are classified as deserters is less than 1 percent, and the vast majority have committed some criminal act," said Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. Joe Richard. "It's (generally) not for political or conscientious objector purposes. Any insinuation that large numbers of military service members have deserted in opposition to the war in Iraq when in fact desertion numbers for the Army are down since 9/11 is incredibly disingenuous."

The CBS program "60 Minutes" on Dec. 8 reported on at least three deserters who fled to Canada because they did not want to fight in Iraq: Marine Pfc. Dan Felushko, Army soldiers Brandon Hughey, and Spc. Jeremy Hinzman. They will have to make their case to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board to be allowed to stay.

The Army convicted Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia in May on charges he abandoned his unit in the middle of the war in Iraq.

The Marine Corps charged Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun with desertion on Dec. 10. He went missing from his base in Fallujah in June and later turned up an apparent hostage of Iraqi insurgents. He eventually made it to Lebanon and was returned to the Marine Corps.

Calculating the number of Marines who have deserted is complicated, because the Marine Corps carries on its books those who have deserted in previous years, according to Richard. The Marines count 1,297 deserters in fiscal year 2004 and 1,236 in fiscal year 2003. Roughly 623 AWOL Marines were returned to Marine control in 2003.

The Army counts 2,520 deserters in fiscal year 1998; 2,966 in 1999; 3,949 in 2000; 4,597 in 2001; 4,483 in 2002; and 3,678 in 2003.

The Marines count 1,297 deserters in 2004; 1,236 in 2003; 1,136 in 2002; 1,603 in 2001; and 1,574 in 2000.

The Air Force had considerably lower numbers of deserters: four so far in fiscal year 2005; 50 in 2004; 56 in 2003; 88 in 2002; 62 in 2001; 46 in 2000 and 45 in 1999.

The Navy did not return its data at press time.

Next time present the entire picture. Anyone can twist the facts around to present any picture they want. Taking numbers out of context is a typical ploy for anybody far left (or right for that matter) of center.

BTW Slaughtermeyer, does your user name advocate some type of anti-Jewish agenda such as murder?

Chez

Ok then, now I understand. The way it read earlier lead to a misunderstanding.

Still, that's not much of an increase from desertions before the Iraq war, or even before the war on Terror.

For what it's worth, you think the Pentagon would come out and say it if the desertion rate went through the roof? I'm not saying it has, because I've got no data to base it on, but still... Bad for morale, y'know?

This is true... but I also don't see Canada's population going through the roof either [:D] Now if it did, then we could start wondering.

Interesting figures for desertion. I can accept the numbers actually went down during a war, because when I was active/overseas, the MAIN reason for desertion was..boredom..
I kid you not...
As for "my source" on Hussein's offer to pay terrorists committing agression against Israel AND the U.S....It was carried by EVERY wire service and all major netwoks in the U.S. the same day he made the offer..
Since the towers were literally fresh (!), I'm sure even a secluded recluse might understand how even the liberal rags would jump to "get on board", (for fear of being the sole TRAITOR) when the events were still occurring and the American bloodlust was just rising..
Kinda like how the very strong "America- Firsters" just *disappeared* on December the 8th 1941........
Nicht Weider

ORIGINAL: m10bob
I kid you not...
As for "my source" on Hussein's offer to pay terrorists committing agression against Israel AND the U.S....It was carried by EVERY wire service and all major netwoks in the U.S. the same day he made the offer..

In that case why is it so difficult for you to find one source (even a biased one) on the internet that confirms this?

Even the theory that Saddam was involved in an assassination attempt against Bush's father has serious flaws:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ21Ak02.html

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

BTW Slaughtermeyer, does your user name advocate some type of anti-Jewish agenda such as murder?

Chez

No, I got it from the Monty Python skit about the joke that won WW2. Sometimes it's spelled Slotermeyer, do a Google search of that spelling to find out more about that joke.

If we take this subject and turn it to the just a little left of the north star and continue on to dawn....maybe I can stear it back to a subject relating to WitP, lets see.....

This isn't the first time that this nation has wrestled with an unjust war nor will it be the last. Neither has this been the first time that this nation has wrestled with the ideals of patroitism and with the ideals of resistance to the government. Since the founding of this nation people have wrestled with the topics and later on even wrestled with these ideals in the middle of a conflict. Both the Great War and World War 2 were subjected to these fights. People that were at one time great heros to the American Populace were later ripped to shreds in the media for thier beliefs against the war and against government at the time. T. Roosevelt was one who was attacked openly during the run up to World War 1 for advising Wilson to get in there and take names with the American Solider as early as that winter of 1914, Alvin York MOH winner and Senator from TN was ripped to shreds in his home state media for standing on the belief that the US shouldn't involve themselves in another European Adventure, even Charles Lindberg hero of American Aviation in the 20's was ripped to shreds in all media for taking tours of Luftwaffee "advisors" in Spain and of Luftwaffee bases and units in Germany during the late 30's and saying as well that the US didn't need to involve themselves in a coming war between Nazi Germany and other European Powers. He was just as quickly made to be an martayr for the isolationist crowd, espically after the pictures of the successful bombing by Luftwaffee bombers in Barcelona and ,later during the start of the war, of Warsaw.
There were oppressed ethinics groups in the US during world war 2 and even World War 1, Not only the Japanese whose treatment is well documented, but also Italians, Russians, Germans that were legal Americans or American citzens all were treated harshly by the Government. On a personal note both of my paternal and maternal great- grandfathers were banned from working in any defense contractor during World War 2, simply cause they had a German last name. My maternal grandfather was actually arrested and questioned by the FBI because another member of his family belong for a while to the American Bund in Philidelphia. My maternal grandfather told me that during World War One timeframe that my great-grandfather was actually attacked and injured by a set of "patroitic" Americans again because he had a German last name and spoke with an accent.
Also this isn't the first time that National Guard Personnel had refused or complained about a call up. A number of both USN/USMC/USAF/US Army reserve and Guard elements complained during the call up for the Korean war as well. A number of them were veterns of World War 2 that changed over to retain some of the benifits and as a way to keep in touch with some of thier buddies. A large number number complained and wrote letters, however they went and did the job since they were promised by the Government a short, easy war at the time. Also a large number of National Guard and Reserve personnel tried to avoid call-ups during the first Gulf war because they didn't join to go and fight a war. Although it wasn't a major issue, it did get some air time as part of the "CNN Factor". That is why after that conflict the National Guard and US Army and US Air Force changed thier deployment rules and had more deployments of Guard and Reserve units to particpate in operations in support of SFOR (the ongoing stablization force in the former Jugoslavia) and to support Northern and Southern Watches operations.

This nation will likely weather this test like it has all the others in its history and promote changes to itself.

If you want to remember people don't forget about these 37 Americans killed by an aggresive mid-east leader. Nor these following Americans all killed during acts of terrorism, 283 on October 23, 1983 or or these six killed cause they were Americans and finally the 3 killed by another aggressive mid-eastern leader sponsoring terror

Regarding the so-called WMD's, here is an independent "think-tank" assessment of Sadaam Hussein written and published before the second Iraqi war, but after the liberation of Kuwait.
FWIW, the entire world believed the weapons were there, including the effeminate and liberal U.N. (which has totally surrendered the terms of the charter by which the U.N was created.)
http://college.hmco.com/currentconflict ... ssein.html

I admit I have several personal agendas..
I will not suffer ignorant fools.
I will never suffer traitors.
I will never succumb to a military foe except by force of arms resulting in my death.
I will never just "lay back and let it happen"..
Nicht Weider