Bowe Bergdahl: Deserter, Traitor, or Just a Pawn?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Questions for you men who have served…

Could they not have transferred a guy like Bergdahl out of combat duty when it’s obvious he has a moral problem with his part in the war ? I mean, if you have a guy THIS tortured over this issue, could they not have put him on toilet scrubbing duty or cleaning up the mess hall ? Why keep a guy like this in a combat zone when it’s clear he is unstable in his ability to perform and put risk to fellow soldiers ? Is it more of a politically correct issue ?[/quote]

Sure, they could of done all sorts of things. I’m surprised they didn’t just admin sep him.

402

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s annoying as hell. Dude, you can either beconsidered an adult and responsible for making decisions and DEALING WITH THE FUCKING CONSEQUENCES whether you like it pr not…or you can be considered a kid, in which case no voting, no driving, no smoking, no autonomy.

You don’t get to pick and choose.[/quote]

No kidding. You’re mature enough to vote on who will be the next President, Congressman, etc… but you’re too illiterate and brainwashed to make a decision on voluntarily serving or not. What garbage. [/quote]

This sounds like a much better argument for repealing the 26th amendment than it does for upholding contract law.

I’m not sure there are too many things more dangerous than an 18-year-old with voting rights. I’d much rather give him a beer than a ballot.[/quote]

I personally think 80 year olds with voting rights are much more dangerous than 18 year olds.

People have to be treated like adults at some point. 18 at least made sense. Maybe 21 or 22 would make more sense now.

My personal opinion is that we cut 18-25 year old’s too much slack as it is.

403

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Boot camp is an entirely different animal and technically you aren’t even in the military during boot camp.
[/quote]

Technically, in boot camp you are pukes! You are the lowest form of life on earth! You are not even human fucking beings! You are unorganized pieces of grabasstic amphibian shit! Do you maggots understand?

(Can I get a “Sir Yes Sir”? Hallelujah!)[/quote]

This guy gets it!

404

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Questions for you men who have served…

Could they not have transferred a guy like Bergdahl out of combat duty when it’s obvious he has a moral problem with his part in the war ? I mean, if you have a guy THIS tortured over this issue, could they not have put him on toilet scrubbing duty or cleaning up the mess hall ? Why keep a guy like this in a combat zone when it’s clear he is unstable in his ability to perform and put risk to fellow soldiers ? Is it more of a politically correct issue ?[/quote]

There is no ‘admin separation’ after 180 days of service, which Bergdahl obviously had when he deployed. As another pointed out- when you are in Basic Training (boot camp, etc.) you are a ‘Trainee’ and not a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine yet. Much easier to administratively separate. In fact, a Trainee may simply state “I refuse to train” enough times, and we’ll chapter his ass out.

To remove Bergdahl from his duties as a rifleman in an Infantry platoon while deployed is not so easy. Simply stating “I am against killing anyone for any reason” doesn’t suffice. The service member has the burden to prove that he was a conscientious objector PRIOR to joining the military; otherwise he cannot claim that status. If he went to his chain of command and simply said “I don’t think I can go outside the wire” then his supervisors are now burdened (yes, burdened) with trying to seek mental hygiene assistance from the chaplain, mental health counselors etc. Not so easy on a Combat Outpost in the Korengal.

Most often, a Squad Leader or Platoon Sergeant will try a fatherly approach at first, and then patience quickly runs out- man the fuck up, bitch.

So let’s say they DO as you suggest- he sweeps floors back on a FOB or mans a radio; what kind of message does that send to other 19 year old Privates in that unit? “That little fuck whined about doing his job, and now he’s eating fat chow and sleeping 12 hours a day.” No bueno. OR…somebody else with shaky knees sees how easy it is to fall out and HE suddenly can’t take it either, hoping to snuggle up to malingerer #1. No bueno.

You have to do something fairly drastic (become a crying, slobbering-pissing yourself mess, who threatens to kill himself) to get removed.

UCMJ actions are far more difficult while deployed than while in garrison, for obvious reasons.

405

[quote]biker wrote:
It takes a certain type of scum to turn your back on the people who you’ve been through combat with.

Your thoughts LIFTICVSMAXIMVS?
[/quote]

It takes a certain type of scum to insist someone stay where they don’t to be. Worse! It takes a certain type of idiot to insist on this for the precise reason that he has been psychologically compromised.

406

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Questions for you men who have served…

Could they not have transferred a guy like Bergdahl out of combat duty when it’s obvious he has a moral problem with his part in the war ? I mean, if you have a guy THIS tortured over this issue, could they not have put him on toilet scrubbing duty or cleaning up the mess hall ? Why keep a guy like this in a combat zone when it’s clear he is unstable in his ability to perform and put risk to fellow soldiers ? Is it more of a politically correct issue ?[/quote]

This is what usually does happen for the exact same reason you say. He would be reprimanded and given extra duty as well as be taken off his regular duty. What you will never hear is that this is more commonplace than people will admit to in the military - all branches. They get special nicknames from all their peers, too.

407

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]biker wrote:
It takes a certain type of scum to turn your back on the people who you’ve been through combat with.

Your thoughts LIFTICVSMAXIMVS?
[/quote]

It takes a certain type of scum to insist someone stay where they don’t to be. Worse! It takes a certain type of idiot to insist on this for the precise reason that he has been psychologically compromised.[/quote]

Now I remember why I dislike you so much. You’re a clown. I bet the reason you have this attitude is because you couldn’t hack it.

408

[quote]DirtyM wrote:
So let’s say they DO as you suggest- he sweeps floors back on a FOB or mans a radio; what kind of message does that send to other 19 year old Privates in that unit? “That little fuck whined about doing his job, and now he’s eating fat chow and sleeping 12 hours a day.” No bueno. OR…somebody else with shaky knees sees how easy it is to fall out and HE suddenly can’t take it either, hoping to snuggle up to malingerer #1. No bueno.
[/quote]

Well, they could have shot him. Harsh, yes, but with the benefit of hindsight probably the most cost-effective course of action.

409

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Questions for you men who have served…

Could they not have transferred a guy like Bergdahl out of combat duty when it’s obvious he has a moral problem with his part in the war ? I mean, if you have a guy THIS tortured over this issue, could they not have put him on toilet scrubbing duty or cleaning up the mess hall ? Why keep a guy like this in a combat zone when it’s clear he is unstable in his ability to perform and put risk to fellow soldiers ? Is it more of a politically correct issue ?[/quote]

This is what usually does happen for the exact same reason you say. He would be reprimanded and given extra duty as well as be taken off his regular duty. What you will never hear is that this is more commonplace than people will admit to in the military - all branches. They get special nicknames from all their peers, too.[/quote]

I haven’t served or read much of the thread, so pardon the possibly dumb questions.
Do people like him get warnings for their views? or is that not allowed?
If it is, and they continue, couldn’t they just be discharged? If they’re not with the program, seems like they shouldn’t be there.

410

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
For the “crime” of trying to quit his job?!

What is so special about serving in the military that “volunteers” should not be able to quit?[/quote]

You specifically sign contracts that state you won’t leave until your service is over.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Imagine if we applied the same standards to “civilian” jobs as we do to the military. Oh, you like to volunteer your time to worthwhile causes? sorry, you signed a contract and cannot quit until we release you.

More proof that people who serve in the military are just slaves.[/quote]

This is asinine. Plenty of high-caliber/sensitive jobs have contracts that force certain behavior from you and make you pay in many horrible ways if you renege on the contract.[/quote]

The military is the only job where trying to break a contract is a crime and can end a person in jail.

In private contracts a party that is in dispute of his contract with the other party has the right to redress his grievance in court and have the contract judged null and void or he must make recompense himself to the other party if found in the wrong.

A member of the armed services does not have any such rights - he is held to an oath that can never be questioned.

That’s why recruiters have to get them while they are young and dumb and don’t understand this subtlety.

411

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Questions for you men who have served…

Could they not have transferred a guy like Bergdahl out of combat duty when it’s obvious he has a moral problem with his part in the war ? I mean, if you have a guy THIS tortured over this issue, could they not have put him on toilet scrubbing duty or cleaning up the mess hall ? Why keep a guy like this in a combat zone when it’s clear he is unstable in his ability to perform and put risk to fellow soldiers ? Is it more of a politically correct issue ?[/quote]

This is what usually does happen for the exact same reason you say. He would be reprimanded and given extra duty as well as be taken off his regular duty. What you will never hear is that this is more commonplace than people will admit to in the military - all branches. They get special nicknames from all their peers, too.[/quote]

I haven’t served or read much of the thread, so pardon the possibly dumb questions.
Do people like him get warnings for their views? or is that not allowed?
If it is, and they continue, couldn’t they just be discharged? If they’re not with the program, seems like they shouldn’t be there. [/quote]

Military personnel are given considerable slack for their own personal views. Marines have come out and ridiculed their CIC on platforms like Facebook and gotten a slap on the wrist. A military personnel’s personal views are irrelevant anyway. As long as they don’t endanger good order, discipline, unit cohesion, etc… they’re fine

That said, it costs a lot of money to train a person and the military isn’t going to just let you walk away. You’re an investment. You have to be a fucking idiot if you don’t understand how the military, in most cases, completes the mission.

412

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s annoying as hell. Dude, you can either beconsidered an adult and responsible for making decisions and DEALING WITH THE FUCKING CONSEQUENCES whether you like it pr not…or you can be considered a kid, in which case no voting, no driving, no smoking, no autonomy.

You don’t get to pick and choose.[/quote]

This isn’t about being a child versus an adult but about being ignorant. Usually the young are more ignorant and do not make the most informed decisions.
[/quote]

Ignorance is not specific to a demographic. There are just as many ignorant 20 year olds, 30 year olds, 40 years olds, etc…

[quote]
I agree though, at some point in life we have to choose to be responsible for ourselves. It just sucks to be held hostage to a poorly thought out decision.[/quote]

They are not held hostage. They get a pay check, benefits, room & board, retirement if they stay in, and about 100 VA benefits if they get out. Man, that’s rough… [/quote]

If they cannot leave they are hostages. If they try to leave and are chased they are hostages. If they locked in cages to prevent them from trying to leave they are hostages.

Besides, the military uses loss of pay and barracks restriction as punishment (just like parents do with children). They get food and medical so yes, they are as well taken care of as slaves.

413

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
A member of the armed services does not have any such rights - he is held to an oath that can never be questioned. [/quote]

That’s not true. You swear the Oath prior to boot camp and can back out at anytime up until the day you finish training. Hell, I’ve seen people back-out after MEPS, but before shipping to boot camp.

It happens all the time…

414

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]biker wrote:
It takes a certain type of scum to turn your back on the people who you’ve been through combat with.

Your thoughts LIFTICVSMAXIMVS?
[/quote]

It takes a certain type of scum to insist someone stay where they don’t to be. Worse! It takes a certain type of idiot to insist on this for the precise reason that he has been psychologically compromised.[/quote]

Now I remember why I dislike you so much. You’re a clown. I bet the reason you have this attitude is because you couldn’t hack it. [/quote]

Go back and reread my posts and comprehend the clues that disprove this statement.

I have this attitude because I don’t like being lied to.

415

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If they cannot leave they are hostages. If they try to leave and are chased they are hostages. If they locked in cages to prevent them from trying to leave they are hostages.

Besides, the military uses loss of pay and barracks restriction as punishment (just like parents do with children). They get food and medical so yes, they are as well taken care of as slaves.[/quote]

They can leave after they fulfill the terms of the contract they signed. No ones in this country is drafted. Everyone is a volunteer. How many slaves were volunteers? How many slaves had the equivalent of modern amenities in their free housing? How many slaves got to hang out at strip clubs, bars, the gym, movies, mall, etc… or their equivalent when they were off the clock? How many slaves got real medical attention? How many slaves had a retirement plan?

Look, you’re jaded, I get it. Comparing military personnel to slaves is laughable.

416

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I have this attitude because I don’t like being lied to.[/quote]

How did your recruiter lie to you?

417

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DirtyM wrote:
So let’s say they DO as you suggest- he sweeps floors back on a FOB or mans a radio; what kind of message does that send to other 19 year old Privates in that unit? “That little fuck whined about doing his job, and now he’s eating fat chow and sleeping 12 hours a day.” No bueno. OR…somebody else with shaky knees sees how easy it is to fall out and HE suddenly can’t take it either, hoping to snuggle up to malingerer #1. No bueno.
[/quote]

Well, they could have shot him. Harsh, yes, but with the benefit of hindsight probably the most cost-effective course of action.[/quote]

Dood…

You give him a 9mm pistol and one round, tell him to go to the shitter and suck-start that thing. That way, the glitch is fixed.

418

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]biker wrote:
It takes a certain type of scum to turn your back on the people who you’ve been through combat with.

Your thoughts LIFTICVSMAXIMVS?
[/quote]

It takes a certain type of scum to insist someone stay where they don’t to be. Worse! It takes a certain type of idiot to insist on this for the precise reason that he has been psychologically compromised.[/quote]

Now I remember why I dislike you so much. You’re a clown. I bet the reason you have this attitude is because you couldn’t hack it. [/quote]

Go back and reread my posts and comprehend the clues that disprove this statement.

I have this attitude because I don’t like being lied to.[/quote]

You have that attitude because you couldn’t hack it and you were a failure and nobody liked you. Admit it. Why else make such stupid statements? A three-year-old would know that that’s how the military has to operate. It wouldn’t work otherwise. You sign up, you do your fucking duty or you’re a loser. Don’t like it? Don’t fucking volunteer to serve in the military. Anyone who doesn’t have an inkling of how the military works before they sign up at 18+ would have to be a retard.

419

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I haven’t served or read much of the thread, so pardon the possibly dumb questions.
Do people like him get warnings for their views? or is that not allowed?
If it is, and they continue, couldn’t they just be discharged? If they’re not with the program, seems like they shouldn’t be there. [/quote]

Warnings do happen but usually it is the attitude of the person that gets him in trouble. Think about it this way: if you’ve spent possibly months and years with some of these people, training and learning your job it wouldn’t be so easy to come forward about your feelings to people you are supposed to be “loyal” to. This will eat away at a person until it starts to affect their attitude. Those that try to get out are usually seen as just having an “attitude problem”. This is where they may become marginalized by others in their unit which further affect their attitude.

It can just be impossibly frustrating for some people to handle.

420

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
A member of the armed services does not have any such rights - he is held to an oath that can never be questioned. [/quote]

That’s not true. You swear the Oath prior to boot camp and can back out at anytime up until the day you finish training. Hell, I’ve seen people back-out after MEPS, but before shipping to boot camp.

It happens all the time… [/quote]

I know this happens in boot camp. If a recruit isn’t a real marine then quitting doesn’t mean anything. And it certainly doesn’t mean anything to that lance corporal cleaning his rifle in the sand in Afghanistan.