Army Desertion rate up 80%

[Spyder]

You seem to be suggesting that completing a floor laying project for someone you disagree with is somehow an analogy for going to war for someone you disagree with.

So what you're saying is that someone who signs a contract to joiun the MILITARY is to be held to a lesser legal standard than someone who signs a service agreement with a florring installer (or any other construction worker for that matter)?

Obviously you're having trouble answering the question so allow me to answer it for you. No, putting down flooring does not have the same consequences as marching over to a sovereign nation and shooting people. Your analogy is not valid, relevent or interesting, you can stop using it now.

Are you telling me that if you agreed to complete a project and you then found out that somehow the completion of this project would somehow result in some unethical situation, you would still complete it because "you gave your word?"

If there was no legal recourse for me, then yes, I would finish the contract that I signed... Because I'm not a dishonest, unethical, dishonorable, non-intregrity having asshole. After that, though, I would not do buisness with a company that put me in such a possition.

Which you'll see, doesn't put me at odds with anything I've said thus far.

Yes because clearly pulling out of a contract to avoid an unethical situation would be unethical.

But in the case of the weorthless assholes in the OP, they had legal recourse, did not take it, and then violated the terms of their contract. Therefore fuck them.

Or are you saying that now poeple have a valid reason for violating contracts they enter iunto without a legal reason?

Firstly, the recourse being apply for CO status, waiting for a year then probably having it denied? Yes, let's give them some totally pointless recourse so we can bitch at them for not taking it. Secondly, the law comes from morality, ethics and justice. Not the other way around. Law's the entity that's forever playing catch up, so yes, it is indeed possible to have a valid reason for violating a contract without a legal recourse.

Actually, you could be doing this anyway. Right now they're just getting themselves blown up and shot at so people with much larger businesses then your own can find new revenue streams.

Like I said, and others have said, where is the legal break in the contract they signed? When are you going to stop with the emotional appeals and stick the the fact that they reneged on a legally binding contract wiuthout a legal reason for doing so?

Or are you yet again suggesting that people can just disengage from contracts simply because they don't like the terms? In that case, I'll go tell Ford I won't be making anymore payments and refernce you as my new lawyer. That work? Just PM me your address, phone number, ect, and I'll get right on that...

Oh, wait, you're the guy that says people that enter into contracts don't have to follow the terms of those contracts... Better not use you as a lawyer.

This would be relevant had I been arguing about whether or not any of this is legal.

It bears pointing out that this little rant of yours, charming, manly and patriotic as it is, doesn't actually require men on the ground in Iraq for you to write it.

Ya mean just like your counter arguement doesn't require anything more then a "BUSH IS TEH 3V1L!!1SHIFT+ONE11!"? At least my arguemnt is based in something other than what comes out of a cow's ass and regurgfitations of DemUnderground threads, asshole...

Wait, was there a counter argument in there somewhere? You claimed that they're over there so you could "talk shit to men like" me. I pointed out that you could be doing this anyway. You don't seem to have contradicted this. I'll just take that as a concession

Well that's good, you should consider signing up.

I tried and got denied. Eitherway, that's as much bullshit as asking anyone to sign up in order to back their words. it's fuckign idiot strawman, and as a SENATOR, you should fuckign know better then that. Fuck, what, was it a slow month when you got nominated?

Yes, but that's beside the point. Look, little fella, I'm not telling you to sign up so you could back up your words. It would be rather silly for someone who's anti the Iraq war to tell people to go fight it now wouldn't it? Also, that wouldn't have been a strawman, that would have been an appeal to...something or other. But anyway, it was actually sarcasm. Telling me I wouldn't make a very good lawyer is a strawman, or maybe a red herring, I suppose it would depend how you phrased it.

Cheyney's running out of ivory backscratchers and for some reason all his soldiers keep dissapearing.

Yeah. because everyone that thinks people should abid by thewir legally binding word is a right-ring, christoholic, iraqi-baby raping GOP, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

Well it may call some critical thinking skills to question if there are some moral, ethical and issues of justice that are ignored.

Why don't you and IP got get a hotel room, a bottle of astroglide, and go fuck yourselves?

He snores.

[The Yosemite Bear]

OK, my mom is a Hippie, former drug dealer, missionaries for Peace, Students for a democratic society, affiliated with the black panthers etc. She still wears her brass bracelet identifing a soldier who will never come home from vietnam. When I hear Bush and his fellow chicken hawks say support the troops it sicken's me to my core. Because those lying wastes of basic acids have no more concept of what it means to be serving our country in an honorable fashion, or to complete the terms of a contract that they signed than do those cowards who deserted.

Funny thing about those chickenhawks projections. They call those of us who disagree with them Traitors, and cut and run cowards. Sorry that only applies to folks who desert or like our POTUS went AWOL when they did agree to certain terms.

[Mr. Coffee]

Obviously you're having trouble answering the question so allow me to answer it for you.

Obviously you have no concept of legal obligation or integrity. A CONTRACT is a CONTRACT is a CONTRACT is a CONTRACT. It's a legally binding document. You sign it and you are giving yout legal word that you will abid by it.

Weither it's a contract for 4 years of service or a four-thousand feet of tile makes not one goddamned bit of difference. If the terms of the contracts have not been violated, and you have failed to meet the terms to end that contrate legally, you are guilty of breaking your word and are liable for it.

Which part of this isn't sinking through your head yet?

Yes because clearly pulling out of a contract to avoid an unethical situation would be unethical.

If it would violate the terms of the agreement, then yes, it would.

Firstly, the recourse being apply for CO status, waiting for a year then probably having it denied?

You mean like me saying to a costumer that I've signed a contract with "Sorry, but I don't personnally agree with your politics, so fuck ya" after I've signed a contract can take me to a court of law and sue me for break of contract and maybe/maybe-not win?

Either way, it's still a legal recourse, and once that's over with, them's the fucking breaks. Next time, put a little more thought into what you sign your name to.

Yes, let's give them some totally pointless recourse so we can bitch at them for not taking it.

Sp what yopu're saying is, "Yeah they have a legal requorse, but since they might loose there contest of their contract, they should just be able to duck out of their obigation"?

Secondly, the law comes from morality, ethics and justice.

Obviously you've had precisely zero experience with law... Either criminal or civil...

Here, the way it works is if you violate the word or it, you're fucking guilty. You agreee to do X and fail to do so you are in breach of contract. Not sure what sure of fantasy psuedo-hobbitshire fantasy world justice system they have down their in Quiwiland, but up here, you sign your name on the line, then you better goddamned well meet your contractual obligation.
Not the other way around. Law's the entity that's forever playing catch up, so yes, it is indeed possible to have a valid reason for violating a contract without a legal recourse.

This would be relevant had I been arguing about whether or not any of this is legal.

Which is why your entire fuckign argument thus far can be chalked up to "Bush is teh 3v1l, there4 contracts are meanignless, lol, *I'm a smarmy asshole*"?

Wait, was there a counter argument in there somewhere? You claimed that they're over there so you could "talk shit to men like" me. I pointed out that you could be doing this anyway. You don't seem to have contradicted this. I'll just take that as a concession

Nice choice there, ya cherry picking dickweed...

Concession on an irrelevant bit, but you fail on everything that mattered. Ok, I'll let you kill that pawn then.

Yes, but that's beside the point. *BLAH BLAH BLAH INSERT MEANINGLESS BULLSHIT ABOUT "WHY DON'T YOU SIGN UP" HERE*

Ya kjnow, I was gonna let that one go as it stood, but since you want to brign it up...

Since thise thread is about US Servicemen bitching out of their contracts, and since you're from New ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELand....

Same shit back too you then, why don't youy apply for US citizenship, join the US military, and then you can bitch all ya want.

Hey, same standard you're trying to use. Fair is fair, right?

Well it may call some critical thinking skills to question if there are some moral, ethical and issues of justice that are ignored.

So we come full circle back to "well, they shoudln't ahve to meet their contractual obligatrions if they don't personnally agree with it" bullshit?

Why don't you and IP got get a hotel room, a bottle of astroglide, and go fuck yourselves?

He snores.

Ok, I'll give you that one...

[The Yosemite Bear]

After all, why go along with a liar.

I mean look at our administration, He's weasaled out of his military contract, he's backed out of every business he's run after crashing it into the ground. You have a pair of con men. no morality to them what so ever. A contract is a legally binding and ethically binding promise.

Deserters and the president+vice president have no honor.

[Mr. Coffee]

After all, why go along with a liar.

I mean look at our administration, He's weasaled out of his military contract, he's backed out of every business he's run after crashing it into the ground. You have a pair of con men. no morality to them what so ever. A contract is a legally binding and ethically binding promise.

Deserters and the president+vice president have no honor.

Not denying any of that, Bear....

But none of that excuses someone else for not being able to keep their own word. if that was the case we'd all be jumpin' off of bridges, ect...

[The Yosemite Bear]

True, I don't care for the deserters, nor do I care for the POTUS, In fact what we need is for a bunch of soldiers who have a problem with these chickenhawks, to use the legal options available to them.

Like Nit said, "Just obeying orders" is not a legal defense, however stating that ones orders are illegal, using one's CO status, and actually using the Military law against the fuckers. It's been long coming.

[Spyder]

Obviously you're having trouble answering the question so allow me to answer it for you.

Obviously you have no concept of legal obligation or integrity. A CONTRACT is a CONTRACT is a CONTRACT is a CONTRACT. It's a legally binding document. You sign it and you are giving yout legal word that you will abid by it.

Weither it's a contract for 4 years of service or a four-thousand feet of tile makes not one goddamned bit of difference. If the terms of the contracts have not been violated, and you have failed to meet the terms to end that contrate legally, you are guilty of breaking your word and are liable for it.

Which part of this isn't sinking through your head yet?

You are liable for any action you take, whether you follow the law or not. Actions that result in a net positive gain for a higher number of people are good. Actions that result in a net negative gain for a higher number of people are bad.

Yes because clearly pulling out of a contract to avoid an unethical situation would be unethical.

If it would violate the terms of the agreement, then yes, it would.

So you have the choice between two unethical behaviours, one involves breaking a promise, the other involves killing someone. Your moral system would have you follow the later to avoid the former?

Firstly, the recourse being apply for CO status, waiting for a year then probably having it denied?

You mean like me saying to a costumer that I've signed a contract with "Sorry, but I don't personnally agree with your politics, so fuck ya" after I've signed a contract can take me to a court of law and sue me for break of contract and maybe/maybe-not win?

Either way, it's still a legal recourse, and once that's over with, them's the fucking breaks. Next time, put a little more thought into what you sign your name to.

Well, first of all, I will say that those that signed up after the start of the Iraq war should have known what they were getting into. I'm not going to defend those guys, they were given exactly what they wanted and now it's their job to clean up their mess. However, this leaves two other groups, the ones that joined before the war in Iraq and the national guardsmen.

Now starting with the pre-war enlisted; for starters, we know that the consciensous objector status exists, it obviously exists for a reason. Soldiers can look at an upcoming war and say "hey, I don't think we should be doing this, I object to this on moral grounds. I'm willing to fight for my country, but not here, they're not threat to us, this is wrong." They should get their CO status, or at least get deployed somewhere else. But the problem is that neither of those will happen because the system that deals with it is broken. It either won't happen at all, or on the slight chance it does happen it'll happen after the soldier's spent a year doing something he's consciensciously objecting to. If the soldier actually is consciensciously objecting and he is deserving of the CO status then the soldier should should choose the least unethical option and if desertion results in less overall net harm then yes, that was the correction option.

The national guard are another story again. Their job was signed up for was to defend the American homeland in the event of an invasion. Their deployment in Iraq isn't even within the scope of their job. Again, legal recourses aren't working for them, so their will be desertions.

What would you do if you were given a job, you're given two addresses, you go to one house, floor it, it's all fine. Then you have some problems finding house number two. "I'm not sure where this street is," you say, "oh it's in Baghdad" says the customer "just outside the green zone, you might want to hire some blackwater guys to come with you."

Now, that house is not going to get floored now is it? You may have a contract to floor two houses but that guy wasn't upfront about the details. It's the same situation for the national guardsman.

Yes, let's give them some totally pointless recourse so we can bitch at them for not taking it.

Sp what yopu're saying is, "Yeah they have a legal requorse, but since they might loose there contest of their contract, they should just be able to duck out of their obigation"?

If they have a legal recourse which should fulfil a lawful function but doesn't work due to the way it's administered then I am not going to condemn them for persuing other options.

Secondly, the law comes from morality, ethics and justice.

Obviously you've had precisely zero experience with law... Either criminal or civil...

So, American laws aren't based on justice...or even ethical behaviour?

Here, the way it works is if you violate the word or it, you're fucking guilty. You agreee to do X and fail to do so you are in breach of contract. Not sure what sure of fantasy psuedo-hobbitshire fantasy world justice system they have down their in Quiwiland,

Oh here it comes, out with the xenophobia then, you may as well get it out of your system.

but up here, you sign your name on the line, then you better goddamned well meet your contractual obligation.

Will someone please teach this 'man' how to use quote tags? Anyway, let's talk about these contracts for a minute. What exactly do you do when you get one with conflicting legality? Say you get a mafia boss asks you to come in and retile a house, you sign the contract, come in and find that it's because the old tiles are covered in blood stains and they need to remove the evidence, cleaning liquids won't work for whatever reason. What do you do?

This would be relevant had I been arguing about whether or not any of this is legal.

Which is why your entire fuckign argument thus far can be chalked up to "Bush is teh 3v1l, there4 contracts are meanignless, lol, *I'm a smarmy asshole*"?

Your argument is irrelevant because my argument is simple? Strawman aside, that doesn't contradict that the little passage you posted earlier is irrelevant so that'll be another concession thank you.

Wait, was there a counter argument in there somewhere? You claimed that they're over there so you could "talk shit to men like" me. I pointed out that you could be doing this anyway. You don't seem to have contradicted this. I'll just take that as a concession

Nice choice there, ya cherry picking dickweed...

Concession on an irrelevant bit, but you fail on everything that mattered. Ok, I'll let you kill that pawn then.

Concession accepted. The record now shows that men and women are infact not fighting in Iraq so MR Coffee can argue on the internet.

Yes, but that's beside the point. *BLAH BLAH BLAH INSERT MEANINGLESS BULLSHIT ABOUT "WHY DON'T YOU SIGN UP" HERE*

Ya kjnow, I was gonna let that one go as it stood, but since you want to brign it up...

Since thise thread is about US Servicemen bitching out of their contracts, and since you're from New ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELand....

Same shit back too you then, why don't youy apply for US citizenship, join the US military, and then you can bitch all ya want.

Hey, same standard you're trying to use. Fair is fair, right?

Would your argument make more sense if I joined the US military? I'm not actually asking you to sign up for the military. People probably shouldn't be joining the US military right now, it's doing some very mean things in Iraq at the moment that the rest of the world would rather it wasn't doing. Your argument puzzels me, how does me joining the US military shift this discussion into your favour?

Well it may call some critical thinking skills to question if there are some moral, ethical and issues of justice that are ignored.

So we come full circle back to "well, they shoudln't ahve to meet their contractual obligatrions if they don't personnally agree with it" bullshit?

When you repeat points, you get repeat answers. And quite frankly, if you signed a contract saying that you would rape an Iraqi baby, breaking your word would probably be the more ethical thing to do here.

[Darth Wong]

Obviously you have no concept of legal obligation or integrity. A CONTRACT is a CONTRACT is a CONTRACT is a CONTRACT. It's a legally binding document. You sign it and you are giving yout legal word that you will abid by it.

Actually, any contract which incorporates unlawful intent is not legally binding. Therefore, one could make the argument that if the United States decides to violate the Geneva Convention, to which it is a signatory party and therefore legally bound, then soldiers are NOT legally bound to follow any actions relating to that violation.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'm gonna pull a real quick point here about desertion versus objecting to the actions you are being ordered to engage in.

I've made a point in this thread which I've yet to see anyone address. IF you truly believe the order you are told to follow the one to deploy) is illegal or unethical you STILL have an ethical obligation to follow the rules governing such objections. I laid out exactly how the process works and at NO point in it are you somehow physically forced to go fight. Desertion is simply an unethical failure to follow the rules governing objection to the status of your contract and oath. So long story less long you can object, you can claim the order to deploy is illegal but to do so you have to work the system otherwise you are still at fault for failing to uphold your obligations.

[Darth Wong]

Not to sound overly cynical, but if an organization is demanding unlawful and unethical actions of its employees, why should those employees expect justice from that same organization's internal appeals system?

[Illuminatus Primus]

[snip]

The law and obligations only exist to serve the public good. The commander-in-chief is behaving undemocratically and consistently lied and broke the law against the needs of the public good. You can't be obligated to obey a contract that demands you break laws or help others do so. While in MOST CASES I imagine that the average deserter is a weak coward and deserving of contempt, there is an argument to be made for the principle of desertion in THIS CASE considering the behavior of our government.

[Tsyroc]

Not to sound overly cynical, but if an organization is demanding unlawful and unethical actions of its employees, why should those employees expect justice from that same organization's internal appeals system?

I think that is a legitamit problem.

The best you can hope for in that situation is that after you take all the shit the organization can throw at you that eventually things will be taken outside the organization and you will be vindicated. The thing is you can be totally in the right, doing the right thing, and still end up fucked.

[MKSheppard]

Go figure, the service that recruited according to 'nationalism' and a sense of duty is fairly stable in it's rates of desertion. We're looking for a few good men. Even fewer decide they can't hang.

I did the numbers myself.

Please note that these are for ACTIVE DUTY; e.g. I don't count reserves to the total figure:

Army in FY07: 9.74 per thousand
Marines in FY03: 4.93 per thousand (could not find numbers on desertions other than the "below 1000" in the article for FY07)
Navy in FY07: 3.35 per thousand
Air Force in FY07: 0.05 per thousand

PS - I was at the national archives in DC yesterday, and one of the exhibits they had was historical ads by the armed services. Even in the 1950s, the Army ads were "get an education!", with the Son wanting to join the Army; while the mother says "but I don't want him to!" while the father is more rational about things.

I think this goes back to West Point being an engineering school from 1802 onwards. Still is a decent engineering school.

[CmdrWilkens]

Not to sound overly cynical, but if an organization is demanding unlawful and unethical actions of its employees, why should those employees expect justice from that same organization's internal appeals system?

Well since the justice system (as i pointed out) extends to the entire US Federal Bench (there being a Federal judiciary solely for the Armed Forces and the Supreme Court above that) the "organization" is the entire United States. I think one would be hard pressed to say that any of these deserters actually believes the entire US Judiciary is demanding such things.

I won't even get into the GROSS exaggeration of equating orders from the commander in chief with meaning that the entire Armed Forces and associated civilian bureacracy is demanding unethical action.