US Army: Over 3,000 Soldiers Have Deserted in 2006

Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Jacob_Landshire
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 205

14 Apr 2007, 8:28 am

Quote:
A total of 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted the Army last year, or 853 more than previously reported, according to revised figures from the Army.
--------------------

In 2005, for example, the Army now says 2,543 soldiers deserted, not the 2,011 it had reported. For some earlier years, the desertion numbers were revised downward.
--------------------

Some Army officers link the recent uptick in annual desertion rates to the toll of wartime deployments and point to the increasing percentage of troops who are on their second or third tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.
--------------------

The new figures also show a faster acceleration in the rate of desertions over the previous two fiscal years than announced. In 2006, for instance, desertions rose by 27 percent, not 17 percent, as the Army had previously reported, a spokesman said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/us/23awol.html?ex=1332302400&en=a32a5c7b46e5e25e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


_________________
There is no reason to suppress a viewpoint unless it is true, because a false viewpoint can easily be combated with facts and logic, while the truth cannot be combated except by lies which are vulnerable to refutation.


sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

14 Apr 2007, 9:44 am

FOR WHAT NOBLE PURPOSE DID MY SON DIE??
Cindy Sheehan



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

14 Apr 2007, 10:41 am

The Bush billions.



Claradoon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,966
Location: Canada

14 Apr 2007, 12:03 pm

I think dying for your country is the purpose. That has honor, regardless who the enemy is at the moment or whether the national leaders are right or wrong.



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

14 Apr 2007, 8:01 pm

Claradoon wrote:
I think dying for your country is the purpose. That has honor, regardless who the enemy is at the moment or whether the national leaders are right or wrong.


Even with honor, wasting lives is wasting lives.



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

15 Apr 2007, 11:56 am

Context is important. The desertion rate was higher in from 1999 to 2001 when the United States was not at war in Iraq.

sinsboldly wrote:
FOR WHAT NOBLE PURPOSE DID MY SON DIE??
Cindy Sheehan


Image

Quote:
Casey Sheehan grew up in a devout Catholic home. He served as an altar boy and then as a key member of his church's youth group for years.

When he was old enough, Casey joined the Boy Scouts, becoming the very second Eagle Scout out of his troop.

He enlisted in the Army when he was twenty years old. He decided to be a mechanic. He would undergo Combat Lifesaver training - a class on how to give IVs and treat trauma only second in intense learning to combat medic training. He was also certified to assist with giving communion to soldiers while in the field.

Specialist Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army in 2004 knowing full well that he could be sent into a combat zone.

Casey Sheehan was a Humvee mechanic with the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment.

On April 3rd, 2004, forces loyal to Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al'Sadr stormed police stations and government offices in Sadr City (a city of over 2 million). They knew the Americans would come, and they wanted a fight. Muqtada Sadr was working them up into a religious frenzy. And he had his thugs murder anyone who he thought might stand in his way - even other Shi'ite clerics. His forces were known as the Mahdi Army.

American forces quickly surrounded Muqtada al'Sadr's quarters.

On April 4th, 2004, al'Sadr's Mahdi forces blocked roadways and bridges with burning tires, vehicles and trash. Visibility was less than 300 meters anywhere in the city. They began to attack American vehicles on patrol throughout Sadr City - some were protecting Shia worshipers (Holy Arbayeen) while others were escorting city government vehicles.

A battle raged across Sadr City. Insurgents assaulted American troops while looters and mobs formed and stormed through the streets. Word spread quickly across the American FOBs that there was trouble.

Soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment were ambushed with RPGs and pinned down and dying. While fighting off an attack himself, the Commander of the 2/5th, LTC Volesky, called for help. A Quick Reaction Force (QRF) was formed of volunteers - their mission was to go out and rescue the American troops.

Casey Sheehan's Sergeant asked for volunteers. Sheehan had just returned from Mass. After Sheehan volunteered once, the Sergeant asked Sheehan again if he wanted to go on the mission. According to many reports (and according to his own mother), Casey responded, "Where my Chief goes, I go."

The QRF was launched. Not long after entering the Mahdi area, the QRF was channeled onto a dead-end street where the roofs were lined with snipers, RPGs, and even some militia throwing burning tires onto the vehicles. The Mahdi blocked the exit and let loose with everything they had.

Sheehan's vehicle was hit with multiple RPGs and automatic-weapons fire.

Specialist Casey Sheehan and Corporal Forest J. Jostes were killed.

A second QRF was formed - all volunteers - to go rescue the first. Specialist Ahmed Cason was hit in the second QRF - but kept fighting until he bled to death.

Seven men died with Casey Sheehan on Sunday, April 4th, 2004.

They were Spc. Robert R. Arsiaga, Spc. Ahmed Cason, Sgt. Yihjyh L. "Eddie" Chen, Spc. Stephen D. Hiller, Spc. Israel Garza, Cpl. Forest J. Jostes, and Sgt. Michael W. Mitchell.

It was Palm Sunday.

Palm Sunday commemorates the day that Jesus entered Jerusalem. Back then, the palm frond was a symbol of victory - laid beneath the feet of those of the highest honor and triumph. Some believe it was this honor fit for a king that forced Jesus's enemies to act and crucify him.

In recognition of Casey, the Catholic Chapel at Fort Hood, Texas (where Sheehan was stationed) named the Knights of Columbus chapter the "Casey Austin Sheehan Council".

Casey also received the Bronze Star for his Valor that day.

Palm fronds for the most honored.


(source)



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

15 Apr 2007, 12:02 pm

We waste all those lives trying to save their freedoms and then we totally screw freedom at home. Good going Shrub!



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

15 Apr 2007, 12:47 pm

Remnant wrote:
The Bush billions.


Please present evidence that George W. Bush is personally profiting from the war effort. You incorrectly implied that George W. Bush is a billionaire. By running for public office it is likely that Governor and then President Bush, at least for a time, has limited his ability to involve himself in corporate affairs. In addition, the President's net worth is less the both of candidates that he faced for election, and (not surprisingly) financially successful presidents are far from unusual in the country's history, although this is admittedly skewed more so in recent times.



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

15 Apr 2007, 8:06 pm

jimservo wrote:
Remnant wrote:
The Bush billions.


Please present evidence that George W. Bush is personally profiting from the war effort. You incorrectly implied that George W. Bush is a billionaire. By running for public office it is likely that Governor and then President Bush, at least for a time, has limited his ability to involve himself in corporate affairs. In addition, the President's net worth is less the both of candidates that he faced for election, and (not surprisingly) financially successful presidents are far from unusual in the country's history, although this is admittedly skewed more so in recent times.


Was it a cave or another planet that you've been living in or on for the last six very odd and very dreary years? Bush's known connections with the billions of dollars that this war is making for someone, and who that someone is, are common knowledge for any sentient being who speaks English who didn't just drop in again after having been abducted by aliens or being buried alive.



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

15 Apr 2007, 8:50 pm

Remnant wrote:
Was it a cave or another planet that you've been living in or on for the last six very odd and very dreary years? Bush's known connections with the billions of dollars that this war is making for someone, and who that someone is, are common knowledge for any sentient being who speaks English who didn't just drop in again after having been abducted by aliens or being buried alive.


Mockery and misdirection are not an answer. What are his "connections?" Yes, I understand the Vice President was Chairman of Haliburton, the United States' leading military contractor, which is logically when one considers he was the Secretary of Defense. But is the fact that people are making billions of dollars off "this war" therefor mean it is making billions of dollars for George W. Bush (you referred to "The Bush billions"). George Bush is the President of the United States and makes decisions on policies, he is not a corporate executive. His net worth is under $10 million dollars.

Further, yes, corporations from military contractors to the arms industries sign contracts with the U.S. government to provide assistance, armaments, and research for the Armed Services. This has been the case more or less since the beginning of the Republic (although admittedly contractors are perhaps something without an exact parallel. Among many others, Andrew Jackson Higgins got rich in World War II with his Higgins Boat (FDR's comments about not wanting any millionaires from WWII may have played well to the masses but was not intended as a practical policy).

Was this evil? Would it have been better if we had been without corporations in World War II even if it had meant losing that conflict is it just this conflict where this is a problem?



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

15 Apr 2007, 10:12 pm

I think that the misdirection is on your part and that it is deliberate.

I won't be speaking to you again.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,685
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

15 Apr 2007, 10:38 pm

Remnant wrote:
I think that the misdirection is on your part and that it is deliberate.

I won't be speaking to you again.


This is why I could never do what Jim is doing anymore, I got "I know you are but what am I" from people so ad nauseum that the thought of even trying to debate politics with liberals made me kinda throw up in my mouth and still does.

I so wish we had the luxury of blanket emotional statements making us right too...



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

15 Apr 2007, 10:50 pm

Remnant wrote:
I think that the misdirection is on your part and that it is deliberate.

I won't be speaking to you again.


Okay, look. If you feel that I have done something deliberate to wrong you, point it out, publicly for all to see. If I make some mistake, either that I was too harsh, or that my facts or just wrong I will correct my mistake and apologize.

I don't want to create some issue.

You made a reference to a fact that I thought needed correction. I felt that if this was not corrected, that since this fact is part of almost a popular myth, that everyone would just assume it was true. Now, yes, maybe no one cares, but it happens that politics is my interest and I wanted to respond.

Jimservo wrote:
Please present evidence that George W. Bush is personally profiting from the war effort. You incorrectly implied that George W. Bush is a billionaire.


This is the first sentence, and second sentence of my original post. "Please present evidence" comes off as a demand. Maybe I should have put it as a request of just have left you out of it, although that it often difficult when attempting to reply. The words "You incorrectly implied" to obviously suggest you are mistaken. Perhaps I should have used softer language, although I have seen newspapers use language like (the active pronoun) that (questionably) in newspaper articles (President Bush inaccurately suggested that Senator Kerry...).

Jimservo wrote:
By running for public office it is likely that Governor and then President Bush, at least for a time, has limited his ability to involve himself in corporate affairs. In addition, the President's net worth is less the both of candidates that he faced for election, and (not surprisingly) financially successful presidents are far from unusual in the country's history, although this is admittedly skewed more so in recent times.


As can be seen, the rest of this post dealt with the idea that "The Bush billions" was a reference to his personal fortune, which is substantially less then one billion dollars, although I suppose you have been talking about Bush family (it still would be less then a billion dollars).

Also, as a way of disclaimer I will admit irritation when I wrote my post (or really just before it, it faded away as I had to start thinking) on your reference to the President as "Shrub." You would be fair to criticize Republicans on this same grounds for their use of the term "Slick Willy." To be honest, this probably isn't taking politics to some unfair extreme and more is a personal distaste.

Remnant wrote:
Was it a cave or another planet that you've been living in or on for the last six very odd and very dreary years?


With this statement I guess that the level of decorum had dropped, at least to an extent.

Remnant wrote:
Bush's known connections with the billions of dollars that this war is making for someone, and who that someone is, are common knowledge for any sentient being who speaks English who didn't just drop in again after having been abducted by aliens or being buried alive.


I referred to this statement as "mockery and misdirection." I referred to it as mockery because of your dismissive reference anyone who disagrees with your position as "common knowledge" for "any sentient being (et cetera, et cetera)"

I referred to it as misdirection because your initial statement referred to "the Bush billions" as did not refer to money send to corporations but merely the word Bush and the word billions, or at I suppose that, since you only refer to "known connections with the billions of dollars this war is makings."

But let me concede this point. Maybe by the "The Bush billions" you did meant this larger network, in which case I read your meaning incorrectly. Sorry.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,685
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

15 Apr 2007, 10:56 pm

jimservo wrote:
Okay, look. If you feel that I have done something deliberate to wrong you, point it out, publicly for all to see. If I make some mistake, either that I was too harsh, or that my facts or just wrong I will correct my mistake and apologize.


You didn't, that's the classic and easy cop-out that lots of em give when all of a sudden they're actually confronted with a logical argument. If other people who are feeling over logic also see this they also get the pleasure of making you look like your bullying em.

Yeah, this is why these kinds of folders are soooo bad for me...



Remnant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,750

16 Apr 2007, 1:16 am

jimservo wrote:
Remnant wrote:
The Bush billions.


Please present evidence that George W. Bush is personally profiting from the war effort. You incorrectly implied that George W. Bush is a billionaire. By running for public office it is likely that Governor and then President Bush, at least for a time, has limited his ability to involve himself in corporate affairs. In addition, the President's net worth is less the both of candidates that he faced for election, and (not surprisingly) financially successful presidents are far from unusual in the country's history, although this is admittedly skewed more so in recent times.


I have to wonder what is going on in my head with all of this. I personally expect the known information, the very commonly publicly available information about all this, to convince people that our so-called President of the United States is using the war to make billions of dollars for Halliburton. Look up Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Look up "George Bush" and "oil." Look up Condaleeza Rice's connections to big oil.

So there are laws that make some gesture at limiting what Bush and his cabinet can do in regards to their investments. Did you happen to notice that during the last 6 years Bush has considered himself to BE the law and that there is little meaningful opposition to this?



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,964
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

16 Apr 2007, 9:52 am

Remnant wrote:
I have to wonder what is going on in my head with all of this. I personally expect the known information, the very commonly publicly available information about all this, to convince people that our so-called President of the United States is using the war to make billions of dollars for Halliburton. Look up Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Look up "George Bush" and "oil." Look up Condaleeza Rice's connections to big oil.


It is true that Dick Cheney once was chairman of Haliburton and Condoleeza Rice once had connections (I think she sat on a corporate board) of a big oil company. But that in itself is not proof that the whole war is about money. To make this assumption, one perhaps is assuming that people who sit on corporate boards have some sort of automatic demonic mindset, that makes them conspire to make wars for profit (or maybe something else, feel free to correct me).

Remnant wrote:
So there are laws that make some gesture at limiting what Bush and his cabinet can do in regards to their investments. Did you happen to notice that during the last 6 years Bush has considered himself to BE the law and that there is little meaningful opposition to this?


So I suppose then that the President and his cabinet has simply ignored laws concerning such investments? President Bush considers himself to "BE the law and there is little meaningful opposition?"

You would think by this statement the United States is something along the line of Putin's Russia, or Mugabe's Zimbabwe. I suppose Bush has banned opposition papers, thrown dissenters into prison, and forced through an enabling act. Oh, wait! He hasn't done any of those things! The opposition party runs congress, the leader of one of houses of congress flew to a designated enemy of the the United States to negotiate with their leader not only on behalf on the United States (which is against the law) but on behalf of Israel(?!). Congressional committees, for good or ill, are investigating the Executive at this very moment. The congress recently passed a timetable for withdraw, which the President has promised to veto. Most of the major newspapers across the country endorsed the President's opponent twice, and have been critical in their coverage, and the President's approval ratings are below 45%.

No meaningful opposition?