desertions in US army

Saphronia from what I understand one of these issues, which got the US, involved in the first place. Was the warehousing of Albanian Women. Specifically for the purpose of Bosnian soldiers impregnating them
(Through Rape) and as a reuslt supporting the policy of ethnic cleansing. As prescribed by the then leadership of the country of Bosnia.

Specifically I am not saying that American troops are gifts from God, but under the conditions in which they have been accused of a crime. What exactly is the necessity of placing them under the authority of a
world court (keep in mind that if you sign up to be a US soldier one agrees to be governed by the US)?

Rape is a crime in the United States of America whose punishment is consistent. In respect to the evidence ascertained and presented in a Court of Law. To present in a world court, that an individual has committed a crime while acknowledged as a member of the military.

Pertains to the issue of the institution as a whole in respect to hiring the soldier in the first place. To be honest this is a bunch of c**p, there is no way of being certain. That each an every individual man hired to be a soldier (hired to kill). Will accomplish his task in respect to adhering to every moral code that he or she is specifically oriented to.

Personally I know of no transgressions with respect to the Yugoslavian Theater. But am aware of events which are related to Japan and South Korea. My understanding of such matters, are that that they less of an issue. With respect to occupation by other countries. And that this in and of itself constitutes justification for why the US is unprepared to have its troops act as a scapegoat for the resolution of such decisions.

The US has involved its troops en mass in respect to conflicts throughout the world. No other country has committed as much as the US, in response to behavior deemed antisocial by the UN.

If in fact the history of the UN had included unilateral effort to resolve conflicts (this in terms of numbers) then perhaps you would have a point. But in truth reality dictates otherwise and as a reuslt has only one other question.

What are your thoughts?

Quite so, Toltec: a "World Court", while arguably desirable theoretically is at best a pretty fantasy.
And like any other soldiers, US soldiers are not always the finest of men; but their record is no worse, to the best of my knowledge, than anyone else's.
There have been well-publicised incidents in SK and Japan and Okinawa and there have been several damning reports about the rape of female service personnel by male soldiers.
But the allegations of some US "mass rape" of civians are sheer invention.

Originally posted by Karl Molarius
ok ill shut up about the rapings and the desertions

After such baseless claims, and this response, I would anticipate either a general silence, or respectful tone from here on.

After such baseless claims, and this response, I would anticipate either a general silence, or respectful tone from here on.

You're adressing that at your President and his forged evidence followed by bombing, right ?

Originally posted by Karl Molarius

You're adressing that at your President and his forged evidence followed by bombing, right ?

My congratulations, sir.

You are exceptionally talented at playing the role of confounding fool. Each and every time a member calls you on facts and information, you twist the topic in precisely the right way to ensure your remain a contemptuous little troll.

What purpose is your little game serving?

It must take a significant effort to maintain this charade over several dozen posts with consistent style and trollish tone.

Perhaps this is an opportune time for the community to provide input on your fate. Because you see, this is indeed a community of people who gather to enjoy each other's conversation and even debate. Input such as yours is only serving to infuriate otherwise civilized people. And in ages past, peole such as you were ridden out of town on a rail... or worse:


So I ask you my kind citizens of Above Top Secret, what should we do with Karl?

Originally posted by William

What purpose is your little game serving?

My purpose ? i am simply amazed about how you pro war's are all talking your way out of the obvious evidence that this war doesnt serve democracy, freedom or security of the US and the rest of the world.

This little creep serves one purpose here at ATS and that is to annoy the rest of the community. He is no source of credible information, seems to have no contributing background, nor does he seem exceptionally adept at grasping any concepts to which he can unravel and explain to the rest of the citizenry here.
As a matter of fact, God didn't even waste any sense of humor or wit on this little creature. I see no reason not to hang him without ceremony and discard his body without service or rites.

Originally posted by Karl Molarius
i am simply amazed about how you pro war's are all talking your way out of the obvious evidence that this war doesnt serve democracy, freedom or security of the US and the rest of the world.

You see how little you know little troll? I'm not "pro war", you pay little, if any attention to the posts of others.

However, I am in favor of military action against a country which is not living up to 12-year old terms of surrender, after that country was beaten back from invading a neighbor. Simple logic, of which you seem not to be capable of, dictates an alternate point of view on these events.


Thomas, you're right. However, to be fair, we need a public trial of Karl in the grand tradition of ATS (wink-wink-nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean?).

I think Dogbert agrees, time to purge this board of this menace.

He's had above and beyond the opportunity to make some kind of contribution, and instead he sticks to his little one-liners, ignorant of all other points of view, with very little, if any, proof to back up his claims. Sounds like a troll to me! My vote is c-ya!!

Originally posted by Karl Molarius

yeah, desertion is honorable while surrendering is not

What ??????????? Desertion is honorable ???????

What did you smoke this morning ?

Anyway, there is 2 kind of desertion. Desertion in peace time and desertion in war time. But a desertion is still a treason, especially during war time !

Do you know what is it, when you are fighting against an ennemy, seeing a friend soldier running away and leaving you fighting alone ????

You don't know it, but almost all the soldiers have an untold agreement. The one who will try to desert during a fighting will be shot IN THE BACK by his/her comrades !

Of course, if almost all the soldiers are deserting, that's another story. ------> See Saddam soldiers !

I'm joining the army, or the reserves at least.

that dogbert toon has me in giggles everytime I see it. Thankyou for cheering me up in a small but important way

(arc having a very bad day regardless of war)

Arc, glad to help in any way I can.

Repent!

I myself enjoy a good debate with someone who presents a valid argument. In respect to Karl have seen nothing which can be taken seriously. To whit his responses seem more an effort to insult the intelligence of those who frequent here.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Anyway, there is 2 kind of desertion. Desertion in peace time and desertion in war time. But a desertion is still a treason, especially during war time !

Let us reiterate the definition of Treason as stated in the Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court".
Desertion does *not* consist of running to the aid of the enemy...Rather, it's running *away* from the enemy. The only "comforting of the enemy" that's involved would be in the small boost of enemy morale at seeing the deserter running away...The enemy's morale is still not being boosted to any effective level because they still have to fight the soldiers who remain. *Surrendering* has more of a positive effect on enemy morale than desertion does. Desertion does *not* adhere to the listed conditions of this definition, whether during war or peace.

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Of course, if almost all the soldiers are deserting, that's another story.

------> See Saddam soldiers !

Actually, desertion & *surrender* are two entirely different things...Iraqi soldiers surrender because they know that they'll be treated better as POW's with us than they're being treated as *soldiers* under Sodamn Insane. The US soldier would prefer desertion because he'd still be treated better in a military prison than he would be treated under Iraq as a POW...


As far as Karl goes, here's my opinion; Much of what others have said about his irrative lack of any contribution to these forums has already been said. Since he has contributed nothing, there should be nothing of his to remain at this forum...Hence, he should be banned & any post he's ever written & any thread he's ever started should likewise be expunged from the collective memory of ATS. I wash my hands of his fate.

Forgiveness for him, I could manage as long as he earns it first, but until that day comes, mercy shall be absent in my heart. May God have mercy on his soul, for I have none for him.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

1) "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court".

2) Hence, he should be banned & any post he's ever written & any thread he's ever started should likewise be expunged from the collective memory of ATS. I wash my hands of his fate.

1) Does it fit to these so-called Hollywood Stars, and especially Jane Fonda and Sean Penn ?

Also, I've read on ATS that Bill Clinton was in North-Vietnam, supporting them.

2)

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
1) Does it fit to these so-called Hollywood Stars, and especially Jane Fonda and Sean Penn ?

It wouldn't fit those who have only used verbal skills to protest against the war...But it *would* fit those people (celebrity or not) who voluntarily traveled overseas to act as "human sheilds", because they are "adhering to the enemy, giving aid & comfort".

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

But it *would* fit those people (celebrity or not) who voluntarily traveled overseas to act as "human sheilds", because they are "adhering to the enemy, giving aid & comfort".

So the US gov or someone else must sued them.