FORT CARSON, Colo. – A female soldier in the U.S. Army pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of desertion after fleeing to Canada to avoid a second tour of duty in the Iraq war.

Pfc. Kimberly Rivera was sentenced to 10 months in prison and a bad-conduct discharge after entering her plea at a court-martial.

Rivera, 30, was a wheeled-vehicle driver in Fort Carson's 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team and served in Iraq in 2006. She has said that, while there, she became disillusioned with the U.S. mission in Iraq.

During a two-week leave in the U.S. in 2007, Rivera crossed the Canadian border after she was ordered to serve another tour in Iraq.

The Colorado Springs Gazette reported that when judge Col. Timothy Grammel asked Rivera on Monday how long she remained absent, Rivera replied: "As long as I possibly could, sir. ... I intended to quit my job permanently."

After fleeing to Canada, Rivera applied for refugee status but was denied.

Rivera then applied for permanent residency, but Canadian immigration officials rejected that application, too. Authorities also rejected her requests to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Rivera was first ordered to leave Canada or face deportation in 2009, but she appealed that decision. The mother of four faced another deportation order issued in 2012.

She was arrested at the U.S. border and taken into military custody.

Roughly 19,000 people signed an online petition in Canada protesting Rivera's deportation order, and rallies were held in a number of Canadian cities calling on the government to let her stay in the country.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the U.S. veterans organization Veterans for Peace also protested the deportation order.

During her sentencing hearing, government lawyers argued that Rivera, who was granted leave shortly into her tour to work out marital issues, failed to return because her husband threatened to leave her and take their children, The Gazette reported.

Rivera's civilian defense attorney, James Matthew Branum, argued that Rivera never filed for status as a conscientious objector because she didn't know the option was available to her. He said Rivera should have been informed about it when she met with a chaplain in Iraq over concerns that she couldn't take a life, The Gazette reported.

In 2012, the War Resisters Support Campaign, a Canadian activist group, estimated that there were about 200 Iraq war resisters in Canada. It said two other Iraq war resisters who were deported, Robin Long and Clifford Cornell, faced lengthy jail sentences upon their return.

Long was given a dishonorable discharge in 2008 and sentenced to 15 months in a military prison after pleading guilty to charges of desertion.

The lower house of Canada's Parliament most recently passed a motion in 2009 in favor of allowing U.S. military deserters to stay, but the Conservative Party government was not persuaded.

During the Vietnam War, as many as 90,000 Americans won refuge in Canada, most of them to avoid the military draft. Many were given permanent residence status that led to Canadian citizenship, but the majority went home after President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty in the late 1970s.

Some Canadian politicians say the situation is different now because Iraq war deserters like Rivera enlisted in the U.S. military voluntarily.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/29/female-army-soldier-pleads-guilty-to-desertion-to-avoid-second-tour-in-iraq/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2S359wl94

"Sigh" Talk about making the US Military look evil.....or showing the reporter is not fimiliar with the US Military

Zero sympathy.

I've left my children behind on deployments. It killed me. Probably the most painful experience I have ever had in my life was listening to my son scream "Daddy, don't go!" while I was walking to the plane.

The thought of doing something like this though? Never entered my mind. Never would.

 djones520 wrote:
Zero sympathy.

I've left my children behind on deployments. It killed me. Probably the most painful experience I have ever had in my life was listening to my son scream "Daddy, don't go!" while I was walking to the plane.

The thought of doing something like this though? Never entered my mind. Never would.

Same here. In many ways, being in the army is like being in prison - 'if you can't do the time, don't sign on the dotted line' or something. Being deployed is not really optional; it's something you agree to when you sign up.

 Jihadin wrote:
"Sigh" Talk about making the US Military look evil.....or showing the reporter is not fimiliar with the US Military

How does it make the US military look evil? I didn't get that vibe from the article at all?

 djones520 wrote:
Zero sympathy.

I've left my children behind on deployments. It killed me. Probably the most painful experience I have ever had in my life was listening to my son scream "Daddy, don't go!" while I was walking to the plane.

The thought of doing something like this though? Never entered my mind. Never would.

While I agree with you on principle, i also noted you didn't say your spouse threatened to leave you and take the kids, which is different then just having to leave them behind while on tour. She was still wrong, but the husband sounds like a total douche and needs some correction as well it seems.

All in all I think the only real noteworthy aspect of the story was Canada kicking her back to the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
How does it make the US military look evil? I didn't get that vibe from the article at all?

I didn't get that all either, if anything they seemed fairly lenient.

1. Conscientis Objector part. She was never informed. BS on that. You get ask that question at MEPPS
2. She was ordered to go on a 2nd tour. Like she was single out to do a 2nd tour We all know we go as a unit and not as an individual unless we volunteer and we know one year in and one year out was the rotation.
3. She took two week leave after her first tour to work out martial issue. Never came back due to threat of husband leaving and taking kids. WHere were the kids already living? Post Housing or off post?
4. No mention of the Family Care Plan...which would have resulted much better for her if she did not complete one before her 2nd deployment.

Do not feel sorry for her at all myself. I will though applaud the Canadian gov't for deporting her

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Zero sympathy.

I've left my children behind on deployments. It killed me. Probably the most painful experience I have ever had in my life was listening to my son scream "Daddy, don't go!" while I was walking to the plane.

The thought of doing something like this though? Never entered my mind. Never would.

While I agree with you on principle, i also noted you didn't say your spouse threatened to leave you and take the kids, which is different then just having to leave them behind while on tour. She was still wrong, but the husband sounds like a total douche and needs some correction as well it seems.

All in all I think the only real noteworthy aspect of the story was Canada kicking her back to the US.

A guy I was deployed with had an issue similar to this. He eventually had to go home to claim custody of his children cause his wife went full moonbat.

IF something like that happens, you don't just up and run. You don't flee your unit. You go to your commanders, you explain the situation. You get something worked out. Service Before Self. 2nd Core Value of the Air Force. The Army has differant things, but they work on the same concept. Your personal life takes a back seat when you take that Oath.

The Army will take care of you to the best of it's abilities. Instead she took the selfish route, and ended up creating no end of trouble for herself, but also for her fellow Soldiers, her chain of command, and the Army as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I sympathize with the position she was in. We have all been there.

I will not condone her actions, nor sympathize with her in regards to the punishment. She made a choice, it was the wrong one. Now she has to reap it.

If anything it's the Canadians that come off as "Evil" in this piece.

Nasty, nasty Canadians...

I'm afraid Idon't have a great deal of sympathy. Unlike the people who were trying to avoid a draft they didn't believe in during the Vietnam war, she would have had to volunteer for the army. She made a conscious choice of career. If she didn't want to go to war she should never have joined.

Seems silly to me to try and claim refugee status on the basis that US Army are expecting you to honor the contract you voluntarily entered into. If this was someone being drafted I could understand, heck I’d even sympathise.

To begin with I wasn’t sure what the relevance was of this solider being female, after all it’s not like plenty of male soldiers haven’t tried to pull similar tricks to get out of deployment, but now I think about it I wonder if allot of the sympathy she’s gotten has been down to her gender. If a male soldier had tried the same scam I wonder how many of the people who signed this on-line petition would care?

 djones520 wrote:
Zero sympathy.

I've left my children behind on deployments. It killed me. Probably the most painful experience I have ever had in my life was listening to my son scream "Daddy, don't go!" while I was walking to the plane.

The thought of doing something like this though? Never entered my mind. Never would.

And that's why I will always have the utmost respect for those who serves.

 Medium of Death wrote:
If anything it's the Canadians that come off as "Evil" in this piece.

Nasty, nasty Canadians...

Well, when you have to ration healthcare the way they do, one extra mouth to feed can break the camel's back as it were


As to this idiot who deserted, well, she gets what she earns I guess... Well, the only sympathy that I really have for her, is the fact she was in 4ID, yeah they can be right fethed up sometimes.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
If anything it's the Canadians that come off as "Evil" in this piece.

Nasty, nasty Canadians...

Well, when you have to ration healthcare the way they do, one extra mouth to feed can break the camel's back as it were


As to this idiot who deserted, well, she gets what she earns I guess... Well, the only sympathy that I really have for her, is the fact she was in 4ID, yeah they can be right fethed up sometimes.

LOL there is no health or dental rationing

any lifesaving dental will be taken care of, and you get some basic check ups on the govenment each year, but yes, you do need to pay for braces yourself (or pay for the extended dental (50$ a year for me) or have a job with benifits)

but on topic,

no sympathy, she wasnt conscripted or drafted, plenty of military people have to deal with their spouses/girlfirends cheating/leaving/whatever while they are on deployment or enlisted,

and they are given considerations to do so, this women in fact used on of those special considerations (her leave to work things out) to desert instead of work things out.

To make matters worse its generally easier for a female to re-orientate to a part of the military thats doesn't involve killing anyone, as a driver she could have been placed on ambulance duty where her presence would directly act to save not end lives.

A lot is missing from the article. Where are the kids. If they remained in the US it nullifies any defence she has regarding concern for their welfare. For this to have any logical standing I would have to assume that the kids moved with her to Canada, but with no evidence to suggest this. The idea that she ran away in 2007 for the sake of the kids future, but remained in separate countries doesn't quite add up.

This doesn't help the rep of honest women in the US armed forces who have campaigned long for the right to serve.

 djones520 wrote:
Zero sympathy.

I've left my children behind on deployments. It killed me. Probably the most painful experience I have ever had in my life was listening to my son scream "Daddy, don't go!" while I was walking to the plane.

The thought of doing something like this though? Never entered my mind. Never would.

Fully agree.

This is a sad story. However, I think it was right to deport her, and it was right to sentence her. We have a volunteer military, and that's going to be pretty hard to support if people can leave when they like.

As others have pointed out, if she had been drafted, I'd feel completely differently - but she wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Rivera

More info there.
I dislike oathbreakers.

easysauce wrote:

LOL there is no health or dental rationing

any lifesaving dental will be taken care of, and you get some basic check ups on the govenment each year, but yes, you do need to pay for braces yourself (or pay for the extended dental (50$ a year for me) or have a job with benifits)

but on topic,

no sympathy, she wasnt conscripted or drafted, plenty of military people have to deal with their spouses/girlfirends cheating/leaving/whatever while they are on deployment or enlisted,

and they are given considerations to do so, this women in fact used on of those special considerations (her leave to work things out) to desert instead of work things out.

You must not have been here long... the rationing thing is mostly to get a rise outta you Canucks

And, being that she was 4ID, I really have to wonder just HOW much in her "corner" her command was, if she felt that desertion was preferable to coming back and serving honorably... (note, my wife and I both personally had terrible times while in that unit, and everyone that I know absolutely hates it while they are there, hate it after they leave, and dread seeing orders to go back)


@Orlanth, if she was assigned to be a driver, she wouldn't be doing any killing, except to create roadkill, as drivers do not shoot*, nor do they leave the vehicle at any time* during a mission down range.


*(the only cases that changes are when the vehicle is completely disabled in which case, everyone becomes an 11B infantryman)

haha... well then consider your rise "got"

 Ouze wrote:
This is a sad story. However, I think it was right to deport her, and it was right to sentence her. We have a volunteer military, and that's going to be pretty hard to support if people can leave when they like.

As others have pointed out, if she had been drafted, I'd feel completely differently - but she wasn't.

Can you actually "leave when you like"?

Isn't it once you've signed up you're there for the duration of your enlistment whether you like it or not.


Not that that changes anything, its still voluntary to sign up or reenlist. So no excuses.

She was clearly a spy for the American army, sent to pave the way for the US's invasion of Canada. As part of "Operation Sticky Fingers" she was part of the team responsible for weakening Canada by stealing its strategic reserves of maple syrup. Her next objectives would have been to see if they have oil and to "discover" that the Canadian government had WMD's and was gassing all the French Canadians if they did, giving the USA a pretext for launching an illegal war of "liberation".

Canada obviously discovered all this but fearful of an all out war with the USA couldn't go public with what they knew so invented this story as a face saving exercise to buy them time to sharpen all the moose antlers in their crack Moose Defence Force (MDF), just in case the USA decides to invade anyway.

Nobody made her put her hand up and swear a oath to the people of the United States of America, she did that of her own free will, with the knowledge she may have to deploy and earn the money and benefits that being a part of the United States military entitles you to.

Sure it sucks to deploy..thats why its called war, I had 2.5 deployments 2 of them back to back due to the needs of the military (a 2 month gap, 13F were in short supply) , that sucked but hey that's life.

Things can and will get bad back home, and sometimes you have to suck it up and drive on, like almost every trooper I served with did, at least she had all her limbs to make a run for the border with....

Zero sympathy for a deserter, since then her absence may have caused some other family or soldier hardship..since those holes in the roster have to be filled.

Desertion is not a victimless offence.

Obvious things that must not have occurred to her in order to find herself in this situation:
1. Military service is a commitment.
2. Military service could very likely require you to kill other people.
3. Military service very likely will require you to leave your family behind for extended periods of time.
4. Canada is only sympathetic to real refugees, not people experiencing the equivalent of buyer's remorse.

I have zero sympathy. As Ouze said, had she been a draftee, I'd have signed the petition too. But as it stands, this ended exactly as it should have.

Sad story all round. I don't think anyone was being 'evil' here, she's been caught in a very difficult position between her home life and her commitment to serve. I don't think the military or Canada have behaved inappropriately, it's just an unfortunate story. Her husband sounds like a tool, but then again many men in the army have exactly the same thing happen to them while on duty and don't get much sympathy or newspaper coverage.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This is a sad story. However, I think it was right to deport her, and it was right to sentence her. We have a volunteer military, and that's going to be pretty hard to support if people can leave when they like.

As others have pointed out, if she had been drafted, I'd feel completely differently - but she wasn't.

Can you actually "leave when you like"?

Isn't it once you've signed up you're there for the duration of your enlistment whether you like it or not.


Not that that changes anything, its still voluntary to sign up or reenlist. So no excuses.

No, that was my point, which I think you maybe missed. Maybe I was unclear. You can't just leave when you like and I'm not saying you should be able to. If you could, it would be impossible to have a workable military.

The only way really I'd feel sympathetic to her position would be if she got drafted or even, hell, stop-lossed; but I think they rarely do that now.

Ouze wrote:

The only way really I'd feel sympathetic to her position would be if she got drafted or even, hell, stop-lossed; but I think they rarely do that now.

Anecdotal, yes, but didn't Jihadin almost get stop-lossed a while back?

Some Canadian politicians say the situation is different now because Iraq war deserters like Rivera enlisted in the U.S. military voluntarily.

Their consent was obtained through deception and is thus invalid. The U.S. government deliberately lied about Iraqi actions prior to the invasion in order to justify an aggressive war, claiming that Iraq was refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors when they knew in fact that Iraq was actually being proactively helpful. A person is right to refuse to be a part of that crime against peace, just as they are right to refuse any other illegal order.

pgmason wrote:
I'm afraid Idon't have a great deal of sympathy. Unlike the people who were trying to avoid a draft they didn't believe in during the Vietnam war, she would have had to volunteer for the army. She made a conscious choice of career. If she didn't want to go to war she should never have joined.

I agree totally - if you don't like (or at least accept) the idea of going to war, then joining any of the armed services is not really a good career choice.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Some Canadian politicians say the situation is different now because Iraq war deserters like Rivera enlisted in the U.S. military voluntarily.

Their consent was obtained through deception and is thus invalid. The U.S. government deliberately lied about Iraqi actions prior to the invasion in order to justify an aggressive war, claiming that Iraq was refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors when they knew in fact that Iraq was actually being proactively helpful. A person is right to refuse to be a part of that crime against peace, just as they are right to refuse any other illegal order.

Hey bud. Blow it out your ass.

Everyone of us made the decision with our eye's wide open. Don't sit there and call us all blind sheeple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This is a sad story. However, I think it was right to deport her, and it was right to sentence her. We have a volunteer military, and that's going to be pretty hard to support if people can leave when they like.

As others have pointed out, if she had been drafted, I'd feel completely differently - but she wasn't.

Can you actually "leave when you like"?

Isn't it once you've signed up you're there for the duration of your enlistment whether you like it or not.


Not that that changes anything, its still voluntary to sign up or reenlist. So no excuses.

No, you can't. It is a contractual obligation. You pick how long you want to enlist for (4-6 years), and you serve it. There are a number of factors that can lead to the early termination of that contract, but most of them aren't good.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Their consent was obtained through deception and is thus invalid. The U.S. government deliberately lied about Iraqi actions prior to the invasion in order to justify an aggressive war, claiming that Iraq was refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors when they knew in fact that Iraq was actually being proactively helpful. A person is right to refuse to be a part of that crime against peace, just as they are right to refuse any other illegal order.

This woman has said nothing about the 'illegality' of the Iraq war in attempt to justify her actions and given that she had already served a tour back in 2006 and joined up long after the invasion occurred, I think it's fair to say that it had nothing to do with her decision.

You are projecting your own objections to the war onto her. This is a fundamentally dishonest method of debate.

 djones520 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Some Canadian politicians say the situation is different now because Iraq war deserters like Rivera enlisted in the U.S. military voluntarily.

Their consent was obtained through deception and is thus invalid. The U.S. government deliberately lied about Iraqi actions prior to the invasion in order to justify an aggressive war, claiming that Iraq was refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors when they knew in fact that Iraq was actually being proactively helpful. A person is right to refuse to be a part of that crime against peace, just as they are right to refuse any other illegal order.

Hey bud. Blow it out your ass.

Everyone of us made the decision with our eye's wide open. Don't sit there and call us all blind sheeple.

I didn't call you blind sheeple. I called you the victim of a fraud, perpetrated by your commander-in-chief.

 LuciusAR wrote:
This woman has said nothing about the 'illegality' of the Iraq war in attempt to justify her actions and given that she had already served a tour back in 2006 and joined up long after the invasion occurred, I think it's fair to say that it had nothing to do with her decision.

She said "she became disillusioned with the U.S. mission in Iraq." You remember that mission, don't you? To bring Saddam Hussein to task for his non-existent non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors over non-existent weapons of mass destruction?

Wikipaedia already lists her as a Prisoner of Conscience, based on comments to this effect by Amnesty International

They missed the words ..lack of..

 AlexHolker wrote:

Some Canadian politicians say the situation is different now because Iraq war deserters like Rivera enlisted in the U.S. military voluntarily.

Their consent was obtained through deception and is thus invalid. The U.S. government deliberately lied about Iraqi actions prior to the invasion in order to justify an aggressive war, claiming that Iraq was refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors when they knew in fact that Iraq was actually being proactively helpful. A person is right to refuse to be a part of that crime against peace, just as they are right to refuse any other illegal order.

that has to be the stupidist thing I have heard all day... maybe you need to stop listening to alex jones so much, and realise that no soldier gets to choose where the country fights, they simply enlist or do not, no one forced this lady to enlist.

besides that is what conciencious objector status is for, which she did not apply for (and yes, every real grunt knows about it)

 Orlanth wrote:
Wikipaedia already lists her as a Prisoner of Conscience, based on comments to this effect by Amnesty International

I think Wikipedia also lists Stephen Colbert as the King of Idaho.

Already hear enough about women who leave their military husbands being evil bitches, it's sad that there's so little sympathy when the situation is changed.

Certainly, I feel sympathy for her; you gotta live with your decisions, whether they're good or bad (and in this case, deserting was a bad idea by anyone's standards, even if working through the legal system would be a pain in the ass), but her husband needs an ass-kicking though from the sound of things.

AlexHolker wrote:

Some Canadian politicians say the situation is different now because Iraq war deserters like Rivera enlisted in the U.S. military voluntarily.

Their consent was obtained through deception and is thus invalid. The U.S. government deliberately lied about Iraqi actions prior to the invasion in order to justify an aggressive war, claiming that Iraq was refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors when they knew in fact that Iraq was actually being proactively helpful. A person is right to refuse to be a part of that crime against peace, just as they are right to refuse any other illegal order.

That's not even remotely close to how enlistment works. You join the army to be part of the army; you get no say in where you're sent or which orders you follow.

[delete: wrong thread]

Their consent was obtained through deception and is thus invalid. The U.S. government deliberately lied about Iraqi actions prior to the invasion in order to justify an aggressive war, claiming that Iraq was refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors when they knew in fact that Iraq was actually being proactively helpful. A person is right to refuse to be a part of that crime against peace, just as they are right to refuse any other illegal order.

There's never a dumb thing said....never....but this comes damn close.....

And yes I was extended one extra year...which back then I was madderr then Hell...but getting nail with Hodgkin...I'm glad I'm still in. Support and camaderie helping me along. Kronk I give kudo's to. Frazz to.....BaronVeigh....now If I can still retire in Jul....which I doubt...probaly throw a six month extension in. I have to leave the military 100% condition.....meds are gooooodddddddddd

Y'know, Im going to play devils advocate here. So bare with me, My grandpa and my uncle where in the military, I respect the military in concept and in what they do, I even have my grandpas WWII-korean veteran hat with and army paratroopers pin on it from when i helped a veteran tell his story to my class.
But recruiting tactics by the military can be sometimes heinous and outright untruthful. I have had friends go into the military, have the recruiters tell them they will support their family and stuff like that, but when they get back and have trouble, the army just forgets about them and their family. The recruiters have told them they will never see combat, that they will be safe, but that is a lie, so my friends come back messed up and with nothing but a HS education because the army promised to take care of them. The Paratrooper? He told me a story about the gulf war and why he left the army after it, His best friend died on an illegal mission where thy where burning down cocaine fields because they where a rival to the CIA's own cocaine trafficking to fund an illegal war.
Like i said, I respect the Military, But when you sign up, they rarely give you the truth.

Y'know, Im going to play devils advocate here. So bare with me, My grandpa and my uncle where in the military, I respect the military in concept and in what they do, I even have my grandpas WWII-korean veteran hat with and army paratroopers pin on it from when i helped a veteran tell his story to my class.

You need more intell to even try this. I'm an NCO with 22 yrs in....your going to read why you need more intell.

But recruiting tactics by the military can be sometimes heinous and outright untruthful.

Your friends were caught up in the war stories of the recruiters. Other then that....better clarify some actions of the recruiters.

I have had friends go into the military, have the recruiters tell them they will support their family and stuff like that, but when they get back and have trouble, the army just forgets about them and their family.

Clarify this. As far as I'm reading this it seems that the recruiter was suppose to support their family while away? You friend immediate family? Friend wife and kid(s)? What kind of trouble? We talking active duty or NG/reserve units?

The recruiters have told them they will never see combat, that they will be safe, but that is a lie, so my friends come back messed up and with nothing but a HS education because the army promised to take care of them.

WHat was their MOS? Seriously...two combat theaters going on. I'm sure the recruiter probaly said depending on the MOS they chose they might not see combat. Also I'm guessing your friend turn down the 9/11 GI Bill off the bat? My perception of your friend so far now is a liability. I'm also guessing he is out since this sounds past tense?

The Paratrooper? He told me a story about the gulf war and why he left the army after it, His best friend died on an illegal mission where thy where burning down cocaine fields because they where a rival to the CIA's own cocaine trafficking to fund an illegal war.

Straight out BS. Gulf War. Cocaine Field. I leave it at that

Like i said, I respect the Military, But when you sign up, they rarely give you the truth.

Individuals choose their length of service and their MOS's at EPP's. The recruiters do not do that for them. All they do is make sure the individual paperwork is correct and have the correct waivers to get an individual in

No disrespect houtsauceman, but it sounds like you've been fed some pretty tall tales by your friends. First, they don't send grunt paratroopers to do that kind of stuff (if it even happened). The reason a lot of recruiters get accused of lying is because it's their job to sell the military. They emphasize the good while downplaying the bad. People build an expectation of what the military will be, which is inevitably shattered when they realize that the military is much like any other large organization.

The guys will a HS education should take advantage of their educational benefits. If he was active duty, he has the Montgomery GI Bill which will pay for college classes for him. That program has existed since WW2 so if he's stuck with a HS degree it's because he either abused his benefits and they were cut, or he hasn't taken advantage of them.

In my experience (12 years in the military, 4 deployments), I've run into tons of people who spout that stuff. I usually find that they were poor soldiers to begin with and they shift blame to their commander/recruiter/the military/space aliens in order to absolve themselves of any part in their own failures.

I don't know these guys, so you could very well know a disproportionate number of the guys who the military really did fail - I won't be the judge of that. However, a lot of grunts have the propensity for telling tall tales to civies. Hell, I've told a few in my day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
damn, ninja'd by jihadin

Erie part of this....similiar thinking here

Im not familiar with many of the terms you use, Like i said, I just have friends that where lied to by recruiters to get them to sign, had kids with wives and they come back screwed up with no help for their families.
And I was mistaken, It wasnt the Gulf War. It was awhile ago he told me this story. It was the Panama conflict that took place he told if i remember correctly.
And it wasnt Paratrooper my bad, IT was army Airborne. this pin is likee the one i have

Im not familiar with many of the terms you use, Like i said, I just have friends that where lied to by recruiters to get them to sign, had kids with wives and they come back screwed up with no help for their families.

Hotsauce I'm not trying to crucify you. Has your friend deployed?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
82nd Airborne Division patch

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
No disrespect houtsauceman,

None taken, What is the point of being offended in a civil conversation. All I know is that my friends (Actually, it is more family of friends) have had bad experiance in the military.
I dont hate the military, Heck, I hate it when the recruiters get harrassed at my campus. But I do not support how they treat veterans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

Im not familiar with many of the terms you use, Like i said, I just have friends that where lied to by recruiters to get them to sign, had kids with wives and they come back screwed up with no help for their families.

Hotsauce I'm not trying to crucify you. Has your friend deployed?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
82nd Airborne Division patch

Awhile back yeah, He has since moved to a different state, so i dont know what happened to him, but i know for awhile he went through hell to get benefits.

well, sounds like the 82nd you're talking about is older and was in during the 70s or 80s. I can understand that. The military was just transitioning from a draft army coming out of vietnam into the professional force we have today. A vietnam vet or similar might have every reason to hate the army - a lot of those guys got screwed.

It's a very different army today. So different, in fact, that it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges.

oh, the 82nd is a different guy. He was able to do good with his life.
This guy im talking about is a family friend, well old, like i said, i do not know what happened to him.

Whats his current age? He might have had a rough time in the 82nd. I spent most my time in the 82nd....like 10 yrs worth. Just so I can hazard a guess. If he did Panama though then he was dealing with what Scruff had said. the Transition of a draft army to a volunteer army

Well, the 82nd was speaking at my school. He was already old enough to have a kid in HS, maybe college. He didnt decry the army to the audience, just to me and the guy running the thing, Heck he said how the army changed him, but h left because of the things he saw.

After reading a bit more of the Female deserters story, I can venture a guess at some of the motivations of her actions.

She and her husband were both too overweight to enlist, so they began losing pounds to make the reqs, she just made the limit first, so mainly a financial decision to join, not really a lifelong goal of military service (since both of them would join , she just cut the fat better.)

a 8,000 sign up bonus is not bad, not great but better than mine (I got zero..they don't like old people )

Basic training for her was likely hell, if she just barely made the weight limit, then the drastic pace and demanding tempo of PT in basic would be pretty horrible for most in her situation, (I did my drill duties and saw a few recruits in that basket..it was no picnic)

So now she deploys to Iraq and gets to work a gate, and gets to deal with the locals ( not to certain on the SOP in Iraq, but in Afghanistan we always had to have a female at the gate to conduct searches on LN females ), at as the wiki provided description stated she was affected by a "crying two-year-old Iraqi girl coming with her family to claim compensation for bombing by coalition forces" , could be true, but we had LN always coming by claiming we killed livestock or destroyed homes, when ever we did any test fires or artillery training, (even if we personally observed every round we fired and all shots were accounted for..on the side of a empty mountain), They were working the system and getting monetary reoperations from the command...anyway.

The example of her finding a piece of shrapnel in her bunk , ( I assume from a inbound shell/rocket and not just placed there), I guess that could bother a more sensitive person, for me I would feel I dodged a bullet , I had a Portacrapper exploded about 5 min after I used it on a OP..I felt pretty happy bout that.

So all this and likely some other stuff makes her become dis-allusioned and betrayed by the US government, right , got it.

So she gets a early mid term leave back to the states ( she deployed in oct 2006, and ran to Canada 18 feb 2007 ) so a little over 3 months in country.

My guess is the Army was way to hard for this lady, and deployment was really horrible, based on a much more austere living conditions and having to work at anytime required (Although some FOBs are pretty cush )

She could not bring herself to the idea of returning, and I am very dubious to her claims of know she would be going back for another tour ( unless it was just idle barracks generals talk..which happens all the time) and yes likely she would have to go back..maybe once more before her contract was up, but to be fair she had only actually been doing the job tax-payers were paying her for , for 3 months now.

She just made a very stupid choice, and now has 10months in prison ( which is only about 1 month more than she would have had to do to complete her first tour) and a dishonorable discharge on here record, and a dishonorable discharge is no minor thing, regardless of what people say.

she was dumb, and her husband was equally dumb , and kudos to Canada for not playing into her story.


Oh and for hotsauceman1....recruiters may omit all kinds of stuff, and some may even bend the truth, but anyone thinking of joining the military needs to do their own homework and put on their own big boy pants before making such a big decision, its the real world, and the real world will kick your teeth in.

Sorry for the long post, but this is one of my red button topics

Soo'Vah"cha. I can see the rest of your story being plausable, But im curious about how you think about the weight thing. She could have very well put in on in the years since she moved to canada.
NVM, Didnt know there was a wiki on her.
And yeah, I was planning on the military, but i looked into it, and even if i did joing the navy liked i planned, I couldnt to things like that, i would have the guts to.
But the thing i will never forget is this, A friend of mine, this was actually in HS, loved the marines, so much that he took a test in his junior year maybe to get him into the marines at age 17 or something, to get him out of school. I just thought it a tremendously stupid idea in my opinion, leaving school at junior year to join the marines.
And Im not sure what the test was, I was fuzzy on the details.

ASVAB test.....and he was stupid to leave HS to join the Corp. SHould have gradurated first.

 Jihadin wrote:
ASVAB test.....and he was stupid to leave HS to join the Corp. SHould have gradurated first.

Glad we can agree on something, You cant get far in the corps w/o a HS education right?

Can't say for certain about your friend, for some people HS is just wasted on them, the corp may do wonders for him, but generally enjoy being a civilian and young for a bit before getting two of the best words in the world taken from you...NO, and WHY. (never realized how much I missed those little words )

NO, and WHY

The fun

Biggest reason i didnt go in, I have authority problems and have a pathological need to question everything.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Biggest reason i didnt go in, I have authority problems and have a pathological need to question everything.

When your arms had fallen off from the amount of push-ups you had done, you probably would have broken that "need" to do it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
ASVAB test.....and he was stupid to leave HS to join the Corp. SHould have gradurated first.

Glad we can agree on something, You cant get far in the corps w/o a HS education right?

In today's military you cant even join without a diploma (sequestrations and budget cuts and all that)

@Hotsauce, if you feel the need to question everything, you should have joined my MOS... we get to grill other soldiers on why they broke their equipment And actually, my job is one of the few that is legitimately good for finding work on the outside, if you play your cards right.

Im no longer interested in the military, I have found my love in scholarly pursuits.(Which is what I finally had to say to get the recruiters to stop calling at 4 in the morning.)
But OT:
I understand why she did this, it does sound like she didnt get the full story or was disillusioned. She was wrong to leave and not fufill her obligation.
Her husband sounds like a donkey doing what he did.

 Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
After reading a bit more of the Female deserters story, I can venture a guess at some of the motivations of her actions.
[snip]

So you don't even consider the problems she had at home as a motivator for her decision?

I agree that it was poorly thought out, but considering the situation her husband put her in, I'd say she deserves some sympathy. That sympathy shouldn't be in the form of lesser punishment, mind you. THAT wasn't something that she signed up for when she joined the military-- the rest of it was exactly what you should expect joining the military. That, however? That was something that her husband did entirely of his own volition.

More than one male soldier has gone AWOL over a cheating wife, yet they tend to get more sympathy than this. Sad.

The only thing I disagree with in the story is that any deserter including the one in this case get anything less then a Dishonorable Discharge.

No sympathy.

Didnt she get a dishonorable discharge?

Yes, five years ago.

According to the article in the OP, court martial came back with a bad conduct discharge.

Ah, my bad, I missed that it said it was Long who got the dishonorable discharge, rather than this particular soldier. Shrug.

It's a step down from what she deserves personally, though I prefer old school punishments for treason and desertion.

Flogging?

No, Firing Squad.

Grey's got it. Or the noose if we're feeling environmentally friendly.

Why not make a game out of it and make the soldier be hunted by their former unit?

Nah, it's just taking out the trash.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Flogging?

We could have filmed that and made a mint on some of those adult websites I have heard about on the internet... that I've never visited, or spend money on >_>

Should we bill the family for the ammunition like the Imperium does?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Flogging?

We could have filmed that and made a mint on some of those adult websites I have heard about on the internet... that I've never visited, or spend money on >_>

Riiiiiiight

 Grey Templar wrote:
Should we bill the family for the ammunition like the Imperium does?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Flogging?

We could have filmed that and made a mint on some of those adult websites I have heard about on the internet... that I've never visited, or spend money on >_>

Riiiiiiight

Only a fool would pay for such things

Can we stop with the misogynistic garbage and get back on topic, please?

This is mysogyny. This is pure sadism.
TBh i dont see how her situation is different from male soldiers. She abandoned her post, she isnt marcus fenix, you have to pay.

 Melissia wrote:
Can we stop with the misogynistic garbage and get back on topic, please?

Quite.

Melissia wrote:More than one male soldier has gone AWOL over a cheating wife, yet they tend to get more sympathy than this. Sad.

Not here, they won't. Also, citations, please.


I've got a question: if an active duty deserter were to be executed via firing squad (does that ever happen anymore?) would their family receive benefits or compensation due to the enlisted being technically killed during their service? (A dumb question, I know, but I'm curious abut how the bureacracy would view that)

IIRC in the past when they did shoot deserters the family didn't receive anything. Not that they got much anyway besides the guy's pay.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Melissia wrote:More than one male soldier has gone AWOL over a cheating wife, yet they tend to get more sympathy than this. Sad.

Not here, they won't. Also, citations, please.

Quick google search resulted in a link:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/08/awol-soldier-and-the-murdered-child-bride.html
First comment: "He should have killed the cheating *****, too."

Showing support for his actions in going AWOL to murder someone who slept with his wife. Numerous other comments show sympathy as well-- and he's not just AWOL, he's a murderer.

So he's a murderer who went AWOL to kill the guy his wife was cheating on him with, but he gets sympathy because that ***** deserved it. But her? Apparently she's a stupid bitch who got what she deserved, because HOW DARE someone make an irrational decision under the stress and duress she was put in by her husband.

Your link doesn't work :-\

Um, What? IT doesn't say anywhere he is off the charged. It is a comment, If I comments where true, Then i would be a gay black jewish nazi(No offense, I just get called that on youtube alot)
And remember when the View showed support for cutting off her husbands member? People will always see horrible people as ok. Doesnt mean everyone is.
You are seeing zebras.

 azazel the cat wrote:


I've got a question: if an active duty deserter were to be executed via firing squad (does that ever happen anymore?) would their family receive benefits or compensation due to the enlisted being technically killed during their service? (A dumb question, I know, but I'm curious abut how the bureacracy would view that)

Nope, I believe execution also comes with a DHD as far as the military's concerned. So no benefits, no military funeral, just an acute case of lead poisoning and a card board box to ship your useless corpse to your next of kin if they want it. I'd have to check some more current cases, but I think soldiers who get sentenced jail time receive their discharge at sentencing. So the same would apply to a service member placed on death row.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is a comment

I'm glad you noticed. Maybe you could also notice that I was talking about the responses of the people on this forum. And I was noting the disparity between comments towards a male soldier and comments towards a female soldier-- how there is a double standard between how male and female soldiers are treated by people on this forum, on the internet, and in society as a whole.

Melissia wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Melissia wrote:More than one male soldier has gone AWOL over a cheating wife, yet they tend to get more sympathy than this. Sad.

Not here, they won't. Also, citations, please.

Quick google search resulted in a link:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/09/08/awol-soldier-and-the-murdered-child-bride.html
First comment: "He should have killed the cheating *****, too."

Showing support for his actions in going AWOL to murder someone who slept with his wife. Numerous other comments show sympathy as well-- and he's not just AWOL, he's a murderer.

So he's a murderer who went AWOL to kill the guy his wife was cheating on him with, but he gets sympathy because that ***** deserved it. But her? Apparently she's a stupid bitch who got what she deserved, because HOW DARE someone make an irrational decision under the stress and duress she was put in by her husband.

You used the word tend which is indicative of a pattern. Please find some non-anecdotal evidence to support that.

Additionally, the woman in the OP did not cite the "stress and duress she was put in by her husband" as her motivation, she cited that "she became disillusioned with the U.S. mission in Iraq" as her reason for deserting.

Melissia, I think you are projecting your own personal animosity into this.

I dont see anyone here defending the Murderer you posted.
There is no double standard in the army you break their rules,, they break you.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please find some non-anecdotal evidence to support that.

I didn't just provide anecdotal evidence.

But if you require more links...
ynetnews.com (example from Israel)
community.babycenter.com (testimonials)
cmrlink.org (discusses the disrespect from congress)
heinonline.org (pro-sex-integration article)
adrian.vanbreda.org (pdf: study exploring womens' experiences in the miltiary)

I could go on; stories of female soldiers not being given the respect that male soldiers are given aren't exactly new or rare..

 azazel the cat wrote:
Additionally, the woman in the OP did not cite the "stress and duress she was put in by her husband" as her motivation, she cited that "she became disillusioned with the U.S. mission in Iraq" as her reason for deserting.

I never said she did.

Don't pull crap out of thin air and try to write my name on it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Melissia, I think you are projecting your own personal animosity into this.

Ah, great, more of the "don't get emotional" baiting. How predictable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
There is no double standard in the army

You'd be the first person on this forum to say that in a long time.

This is now way off topic guys, maybe take it to another thread.

Discussing peoples' reaction to the article in question is off topic?

It is when you are reading between the lines or talking about the reactions of people not on this site. Who cares what some random comment elsewhere said.

I see that the points I raised struck a nerve then, GT.

Hell, if this was a male soldier in question, the article would never have been posted in the first place.

Nice try at a rise, but no. I couldn't care less. Nor do i have any control of what the media picks up on and what they don't.

We were talking about desertion. Doesn't matter the sex of the soldier, its a crime. One that used to be punished by firing squad. Bringing your sexist baggage into a thread not related to the issue is bad taste.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Doesn't matter the sex of the soldier

On the contrary, the topic would never have been posted, this discussion never would have been had, if it was a male soldier who was the one doing the deserting. So her sex obviously IS an issue here, as shown by your own responses.

Numerous men desert every year-- not a single one gets talked about for over a year on Dakka.. One woman deserts-- ERMAGERD! Now THAT is a discussion worth having! Yes, SHE is someone we have to talk about and vilify!

Sex is only an issue for the media. Not for me.

Its a story fishing for sympathy about the situation.

As you said, lots of people desert the army each year for a multitude of reasons. To expect preferential treatment of this story is stupid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
To expect preferential treatment of this story is stupid.

On the contrary, this thread's very existence shows different treatment.

edit: Oh, and in case someone is making the assumption that I think she shouldn't be punished as harshly, I've already made arguments to the contrary earlier in this thread, go and read them.

Melissia wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please find some non-anecdotal evidence to support that.

I didn't just provide anecdotal evidence.

But if you require more links...
ynetnews.com (example from Israel)
community.babycenter.com (testimonials)
cmrlink.org (discusses the disrespect from congress)
heinonline.org (pro-sex-integration article)
adrian.vanbreda.org (pdf: study exploring womens' experiences in the miltiary)

I could go on; stories of female soldiers not being given the respect that male soldiers are given aren't exactly new or rare..

I bet you could. Good thing that's not what we are talking about, nor have we been, Melissia.

We are discussing the level of sympathy this woman has received on account of her desertion; not the level of respect women in service receive. Please refrain from trying to move the goalposts when you are taken to task.

Melissia wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Additionally, the woman in the OP did not cite the "stress and duress she was put in by her husband" as her motivation, she cited that "she became disillusioned with the U.S. mission in Iraq" as her reason for deserting.

I never said she did.

Don't pull crap out of thin air and try to write my name on it.

You put your name on it. Twice. Right here:

So he's a murderer who went AWOL to kill the guy his wife was cheating on him with, but he gets sympathy because that ***** deserved it. But her? Apparently she's a stupid bitch who got what she deserved, because HOW DARE someone make an irrational decision under the stress and duress she was put in by her husband

I agree that it was poorly thought out, but considering the situation her husband put her in, I'd say she deserves some sympathy

Listen, you can get as defensive about it as you want, but it seems quite plain that you're getting tripped up on your own outrage, which is very predictable. The fact of the matter is this: a soldier deserted, citing being disillusioned with the war. The soldier receives no sympathy on Dakka, which is home to many verterans and other people who otherwise understand what is meant by responsbility and contractual obligations. End of story. The gender of the soldier has no bearing on this situation, outside of what you have projected it to mean.

You have attempted to compare this situation to one in which a male soldier deserted to become a murderer rather than a cuckold; which is not an apt comparison as said murderer did not cite his "disillusionment with the way" as his reason for deserting. Many people are sympathetic to a situation wherein ones responsibilities leave your family vulnerable to internal strife; but few will be sympathetic to a situation wherein you simple don't feel like doing a contractually-obligated job anymore. However, rather than observing that difference, you immediately assumed it was a gender bias. Someone else has already called this one aptly: you heard hoofbeats and expected a zebra.

If you still think this is all gender bias, then why not ask the forum? Would the mob be more or less sympathetic to the woman, had she deserted for the express purpose of murdering the husband who may have attempted to take her kids away? I suspect that, even though we have several verterans on Dakka, even they would express a modicum more sympathy in that situation, than for someone who merely didn't feel like doing her duty anymore.

I'm not moving the goalposts at all, Azazel.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You put your name on it. Twice.

I never suggested that she stated that this was her primary motivator.

So instead of pulling crap from midair, you're intentionally misrepresenting my post. How droll.

Because you apparently didn't read the article:

During her sentencing hearing, government lawyers argued that Rivera, who was granted leave shortly into her tour to work out marital issues, failed to return because her husband threatened to leave her and take their children, The Gazette reported.

That is what the government believed, and, given that she was convicted, that is likely what the government proved to be true according to the court of law. That is what I based my statement off of.

 azazel the cat wrote:
said murderer did not cite his "disillusionment with the way" as his reason for deserting.

I don't care. An irrelevant factoid.

Even when quoted, you still deny saying it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Even when quoted, you still deny saying it.

You sound shocked that I deny saying something that I never said.

I never said she claimed that this was her reason for deserting, and no matter how much you talk about it, that won't change.

That she claimed she was a conscientious objector in court could simply be the case of her following her lawyer's suggestions-- I don't have enough details on that account. But the court apparently found that it was marital problems that was the primary reason for the desertion.

She was on a two week mid-tour leave. There are a myriad of army/red cross systems in place to help at-risk soldiers or soldiers who are having significant problems. She could have gotten Army Community Services, the cops, the chaplain, or JAG involved.

When I went home on emergency leave in 2010, I sent one email to my commander asking for an extension for another week of leave in order to bury my sister. I spent MAYBE an hour or two coordinating it and it was approved.

Hard ship REFRAD orders are fairly common - especially for cases where spouses or children may be in danger due to the absence of the parent(s).

As to Melissia's insistance that there's some sort of gender bias going on in the thread due to the deserter being a woman... well, I will say that fox news may have a gender bias, but if you want to post up threads about other (male) deserters then I think I can safely say that most of the veterans here will shower him with the same scorn. I have no patience for oath breakers and law breakers. That applies equally across the board whether we talk about desertion, sexual assault, harassment, racism, or insubordination.

The military provides a wonderful rubric for evaluating people and it's called standards. You follow rules, regulations, and you meet standards and you are, more often than not, a good soldier. You don't do those things and you are a bad soldier. The vets here are simply applying that rubric.

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is a comment

I'm glad you noticed. Maybe you could also notice that I was talking about the responses of the people on this forum. And I was noting the disparity between comments towards a male soldier and comments towards a female soldier-- how there is a double standard between how male and female soldiers are treated by people on this forum, on the internet, and in society as a whole.

Honest to God, if someone posted an article about a male "soldier" going AWOL, I'd say the same thing... I've done this job for 9 years now, been through some pretty seriously fethed stuff, but I'm still plugging along. I don't have time for these worthless scum who willingly signed up for this job who can't deal with their commitment.

As I also pointed out, I strongly suspect, based on my experiences in the same sort of unit, that she was not getting the support she needed from those around her the most.

I think this story got traction in the news because a female deserter is more rare than her male counterpart and it sells well as a 'human interest story'.

But a crap bag is a crap bag regardless of what is between its legs.

Support from her unit or not, she made the decisions she did. Every one has freedom of choice, no one should have freedom from consequences. I have no sympathy for her or any crap bags that deserts their fellow troopers. Regardless of what her chain of command did or did not do, she made choices and can deal with it.

The whole "emergency leave to sort out marital issues" sounds like a cooked up story to me, since within those two weeks she fled to Canada with her husband. Her husband was with her the whole time, apparently they contacted the War Resisters Support Campaign together. Sounds like it was all part of a plan to bail.

This was a pretty straightforward story, so I am surprised to see it still going.

Gender became an issue.

 Melissia wrote:
Hell, if this was a male soldier in question, the article would never have been posted in the first place.

I respectfully disagree. I think any soldier or marine who flees the country to avoid deployment; then gets deported by Canada, would be considered a strong human interest piece regardless of gender, especially so on Dakka's OT with it's disproportionate ratio of military types.

It's a sad story.

And to clarify since I'm Mr. Harsh Punishment for deserters around here. I'm all for firing squads and hangings for murderers, deserters, traitors and other scum of the earth regardless of race, color, gender, creed or sexual orientation.

TBH, I kind of agree with Melissia. The first thing that came to my mind when I read it is "Oh, boy, this is going to end with someone saying that women aren't capable with serving. Just look at her!". The fact that the title is "-Female- Army soldier..." lends to this. People are always looking for reasons to put women down and this article, and thread's existence is influenced by this.

Let's just say she's failed her responsibilities, got a bad deal with her home life and got what she deserved and call it a day mentlegen.

I hadn't caught that, about the title of the thread. Good point.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Grey's got it. Or the noose if we're feeling environmentally friendly.

Your internet tough guy approach would be incredibly stupid, strategically. We are not talking about a sentry who left their post undefended and got people killed. She was on leave in an entirely different country and didn't come back. You should be glad to be rid of her so painlessly, instead of fantasising about using death threats trap her where she is a liability.

Desertion's desertion grab your spine and do your job or do everyone a favor and don't enlist. I personally utterly despise these individuals, they get nothing but contempt from me. We had an idiot in one of my training units go "conscientious objector" on us and this was in 2008. Not like we hadn't been at war as a nation for the better part of a decade right? How could he have known he might be expected to do his job? Waste of time, effort, food and oxygen.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Desertion's desertion grab your spine and do your job or do everyone a favor and don't enlist. I personally utterly despise these individuals, they get nothing but contempt from me. We had an idiot in one of my training units go "conscientious objector" on us and this was in 2008. Not like we hadn't been at war as a nation for the better part of a decade right? How could he have known he might be expected to do his job? Waste of time, effort, food and oxygen.

When someone deserts either during or prior to a deployment they really screw their buddies. Someone will have to do that person's job on the deployment, and they won't usually be getting a replacement. That means they are (more) short handed than they were and the remaining folks carry an extra burden. No, I repeat NO soldier currently on active duty could possibly not have known we are at war and either enlisted anyways or has re-enlisted (for the old timers) since the wars have begun. Whether they came in for college money, sense of adventure, or what ever reason, they came in (or stayed in) with full knowledge that they may be called on to deploy into a combat zone and perform their job there.

As for punishment, the UCMJ works. A courts martial and appropriate sentence if found guilty followed by a bad conduct discharge works. I can't work up any sympathy nor even empathy for them.

 Jihadin wrote:
Gender became an issue.

*was made

 Jihadin wrote:
Gender became an issue.

You made it an issue in your opening post, whether you intended such or not.

Seriously, get over it. Please drop the imagined slights and proto feminist nonsense. Noone here thinks she should be treated diffrently to a male solder.

Most are upset that the media clearly thinks her sex should be a mitigating factor. Or are you one of the people who thinks that we should only be upset about things where women come off worse?

On the contrary, the topic would never have been posted, this discussion never would have been had, if it was a male soldier who was the one doing the deserting.

So its a reverse on the issue of breast cancer funding/awareness drives vs male-specific cancer funding/awareness then?

Yes, our society's double standards are rather bizarre, aren't they Mr. Hyena? I'm not getting in to a debate about sexism in health care in this thread.

Nice try Melissa. To me and other NCO's on here. She is a soldier. Glad you like assuming I have two different standards for gender from the get go.

 Jihadin wrote:
Nice try Melissa. To me and other NCO's on here. She is a soldier. Glad you like assuming I have two different standards for gender from the get go.

I don't believe you, because if that was the case you'd not have felt hte need to differentiate in the thread title.

Nope. Its the original title. Your again assuming. I'm not going go down this road with you MeLissa because clearly you already form a opinion on me. I highly doubt you know what an EOA is. I've a feeling your either want some drama or a thread fight.

Melissia wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Nice try Melissa. To me and other NCO's on here. She is a soldier. Glad you like assuming I have two different standards for gender from the get go.

I don't believe you, because if that was the case you'd not have felt hte need to differentiate in the thread title.

...Or that's the original title of the related article.

Again, you're projecting.

Projecting so hard we could point you at a wall and show power points with you.

I agree that this story might not have been reported if it wasnt a female. but here judgment wasnt influenced at all by her gender.

 Jihadin wrote:
Nope. Its the original title.

You made the choice, conscious or subconscious, to include it to the title of this thread when you typed it out.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm not going go down this road with you MeLissa

What's with the weird capitalized L in the middle of the name?

 Jihadin wrote:
because clearly you already form a opinion on me.

That I point out flaws in the way that you act does not mean I do not respect you for your service to our country-- which I do. I don't have the mentality to join the military, myself-- I feel I'm not brave enough for that. Being a soldier, however, does not place you above reproach.

 Jihadin wrote:
I highly doubt you know what an EOA is.

TLAs* are used outside of the military you know

I know several meanings of EOA even without the help of Google, including one which is used within the military (Equal Opportunity Advisor, a position I had read about during research conducted some years ago). A quick Google search shows about five other "EOA" acronyms within the military, from "Exercise Operating Area" to "Early Operational Assessment". So rather than trying to feel smug and superior like some kind of snob, you're going to need to add context to your acronym.

*Three-letter acronyms, for those who aren't in on the joke.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I agree that this story might not have been reported if it wasnt a female. but here judgment wasnt influenced at all by her gender.

I never stated otherwise, nor did I state that it SHOULD be otherwise.

Melissia wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Nope. Its the original title.

You made the choice, conscious or subconscious, to include it to the title of this thread when you typed it out.

And it was you, Melissia, who inferred gender-bias intent.

Reasons for including gender in the title of this thread that do not involve conscious or unconscious gender bias:
-It was the title of the original article and it is reasonable to use the same title for the thread that the article starts.
-It was the title of the original article and Jihadin is lazy and just copy+paste'd the original title.

Reasons for including gender in the title of this thread that Melissia assumed:
-Zebras! Zebras everywhere!

Why are people still arguing with her about this?

She's got it wrapped up in her head that the US Military teaches it's NCO Corp to be gender biased. So let he keep thinking that. Nothing you say will change it.

In the mean time the rest of us in reality will not have to bang our heads against a brick wall in this discussion.

Alright, everyone, disagreement is not an excuse for rudeness.

It seems to me that everyone involved in this tiff stopped actually listening to one another some time ago. So, I would highly suggest those of you who have been posting often and going back and forth take a nice, long break from the thread and let other people engage in the discussion free of repetitive back and forths.

Whatever your position or interpretation, I expect appropriate respect to be payed to the female gender both in principal and practice. And yes, same goes for male. Part of that is not attributing blanket labels like 'feminist' to someone who rejects it for themselves. If you continue to do that, it crosses the line to rudeness.

Now, take a breather, and let's get back on track.

MT11

I have to admit I wondered why her gender was part of the title as well, but given it was the headline of the original story - mystery solved, I guess!

The article suggests there were other options open to her. If that's the case then it's too bad she didn't explore them instead of deserting.

I reckon that anyone deserting, regardless of gender should be made to serve out the rest of their enlistment, not just some small sentence. If you sign on for 4 years and do 1 before desertion, that should be 3 year sentence etc. Seems fair to me.

 Azza007 wrote:
I reckon that anyone deserting, regardless of gender should be made to serve out the rest of their enlistment, not just some small sentence. If you sign on for 4 years and do 1 before desertion, that should be 3 year sentence etc. Seems fair to me.

Screw that. Why make the tax payer fund their existence AND take up a slot (the US military has man power limits set by congress)? Give them enough of a sentence that they know they done wrong and kick them out with a bad conduct discharge.

I concur with Jake. The military shouldn't have to spend the time and resources for that kind of thing.

Azza007 wrote:I reckon that anyone deserting, regardless of gender should be made to serve out the rest of their enlistment, not just some small sentence. If you sign on for 4 years and do 1 before desertion, that should be 3 year sentence etc. Seems fair to me.

The problem with this idea is that it effectively means there is no penalty for desertion: it's like saying that if you get caught stealing, your punishment is giving the stolen article back.

In order to function as a proper deterrent, the punishment must be severe enough to outweight the calculated likelihood of getting away with the crime.

One of the things that occurred to me when I read this was the 'female' bit, it's kind of like putting 'black soldier quits' in a way, like it somehow makes a difference. Soldiers are soldiers so really it should just be 'Army soldier pleads guilty to desertion to avoid second tour in Iraq.' Why go out of the way to include the identity of an individual when the point of the article is supposed to be profession related? i.e. the issue of desertion.

My personal standpoint on deserters depends on whether they were drafted or not, if they were forced then I can be pretty sympathetic being that they are running from something they never agreed to and forced to fight a war that has nothing to do with their own lives. In a lot of cases it's comparable to the plight of a runaway slave, conscription really is in a lot of cases a form of slavery in my opinion. < The only way that could ever be justified is in the interest of defence, if lets say their home country was being invaded (it'd be in their interest then.)

If someone willingly signs up though, then they consent to the service of something higher than themselves and they know the risks, joining the military should never be anything that should be done hastily or light-heartedly, you have to be 100% committed given the amount of time and money that gets put into building you up into a soldier. It's sad that this person had family issues, but she made a serious oath and there are consequences to breaking a serious oath.

just my own thoughts...

 Ardaric_Vaanes wrote:
One of the things that occurred to me when I read this was the 'female' bit, it's kind of like putting 'black soldier quits' in a way, like it somehow makes a difference. Soldiers are soldiers so really it should just be 'Army soldier pleads guilty to desertion to avoid second tour in Iraq.' Why go out of the way to include the identity of an individual when the point of the article is supposed to be profession related? i.e. the issue of desertion.

You folks with this type of opinion read WAY too much into it. The add the 'female' into the article for a few reasons:

1. Females though they make up about 50% of the population make up about 13% of the Army and therefore are rarer.
2. As a mother and a female deserter she is MUCH more interesting as a human interest news story than the single 22 year old guy. Frankly a male doing this generally does not make the news. Add in the attempt at political asylum in Canada coupled with the denial and deportation and THIS particular case is interesting as a news story. A couple males got some coverage for pulling the asylum crap a few years ago too. That is a big deal.

The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported. THAT is what made the whole thing news worthy. Soldiers desert all the time and rarely make more than the local news if that. THIS case was VERY different from the norm BECAUSE of who this trooper was. You don't have to like that or think it is right (I sure do not) but frankly it is silly to deny it.

Generally deserters just kind of go away. Honestly, they are not even searched for (neither the military nor the Feds have the resources to care about them unless they also committed some other crime along with the desertion). They usually turn themselves in at some point or when they do get 'caught' it is getting caught for something else and when their name is run by civilian cops it pops up as 'deserter' and they are turned over to the military who then either discharges them or prosecutes then discharges based on the circumstances.

Stories about females being wounded grab a lot more TV time and column length in print/digital media for similar reasons. It is rarer and it kind of shoves the 'Our Daughters and Mothers are FIGHTIN'!! ' into peoples faces. That causes more sensationalism than when it happens to the male counterpart. Example: Folks are a LOT more likely to know who Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson are than the names of the male soldiers captured along with them. Johnson was a black single mother, the first black female US Soldier ever captured . That is deemed news worthy. She still gets coverage sometimes though you will have trouble finding a single story where one of her male counterparts is the focus. (article form 2010: http://www.today.com/id/35196926/ns/today-today_news/t/first-black-female-pow-sets-record-straight/ )

If it was up to me (and I suspect several other vets/troopers on this forum) the articles would just say US Soldier and skip race and sex completely. Unfortunately, the media likes it when they can elicit emotion and specifying 'female' helps them do so, race does that at times too. With all my heart I wish that was not the case, but it is.

 CptJake wrote:
The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported.

When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

 Melissia wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported.

When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I sure don't remember replying to a single one of your posts in this thread nor arguing with you in it. I am also pretty sure if you read my posts in this thread my thoughts have been pretty consistent.

 Melissia wrote:
When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

Melissia wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported.

When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

You may be thinking of me; and I disagreed with your implication that we should sympathize with the deserter on the grounds that she is a woman and you think we would have sympathized more had the deserter been a man.

Well, Canada doesn't need other countries deserters. That's the only good I see in this story.

Shadowbrand wrote:Well, Canada doesn't need other countries deserters. That's the only good I see in this story.

Had the soldier been drafted, I'd have welcomed her. But that's not the case, so... no.

Oh, no. I read the story before I spoke up.


*Returns to milling about the elections*


Actually. Wouldn't women not be drafted but every 18+ Male that was combat worthy? I'm only going by information i've heard said by American friends.

 Shadowbrand wrote:
Oh, no. I read the story before I spoke up.


*Returns to milling about the elections*


Actually. Wouldn't women not be drafted but every 18+ Male that was combat worthy? I'm only going by information i've heard said by American friends.

Yeah, but there is a viewpoint that if women are given the same combat roles as men they should also have to sign up for the Selective Service.

As the law stands, women can't be drafted.

 CptJake wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The point of this article was NOT a Soldier Deserted. It was a Female Mother Deserted and Sought Asylum and was Deported.

When you agree with what I say, why are you acting like you disagree with what I say?

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Ah, sorry Jake. I'm just so used to disagreeing with you that I have no clue how to react whenever that's not the case


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but there is a viewpoint that if women are given the same combat roles as men they should also have to sign up for the Selective Service.

I share that viewpoint. With equal rights comes equal responsibility.

We can't just lazily demand rights and then not accept the responsibilities that come with it. It's also why I encourage my friends to vote as well, even the ones I disagree with. Women worked hard to earn that right. It seems wrong not to practice it, even when elections seem hopelessly pointless.

I believe that women having to register for the draft is somewhere in congress, I for one welcome the change.

I still dont get why, They will never instate the draft. In this world of personal liberties, it would be a major gakstorm.

And if women are added to the draft, they'll be even LESS likely to do so.

Win-win, in my opinion.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I still dont get why, They will never instate the draft. In this world of personal liberties, it would be a major gakstorm.

Its not adding a draft, its simply adding women to the Selective Service. Which is the database for a draft if one was needed.

Currently every able bodied male, both citizens and non-citizen immigrants, between the age of 18 and 30 is required to register with the Selective Service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
And if women are added to the draft, they'll be even LESS likely to do so.

Win-win, in my opinion.

Women being part of a draft doesn't make it less likely IMO. Only less likely that any one particular person would get selected in the event of a draft as you are effectively doubling the participants.

If a full scale war breaks out where a draft is needed there won't be hesitation.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I still dont get why, They will never instate the draft. In this world of personal liberties, it would be a major gakstorm.

Because when it comes to issues of historic gender inequality, appearance actually counts in moot issues.

I dunno GT. Our military is built upon volunteers right now. It'd take some preparation to change it to conscription again.

Although I assume that someone in the military has a plan for that somewhere.

Of course it does. The draft is the equivalent of a fire alarm. You probably won't need it, but you still have it and know how to use it when the gak hits the high speed impeller.

 Melissia wrote:
I dunno GT. Our military is built upon volunteers right now. It'd take some preparation to change it to conscription again.

Although I assume that someone in the military has a plan for that somewhere.

Well duh. I'd bet the switch could be made in only a few hours though, a couple days at most.

Although I don't see how there is a huge difference in how you would treat draftees vs volunteers as far as training them. The only difference is volume.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I dunno GT. Our military is built upon volunteers right now. It'd take some preparation to change it to conscription again.

Although I assume that someone in the military has a plan for that somewhere.

Well duh. I'd bet the switch could be made in only a few hours though, a couple days at most.

Although I don't see how there is a huge difference in how you would treat draftees vs volunteers as far as training them. The only difference is volume.

It would actually take place over the period of months to years. First, the decision is made to do so. Next, additional training capacity has to be grown (currently the military dedicates the amount of gear and trainers and training area and barracks space etc... that they need for the current number of recruits. All that needs to be ramped up. Additionally, you will need units for all the draftees to go to, that means new units need to be stood up, which means cadres of NCOs and Officers need to be organized to accept al the draftees into the newly stood up units. Oh, and all these units need to be equipped and housed (office space, motor pools, barracks and so on). All this takes time...

Of course this assumes you are using draftees to significantly grow the military for some gawd awful contingency... If you just want to replace the current all volunteer force it is slightly easier. A really, REALLY bad idea, but slightly easier.

I know her lawyer. In the last year alone he has represented quite a few male soldiers who went AWOL, and that is just for him alone. All those were covered in the media, just from that one lawyer alone. And none of them were posted on Dakka.

That doesn't prove that people here are only upset because she's a woman, but it is interesting that nobody seemed to be interested enough to post all the stories from his male clients.

Edit: looks like I missed a page and we may have moved away from that part of the discussion, so feel free to ignore me...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Although I don't see how there is a huge difference in how you would treat draftees vs volunteers as far as training them. The only difference is volume.

So you mean you don't see how you'd treat unprepared, unwilling participants who had other plans and were suddenly chosen arbitrarily to do something else.. differently than someone who planned to join the military, did so willingly, and WANTS to be in it?

As far as training, no difference I can see.

Shock horror, the contract that was fully explained to you and that you could have backed out of at any time before signing requires you to kill people and stay in the military? If only somebody had told that woman at some point so she didn't have to sign!

Also, she needs to learn what a refugee is. A refugee is somebody who is driven out of their home by disaster or war, and who has nowhere to go. She is somebody who signed a legal contract that she fully understood and knew she couldn't back out of and then learned she didn't like doing it. Something's askew there.

Yeah, No, If you are forced into something you dont like, then you will be more harder to work with. I know this comparison is teneous. But like people who dont want to be in Highschool, They are hard to work with.

 Grey Templar wrote:
As far as training, no difference I can see.

I don't see how there couldn't be a difference?

The mentality of an unprepared, unwilling conscript is far different from that of a mentally prepared and willing volunteer. People who want to volunteer often become physically fit BEFORE joining, making basic training courses able to be shorter than for conscripts, where they have to whip them in to shape as well as prepare them for the mentality of fighting. That or you'd have to lower your standards considerably. Furthermore, you'd end up with more discipline and morale problems compared to an all-volunteer army.

The only way I could imagine the draft ever being activated is if we're invaded by massive amounts of Chinese forces or something. I don't even think it'd be activated then, it's probable that in that situation they'd get a massive influx of new volunteers anyway.

If said volunteers were of the same physical fitness as a conscript would there really be a difference in the additional training required?

It doesn't seem like the differences mentioned are enough to mandate a massive shift in how recruits are trained. Especially since we must have a plan already for how to accommodate them.

Seems like it would be a huge weakness for our armed forces to have completely different training programs for volunteer vs conscript soldiers.

everybody in the military is held to a same standard scale, PT tests are scored based on gender and age.

All other training is the same regardless of individual, but are all held to the same requirements.

If the US military was to ever have to train draftees, then it would be in a time of war, and training would likely be streamlined to get recruits to AIT as quick as possible.

standards would be maintained and tempo increased and discipline would be the same across the board , likely would just be more guys put on fire watch, and a lot more MPs patrolling the base looking for AWOLs and or missing soldiers, since desertion in a time of war is usually a big deal.

I think it's highly unlikely the US will ever see a draft again; as if the US were ever fighting on its own soil, I suspect that the number of volunteers would likely be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50%+ of the entire 18-30 demographic. And I doubt either party would be willing to commit political suicide followed by a 4-5 term exile by invoking a draft for a foreign war ever again. Nor could the government possibly get away with another blatantly disingenuous action like the Vietnam draft (which has sometimes been interpreted as a horrible let's-get-rid-of-the-darkies plot, given the disproportionate draft numbers).

WWII only even needed a draft because its prior generation had been so soured by WWI's trench warfare that many families actively discouraged military enrollment; which is obviously not the situation nowadays considering the general reverence for military sevice in American culture.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nor could the government possibly get away with another blatantly disingenuous action like the Vietnam draft (which has sometimes been interpreted as a horrible let's-get-rid-of-the-darkies plot, given the disproportionate draft numbers).

I really REALLY wish folks would quit spreading that myth.

American Casualties by Race:


Race Recorded Casualties
Native American 226
Caucasian 50,120
Malayan 252
Mongolian 116
Negro 7,264
Unknown 215
Totals 58,193

http://www.militaryfactory.com/vietnam/casualties.asp

DRAFTEES VS. VOLUNTEERS...
•25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII.
•Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.
•Reservists killed: 5,977
•National Guard: 6,140 served: 101 died.
•Total draftees (1965 - 73): 1,728,344.
•Actually served in Vietnam: 38%
•Marine Corps Draft: 42,633.
•Last man drafted: June 30, 1973.

RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND...
•88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.
•86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
•170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.
•70% of enlisted men killed were of North-west European descent.
•86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
•14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
•34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
•Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
•Religion of Dead: Protestant -- 64.4%; Catholic -- 28.9%; other/none -- 6.7%

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS...
•76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds.
•Thee-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds.
•Some 23% of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations.
•79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better when they entered the military service. (63% of Korean War vets and only 45% of WWII vets had completed high school upon separation.)
•Deaths by region per 100,000 of population: South -- 31%, West -- 29.9%; Midwest -- 28.4%; Northeast -- 23.5%.

http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm

Frankly this is really NOT supportive of a 'let's-get-rid-of-the-darkies plot'. Not even close.

I hear you Cptjake, that wonderful bit of hype was a product of the 60s/ 70s era media, and was endorsed by many as fact, but as your sources show is not really the case.

Now a MOS breakdown based on race/gender would likely show some facts that the media may not enjoy..but no sense getting into that can of worms.

 Jihadin wrote:
1. Conscientis Objector part. She was never informed. BS on that. You get ask that question at MEPPS

They're just reporting what happened. Her lawyer made a claim and they reported that the lawyer made the claim. It's not particularly ethical of a reporter to decide if that claim is right or not.

CptJake wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Nor could the government possibly get away with another blatantly disingenuous action like the Vietnam draft (which has sometimes been interpreted as a horrible let's-get-rid-of-the-darkies plot, given the disproportionate draft numbers).

I really REALLY wish folks would quit spreading that myth.

The numbers quoted from your cited websites do not correlate with those of the US census bureau, which lists the AA population of the US in the early 1960s at 10.5%, whereas 12.5% of draftees were AA. That's a wildly disproportionate percentage. However, I'm not about to start a thread on that, as I don't particularly believe race was the motivation. I think that AAs were disproportionately scooped up in the draft due to socioeconomic reasons rather than race.


My overall point was that ever seeing another draft again is highly unlikely.

Your census bureau numbers don't cover the "percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population" part, they just cover total percentage.

But nice try.

I concur that a draft is highly unlikely, and hope we never see one again.

CptJake wrote:Your census bureau numbers don't cover the "percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population" part, they just cover total percentage.

But nice try.

I concur that a draft is highly unlikely, and hope we never see one again.

I'm quite skeptical that a subset of 10.5% could amount to 13.5%, but I also don't feel like dragging this further off-topic, so you can have this one, as I've said before that I don't really buy into the race-based selection theory.

I think the old rule always needs to apply:

When joining the military, everything in your personal life should be squared away. If you can't square it away, then write it off. Trying to juggle relationship stressors with military stressors is a recipe for disaster.

I just mourn for the lost, promising career of a 30 year-old PFC.