As odd as it may seem (or maybe not,) I am replying to one of my own replies. (?)
Anyway, the main ( an probably only) reason that the incidences of A.W.O.L. are low, is because where are they going to go?
Leilani Wright <plantagenetregina1157@...> wrote:
As a former member of the Great Marine Corps, I must hasten to agree and add some clarification. In military parlance, A.W.O.L. means exactly what those four letters stand for; absent without leave. I cannot remember the time length that must elapse before this ceases to be a relatively minor offense, and becomes desertion.( I think that it is twelve months, and my information says that GWB was gone for eleven.) Desertion is a serious offense, with grave consequences. I do not, emphatically speaking, like, admire, trust, respect or otherwise generate any positive feelings for our "so-called" Commander-in-chief, however, his crime was not desertion. If it was, during war-time, he could have been shot, or minimally sent to break rocks at Leavenworth. Just a further point of clarification, although I was a Marine (once one, always one,) I do not support the current events other than anguishing for my brethen over there that are sitting ducks.
'Nec mihi vera loqui pudor est'
Bruce Cohen <brucedcohen@...> wrote:
It's important to stick to the facts.
Otherwise the anti-war message will be obscured by inaccuracies
and people not belonging to the 'choir' will find you less than
I give you two examples:
1. The AWOL numbers are not very high at all.
2. George W. Bush did not desert ever.
There is plenty not to like about war, and this war in specific,
without passing on bad information. This stuff is just like
the allegations that Halliburton was depriving US soldiers
of water so they were dying of heat prostration.
As Libertarians, we are already perceived as conspiracy theory
crackpots that will believe and repeat anything.
Let's not prove the public right.