SDN has Found an "interesting" Board

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:01 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote: To offer a pre-emptive olive branch towards any disagreement there, the answers to those questions are very different depending on what country you're in - and for a country with a large military, which branch you're talking about.

And then, regarding the first question, still vary fairly substantially.
People join the military for any number of reasons. But to suggest that someone would actually join to expose the shitty aspect is pretty out there. There's alot easier ways to do it, the US media seems to do a fine job of it aided by whistleblowers. You'd have to be pretty dedicated to go through all the various modes of bullshit the military puts you through just so you could wait for something unsavory to happen to you that you could report. You'd then risk a dishounarable discharge for your actions and wind up working menial jos for the rest of your life thanks to your actions.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:03 am

Cpl Kendall wrote:But to suggest that someone would actually join to expose the shitty aspect is pretty out there.
Well, no one's quite said that. Narsil's talking about joining to fabricate shit. I'm talking about Beauchamp.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp "hates the army. The only reason he joined was because he wanted to have more experience to write about.”

It was only later, I presume, that he and his new wife and whoever else concocted the idea of Beauchamp's faux non-fiction regarding his claimed activities in Iraq.

I suppose you could make the claim that he was just biding his time from the day he joined, expecting to see US atrocities that he could make a mint off of via writing about them, but that's a little far-fetched.
You'd have to be pretty dedicated to go through all the various modes of reasonable the military puts you through just so you could wait for something unsavory to happen to you that you could report.
Exactly, which is why Beauchamp didn't bother to wait.
You'd then risk a dishounarable discharge for your actions
Why would the person care?
and wind up working menial jos for the rest of your life thanks to your actions.
How? It's not like all employers blacklist people who get a dishonorable discharge.

I'd say it rather depends on the company . . . I'd wager some journalistic entities would jump at the idea.

watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:51 am

You might want to see what PVT Beauchamp had to say about this whole deal;
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=128957

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:44 pm

2046 wrote:
Well, no one's quite said that. Narsil's talking about joining to fabricate shit. I'm talking about Beauchamp.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp "hates the army. The only reason he joined was because he wanted to have more experience to write about.”

It was only later, I presume, that he and his new wife and whoever else concocted the idea of Beauchamp's faux non-fiction regarding his claimed activities in Iraq.

I suppose you could make the claim that he was just biding his time from the day he joined, expecting to see US atrocities that he could make a mint off of via writing about them, but that's a little far-fetched.
Pajama's Media, you got anything more repuable than that? Why don't you just post a blog?


Exactly, which is why Beauchamp didn't bother to wait.
Umm, ok.....

Why would the person care?
Because you'd never be able to hold a decent job ever again, you couldn't even be bonded. You do know what happens when you get a dishonourable discharge right?

How? It's not like all employers blacklist people who get a dishonorable discharge.

I'd say it rather depends on the company . . . I'd wager some journalistic entities would jump at the idea.
A dishonourable discharge is a blacklist, practically no one will touch you after that, and it's a pretty serious no-no not to disclose it upon hiring. It shows that you are a very unreliable person.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:24 am

Cpl Kendall wrote: A dishonourable discharge is a blacklist, practically no one will touch you after that, and it's a pretty serious no-no not to disclose it upon hiring. It shows that you are a very unreliable person.
Any proof of that? With the amount of people who don't give a shit about the army, and those who downright hate it, even such a bold move would find fans.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:29 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Any proof of that? With the amount of people who don't give a shit about the army, and those who downright hate it, even such a bold move would find fans.
The whole point of a dishonourable discharge is that it fraks you over for life. Sure there's people that will take you but I wouldn't expect to go far. Hell you can't even be bonded.

*Edit: Here's something from Wikipedia which specificaly mention that it makes finding employment difficult. Frankly I'm not sure what you want because this is such a basic concept that it shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Last edited by Cpl Kendall on Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:33 pm

What do you mean with "Hell you can't even be bonded."?

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:34 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:What do you mean with "Hell you can't even be bonded."?
You don't know what it means to be "bonded"?

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:37 pm

The meanings I think to know, don't make sense in that context - or at least I don't think, that they would make sense.

Cpl Kendall
Jedi Knight
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Cpl Kendall » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:41 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:The meanings I think to know, don't make sense in that context - or at least I don't think, that they would make sense.
Bonding is a clearance prcedure that security guards go through to determine their fitness for their job, IE: reliability. With a dishonourable discharge on your record you cannot be bonded. So you can't even get a job as a Brinks guard and they only pay 13$ an hour.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:51 pm

Thank you.

Such a meaning is not listed in my dictionary.

I have thought, it may have something to do with betrothal or marriage. But it would go a little bit far, if you can't marry because of a dishonourable discharge.
Merriam Webster Online wrote:Main Entry: bond·ing
Pronunciation: \ˈbän-diŋ\
Function: noun
Date: 1969

1 : the formation of a close relationship (as between a mother and child or between a person and an animal) especially through frequent or constant association
2 : the attaching of a material (as porcelain) to a tooth surface especially for cosmetic purposes

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:11 pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Any proof of that? With the amount of people who don't give a shit about the army, and those who downright hate it, even such a bold move would find fans.
The whole point of a dishonourable discharge is that it fraks you over for life. Sure there's people that will take you but I wouldn't expect to go far. Hell you can't even be bonded.

*Edit: Here's something from Wikipedia which specificaly mention that it makes finding employment difficult. Frankly I'm not sure what you want because this is such a basic concept that it shouldn't be hard to grasp.
It lists desertion. Sometimes, this just strikes me as people coming to their senses, or going through some kind of breakdown.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:43 pm

Kendall is correct on the severity of being the recipient of a dishonorable discharge, at least where the U.S. and Canadian militaries are concerned. In fact, I've heard some people say that it is better to be regular civilian convicted felon than an ex-soldier with a dishonorable discharge.

Hell, there was this one guy I knew who had received merely a general discharge (neither honorable or dishonorable), which lead to employment related issues for him.

So it's not much of an exaggeration to say that anyone who actively goes into the military and does something that will probably net them a dishonorable discharge needs to be willing to be a true martyr.
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:45 pm

Is there a list of what can be held against one for dishonourable discharge?

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:20 am

watchdog wrote:You might want to see what PVT Beauchamp had to say about this whole deal;
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=128957
Funny, that . . . he apparently offered to recant his claims the very same day that self-defense posted on TNR, reportedly signing an affadavit to that effect. (TNR claims this is not so, though they also seem to leave out the fact that the Army's investigated and found nothing to support Beauchamp's claims.)

Meanwhile, the Army's investigation has concluded that "the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims."

Furthermore, even if you put on your conspiracist thinking cap and presume that he was pressured into making the offer, isn't it odd that no independent sources can be found to corroborate his tales? Why can no one matching the description of the melted-faced woman he and his buddies supposedly made fun of be found, either in Iraq or Kuwait at locations he's been? (Iraq, Kuwait . . . take your pick, since even TNR expressed doubt as to the location, despite his standing by all his claims while recanting them.)

Post Reply