1
   

2000 Reservists Resisting "Back Door Draft"

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:12 pm
Not a straw man, Timber.

Just because the levels are the highest in history doesn't make them intelligent; just smarter than those who came before them, if only slightly.

Also, what with the GI bill and college the levels of education you see today are higher than they were in the past. However, this doesn't matter in the slightest! Noone at the age of 18 or 19 has the slightest clue what their life will be like in 15-20 years, no matter how educated they are, so to say they 'knew the consequences' is really somewhat false. They may have seen the words on paper, but I somewhat doubt they understood what it would feel like to get a IRR letter handed to them and have to wonder how their family is going to work from now on...

If recruitment levels are so damn good (though we did lower them) why are we doing this, anyways?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:16 pm
dare2think wrote:
It is not for life, when you get out you are out, Do you people think the military owns these people for the rest of their life? When you serve your term you are out, discharged.


No it is not, just for the term of the contract you voluntarily sign when you enlist.
0 Replies
 
dare2think
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:17 pm
Larry434 wrote:
dare2think wrote:
It is not for life, when you get out you are out, Do you people think the military owns these people for the rest of their life? When you serve your term you are out, discharged.


No it is not, just for the term of the contract you voluntarily sign when you enlist.

When you serve your term you are discharged.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:49 pm
dare2think wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
dare2think wrote:
It is not for life, when you get out you are out, Do you people think the military owns these people for the rest of their life? When you serve your term you are out, discharged.


No it is not, just for the term of the contract you voluntarily sign when you enlist.

When you serve your term you are discharged.


But of course. What is your point?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:01 pm
dare2think wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
dare2think wrote:
It is not for life, when you get out you are out, Do you people think the military owns these people for the rest of their life? When you serve your term you are out, discharged.


No it is not, just for the term of the contract you voluntarily sign when you enlist.

When you serve your term you are discharged.


You are also told that you can be called up in a time of need. That need is used when certain jobs in the military are short handed and need more people.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:04 pm
What d2k does not understand is that many have a Reserve obligation after the active duty obligation is fulfilled, and that many opt to continue in the Reserve after that obligation is completed for the benefits thereof.

Those are the ones subject to callup for active duty, not those who have completed all their obligations.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:10 pm
I am set to be done with my first enlistment in 2008. If I chose to not reenlist in the military, I have 2 years IRR to complete. Anytime in the 2-year time frame I can be called to serve again.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:24 pm
Baldimo wrote:
I am set to be done with my first enlistment in 2008. If I chose to not reenlist in the military, I have 2 years IRR to complete. Anytime in the 2-year time frame I can be called to serve again.



And of course you can sign up to continue your IRR status and continue to be subject to recall.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:38 pm
Straw man indeed, Cyc. Preference and perception have nothing whatsoever to do with law. By law, one is obligated to the terms of an agreed and accepted contract which fulfills all disclosure requirements, period. No other consideration applies. Not knowing, or not understanding, the law, whether as pertaining to parking regulations or to contractual obligation simply, and by law, is no defense. That's the law, whether one might recognize or agree with it or not. A change of mood pursuant to unexpected unpleasant circumstances is wholly irrelevant to the concept of personal responsibility.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:45 pm
I should add that those 18 and older feel quite strongly that they possess the maturity, responsibility, and understanding nescessary to qualify them to influence the political course of events. It is absurd to contend one might be worthy of participating in the electoral process yet be incapable of understanding the ramifications and potentialities of one's own actions. It can't be had both ways.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:19 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I should add that those 18 and older feel quite strongly that they possess the maturity, responsibility, and understanding nescessary to qualify them to influence the political course of events. It is absurd to contend one might be worthy of participating in the electoral process yet be incapable of understanding the ramifications and potentialities of one's own actions. It can't be had both ways.


I would tend to agree, which is why I think that the drinking age is assinine. But that's another topic altogether...
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 02:38 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
I should add that those 18 and older feel quite strongly that they possess the maturity, responsibility, and understanding nescessary to qualify them to influence the political course of events. It is absurd to contend one might be worthy of participating in the electoral process yet be incapable of understanding the ramifications and potentialities of one's own actions. It can't be had both ways.


I would tend to agree, which is why I think that the drinking age is assinine. But that's another topic altogether...


Yeah, we've got the drinking age and the driving age reversed. Let 'em learn about drunk driving on their bicycles.

Edit: This sounded snippy when I re-read it, but I'm serious.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 03:17 pm
Frankly, I don't much care what the statutory drinking age might be. The glamorization affect of such artificial, and IMO arbitrary, restriction, simply encourages those most at risk to pursue the practice; if not for its illegality it likely would have far less appeal.

Nor do I think mere citizenship and statutory adulthood to be legitimate qualifiers for the combined privilege and responsibilty of voting. I think it absurd one must demonstrate knowlege of the rules of the road and competence behind the wheel to legally operate a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares, yet one qualified only by accident of birth be deemed entitled to be among those who drive the course of The Nation.

I would not advocate that suffrage be granted only to independently self-supported, real-property-owning, tax-paying citizens who have satisfactorily fulfilled a public service obligation (military, civil, or faith-based, no matter) and have demonstrated minimal competence in the matter of governance; I see no valid reason to discriminate against responsible and otherwise fully qualified renters.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 03:28 pm
Baldimo wrote
Quote:
We don't need that many people because enlistment is at a high as well as reenlistment.


That being the case why the stop lose and yes the back door draft?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 04:01 pm
au1929 wrote:
Baldimo wrote
Quote:
We don't need that many people because enlistment is at a high as well as reenlistment.


That being the case why the stop lose and yes the back door draft?


As I noted, they are doing it to fill certain MOS's they people are not choosing to enter.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 04:30 pm
Baldimo's right. Most of the Reservists being recalled are being recalled because they already have a skill which the military taught them. As newly-trained enlistees are sent overseas, it is more efficient to replace them with people who already know how to run, say, a given communications system. It would be more expensive and more time-consuming to send people to train at, say, Fort Gordon rather than put experienced signalmen into their seats. These folks aren't being recalled to be cannon-fodder in any sense.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 05:58 pm
This war has been going on for what two years. That would have been time enough to train the needed people. If of course they were available thru enlistment's to train. That aside why are the stop loss procedures in place. Infantrymen, MP's and, etc., are easy enough to train. If, of course as they have been claiming that enlistment's and reenlistments are plentiful.
Somehow their actions do not fit their words. .
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:00 pm
au, enlistment rates fulfill the quotas established and authorized by Congress. Absent specific authorization of additional billets and the requisite funding, the Military is recruiting and enrolling all the new enlistees it is permitted by law. Likewise, authorized re-enlistment quotas are being met by every branch.

Unrecognized in your contention is that the Stop-Loss and Reserve Special Activation numbers amount to but a few thousand out of a military Active Duty and Reserve combined establishment of nearly 5 Million ... roughly 1.4 Million Active Duty, 3.25 Million Reserve and Guard, per The United States Department of Defense, and that the predominant occupational specialties and ratings involved in the extensions and callups precisely are among those requiring years of training and experience.

The affected personnel are a small fraction of the overall Force Structure, and largely comprise an experience and qualification pool that is unique and induplicable.

All that aside, the bottom line is that every one of the affected personnel signed on the bottom line, affirming among other things they had read, understood, and assented to each and every particular of the contract, and acknowledged receipt of copy thereof, that they were freely signing.

By law, thats the end of the argument.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 08:36 am
What I find interesting is that in 2002 the army revised it's stop loss so that fewer reservist and military people ready for retirement and so forth are affected by the stop loss. And then in 2004 changed it's policy back again. I think there is really only one reasonable explanation and that is we are over stretched because of the useless war in Iraq.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=980

Quote:
Stop-Loss Policy Revised, Fewer Sailors Affected
Story Number: NNS020304-08
3/4/2002
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Fewer Sailors are now affected by stop-loss following a review of the Navy's skill-mix of those required to forego separation from the service to support the current war on terrorism.

Stop-loss was imposed Oct. 10, 2001, and originally affected 9,352 personnel. This revision reduces the number of affected Sailors to 4,036: 2,878 enlisted and 1,158 officers. It represents a 57-percent reduction to the number of Sailors affected by stop-loss.

Data collected since stop-loss was enacted shows the original skill-mix was not needed to meet current needs. Current and projected operational requirements and the manning of deployable units propelled the decision to remove several special warfare designators and medical field specialties from the list.

Personnel in the following fields are essential to the current mission and are still retained under the stop-loss policy: security, law enforcement and cryptology specialists, and those with certain language skills.

"Each community with affected personnel was represented during the review process," said Vice Adm. Norb Ryan Jr., Chief of Naval Personnel.


http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6013

Quote:
ARMY ANNOUNCES CHANGE TO THE ACTIVE ARMY (AA) UNIT STOP LOSS/STOP MOVEMENT PROGRAM
June 2, 2004
On June 01, 2004, Mr. Reginald Brown, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) decided to implement the AA Unit Stop Loss/Stop Movement policy. This policy affects all units designated to deploy outside the continental United States (OCONUS) to participate in future OIF and OEF operational missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Continuing personnel losses caused by routine rotational policies have the potential to adversely impact training, cohesion, and stability in future OIF and OEF deploying units. To ensure our formations remain a cohesive element throughout their deployment it is necessary to stop personnel losses from the deploying units until after they return to their permanent duty stations.

Preliminary analysis of gains and losses indicates that without Stop Loss an Army division will require the reassignment of over 4,000 Soldiers from other units to achieve a complete reset of the division and ensure a deployable strength of 100%. Based on this information and rather than announcing an AA Unit Stop Loss/Stop Movement program prior to each rotation, the Army made this change to the AA Stop Loss/Stop Movement programs for OIF and OEF units. There is no change to the November 2002 Reserve Component Stop Loss program.


So I guess what they are saying here is that people in the military are being made to serve longer than their terms but the reservist are still being given special circumstances reviews to see if they have to serve or not in Iraq.

The point to all is that None of this would be necessary had we just stuck to defending our nation which is what we are supposed to do instead of invading other countries based on lies and shaky information gatherered from unreliable informants and spies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2004 08:43 am
Being pro-active in the defense of our nation is a wise move. Being reactionary only gets Americans killed.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/14/2025 at 06:51:08