au1929 wrote: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. .
Enlistment only fills the lower roles within the military. A stop/loss would affect the higher rolls in the military such as leadership positions. You don't want to lose your NCOs or Officers because they take to long to train and nothing beats experience. Someone with 10 or 15 years experience in the military is going to be a more effective leader then someone who has been in for 4 or 8 years of service. In a time such as ours, we need all the experienced leadership we can get. We soldiers appreciate the experience because we can always learn something.
I have spent too much time here while I my house begs my attention. But I don't think all these lower rank military people would be complaining of being forced to stay if they could come home when their term is over.
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.
fair enough, baldi. but the article also mentioned a guy that had served ten years and been out for seven.
any way you look at it, if enlistments are up and this is still going on, there's something wrong, right here in puckettville.
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...
i agree free d, but i do believe that it's part of the same topic. it smacks of "selective" confidence in an 18 year old's maturity.
that said, at 18 or over, you must always read the fine print. anytime someone want's you to sign a piece of paper, it will be because it's in
their best interest for you to do so.
The guy who had served ten and been out seven had elected not to resign or take a discharge, but to remain in the Reserve, doing training, gaining retirement and promotion points, taking advantage of military medical care, PX and Commissary privileges, and in general enjoyin' the life of a part-time soldier with nothin' to worry about. He thought he'd retire in 3 more years with 20 years service credit ... full pension and benefits but only ten years active duty.
He miscalculated.
Life is what sneaks up and bites you in the ass while you're busy makin' plans to the contrary.
timberlandko wrote:The guy who had served ten and been out seven had elected not to resign ....He thought he'd retire in 3 years with 20 years service credit ... full pension and benefits but only ten years active duty.
He miscalculated.
Life is what sneaks up and bites you in the ass while you're busy makin' plans to the contrary.
you betcha. however, the real issue is that this situation is one that i don't remember having happened in my lifetime. sure the reserves got called up during vietnam, and to a small extent, the guard. but this appears to be much different.
apparently he's not the only one that miscalculated. bush has already admitted as much, though not about anything specific.
If this was/is such a common thing and people should know to read the fine print why did they relax the stop loss in 2002 and then tighten it up again in 2004?
In other words once you sign up for the military either acting service or guard, it is for life.
timber, what a way to mangle John Lennon's line. :wink:
It isn't for life, it is for a certain amount of time, after you have either finished active or reserve service.
Monica Davey in The New York Times wrote:Others say they do not believe they are eligible to be returned to active duty because, they contend, they already finished the obligations they signed up for when they joined the military. A handful of such former soldiers, scattered across the country, have filed lawsuits making that claim in federal courts.
These former soldiers are not among the part-time soldiers - reservists and National Guard members - who receive paychecks and train on weekends, and who have been called up in large numbers over the last three years.
Click on the link and read pages 2 and 3.
Interestingly enough, the first lawsuits led the Army to rescind the orders calling the litigants back into service.
So it's clear the Army doesn't feel it's on solid legal footing, preferring to scare the less-than-savvy back to the base, rather than those who aren't willing --or financially able -- to bite on Uncle Sam's head fake (i.e., seek redress from the courts).
It seems like it's time for some organization to file a class action suit to invalidate all call-ups for soldiers who have already served their country honorably and completed their tours of duty.
If the Pentagon needs troops, and can't get them from the all-volunteer military, then it should be honest and institute a draft. It's poor form to screw our nation's veterans.
There are plenty of able-bodied men and women who cheer this war and voted for Bush. Let them go fight and die for their Dear Leader.
It seems like it's time for some organization to file a class action suit to invalidate all call-ups for soldiers who have already served their country honorably and completed their tours of duty.
In those cases where all enlistment contract obligations have been fulfilled, I agree. And of course, rescinding the callup orders for those filing suit until the suits are litigated is the proper response by the government.
One more time ... the need is not for fresh warm bodies, fresh out of highschool, the need is for trained, experienced specialists in a variety of fields ... specialists whose training and experience were gained at military expense while that individual was an Avtive Duty service member.
The individuals affected are in Reserve Status, either by contractual obligation, as would be the case with enlisted personnel, or by retaining ones commission, as opposed to resigning it, in the case of commissioned officers. Certain benefits accrue to officers who do not resign their commisions upon contractual separation from the military, along with those benefits come Inactive Reserve Status. Inactive means mere that the individual is not obligated to fulfill training requirements; it does not mean that individual is exempt from callup pursuant to a specific, particular need of the military.
Overlooked in thisa discussion so far, I believe, is the fact the military typically "Calls Up" significantly more Reservists than for which there is need, specifically because a large number of those individuals will, for one reason or another will be determined unfit for Active duty or be granted a waiver from the callup.
The Draft is fine for harvesting cannon fodder and channeling it to the field of slaughter. Today's highly sophisticared, technology-heavy military has no need of canno fodder, and the plain-and-simple economics of conscription render the practice useless in the current situation.
A draftee is obligated to a 2-year Active Duty stint. Training mission-capable troops for many of today's military billets requires more time than that, and for many more billets, training requirements would leave a draftee with a year or less of deployable service time. That just makes no sense whatsoever from a cost/benefit standpoint - there is insuffucient payoff for the investment. The notion that a Draft would be of any benefit to the contemporary US Military is absurd.
PDiddie wrote:timber wrote:One more time ... the need is not for fresh warm bodies, fresh out of highschool, the need is for trained, experienced specialists in a variety of fields ... specialists whose training and experience were gained at military expense while that individual was an Avtive Duty service member.
One more time...
Quote:Looking to shore up depleted combat units, the US military has enacted a controversial plan that calls for the re-activation of veterans with previous combat experience for duty in Iraq.
Pictured above, Private First Class Willie "Doughboy" Smith, receives his deployment orders prior to reporting for a one-week training exercise at Fort Benning, GA. Smith, who is 115 years old and last saw active duty in Prussia in 1917, has extensive experience with muskets and other muzzle-loaded weaponry.
World's Oldest Living Veteran Called Back to Active Duty
This administration is such a joke.
I have no idea where that send-up of the recall came from. I do remember reading no more than a couple of days ago that the world's oldest man, aged 114 just died last week. Check the Guiness Book of World Records. I think you'll find that the picture of a present-day soldier shaking hands with an old-timer (under the age of 115) is a joke and the caption probably meant as a joke.
Einherjar wrote:This administration is such a joke.
easy for
you to say... you don't have to live with him.
Should we let Merry in on the President...
...I mean, the joke?
(Click on the blue headline at the bottom of my post, MA...)
