Msterbeau Posted January 29, 2006 Posted January 29, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060129/pl_nm/...usa_stoploss_dc
Msterbeau Posted January 29, 2006 Author Posted January 29, 2006 Further backround/opinion/info on the topic: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18868 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04354/428660.stm http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/an...volunteer.shtml This pretty well sums up my feelings on the topic: "I won't challenge the assertion that these stop-loss orders are legal. A friend of mine who used to be in the Army told me that the enlistment contract has so many loopholes that military lawyers can justify just about anything imaginable. But I'll still say that it's a crappy thing to do. As has often been observed on this forum, an action can be worthy of criticism even while we acknowledge that it was legally valid, and perhaps even consistent with a voluntarily signed contract. Rumsfeld has every right to extend their service, and I have every right to criticize Rumsfeld."
Hellion Posted January 29, 2006 Posted January 29, 2006 Further backround/opinion/info on the topic: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18868 http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04354/428660.stm http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/an...volunteer.shtml This pretty well sums up my feelings on the topic: "I won't challenge the assertion that these stop-loss orders are legal. A friend of mine who used to be in the Army told me that the enlistment contract has so many loopholes that military lawyers can justify just about anything imaginable. But I'll still say that it's a crappy thing to do. As has often been observed on this forum, an action can be worthy of criticism even while we acknowledge that it was legally valid, and perhaps even consistent with a voluntarily signed contract. Rumsfeld has every right to extend their service, and I have every right to criticize Rumsfeld." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> :devil Yeah definately crappy.
Steven Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 none of this is new, its always been this way in the military, just not talked about. anyone can be extended, or even recalled. once a soldier always a soldier.......
Shade Everdark Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 none of this is new, its always been this way in the military, just not talked about. anyone can be extended, or even recalled. once a soldier always a soldier....... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heh, try telling my father that.
ZhukovCodeslinger Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 This has been happening alot... anyone remember when Ed McMahon left the tonight show to go to Iraq for Desert Storm? He got activated as a Marine. My brothers division will probably be calling him back when they redeploy to Iraq sometime this year...
Msterbeau Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 People are going to think twice about signing up knowing that this is the case. I predict recruiting numbers will go down even more then they have recently. For people that go in for life, it doesn't matter at all, but for the vast majority, that's not the case, and can't think of too many people who are going to sign a piece of paper that basically means squat. Which, of course, opens up that can of worms called "the draft".
Hellion Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 :devil What I've heard not sure how true that they can draft you above the age of 60,in which most people in this country would be killed in the name of oil,my opinion.
The_Dark Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Why is it that people on the left are always bringing up the draft? Just a question. I noticed before the last election that talk of the draft was rampant. All kinds of wild speculation on how the Republicans were going to screw everyone by reinstating the draft as soon as Bush was relected... and the only memebers of Congress that tried to pass the Draft were Democrats.... Good thing the republicans voted it down. Anyway.. Enlistment and the Draft stop at age 35. On the real topic.. People sign contracts all the time without understadning what they say or even botheirng to read them. If they are unhappy with the results... maybe they should read and understand things before they sign them.
Msterbeau Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 Why is it that people on the left are always bringing up the draft? Just a question. I noticed before the last election that talk of the draft was rampant. All kinds of wild speculation on how the Republicans were going to screw everyone by reinstating the draft as soon as Bush was relected... and the only memebers of Congress that tried to pass the Draft were Democrats.... Good thing the republicans voted it down. Anyway.. Enlistment and the Draft stop at age 35. On the real topic.. People sign contracts all the time without understadning what they say or even botheirng to read them. If they are unhappy with the results... maybe they should read and understand things before they sign them. I wouldn't call the draft "screwing everyone". More like: distributing the responsibility to everyone. It's been said before, that if our nations leaders and captains of industry faced the possibility that their children could die serving their country, they might be a little more circumspect about supporting military actions. I'm torn on the subject. I'm rational enough to understand that in order to properly defend a country of this size takes a fairly large, well-trained armed forces... and they need to be ready on a fairly short notice. Relying on a volunteer system can put this readiness at risk due to manpower shortages. The opposite side of the coin says: What significant threats exists anymore? And why should we spend so much damn money on it when their are many other pressing needs? As for the contracts people sign... It takes a fucking lawyer to understand the implications of much of what we sign anymore. They write these contracts to the advantage of their client, knowing full well that the person signing it will not apply the lawyer's thought process to decyphering it. YOU might be smart/experienced enough to figure it out, but I'd bet against most 18 years olds doing so....
The_Dark Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 What significant threats exists anymore? And why should we spend so much damn money on it when their are many other pressing needs? 1. China 2. North Korea 3. Iran 4. Syria 5. Pakistan 6. Russia 7. Terrorists 8. Free Radicals (various small, poor countries that were part of the USSR) 9. South America 10. Mexico (We are already at war... America just likes to close it's eyes and pretend we are not.) A volunteer force is far more affective than a conscripted force. Unity of purpose in an army is far more important than the weapons they carry or the training they receive. I was 17 when I joined. I read and understood my contract. Then again, I joined because I felt it was my duty... not to pay for college. I'll say it again, if you don't want to fight in a war.. don't join the military. If you do join, don't bitch when your told you actually have to live up to your end of the deal.
The_Dark Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Something else those articles seems to not mention.... When you sign up for the military, no matter the branch, you sign up for 8 years. You may sign up for a 3 year tour of active duty... but your in the military for 8 years. That is explained to you when you sign up.
phee Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 1. China2. North Korea 3. Iran 4. Syria 5. Pakistan 6. Russia 7. Terrorists 8. Free Radicals (various small, poor countries that were part of the USSR) 9. South America 10. Mexico (We are already at war... America just likes to close it's eyes and pretend we are not.) A volunteer force is far more affective than a conscripted force. Unity of purpose in an army is far more important than the weapons they carry or the training they receive. I was 17 when I joined. I read and understood my contract. Then again, I joined because I felt it was my duty... not to pay for college. I'll say it again, if you don't want to fight in a war.. don't join the military. If you do join, don't bitch when your told you actually have to live up to your end of the deal. I agree 100% if you join the military, you might be involved with war... duh
Msterbeau Posted January 30, 2006 Author Posted January 30, 2006 I agree 100% if you join the military, you might be involved with war... duh Yeah... I'm not arguing that. People are truly dumb if they think they just get to make their college tuition $$ and then run. I didn't know about the eight year thing, Mark. Good Point. More to follow on the threats you mention...
CandyQuackenbush Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Yeah... I'm not arguing that. People are truly dumb if they think they just get to make their college tuition $$ and then run. I didn't know about the eight year thing, Mark. Good Point. More to follow on the threats you mention... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats the many joys of the Reserves. People get that tuition, and think that "Hey, they can't touch me now, I have school." I know about 40 people that got plucked out of school for OIF 3. Odims can probably say the same. If I get called back up, oh well. If I get called up after I am out of the Army, oh well. I don't believe in the theory of "Once a soldier, always a soldier." I believe that this is a job that is never done until your dead.
ZhukovCodeslinger Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 History of Draft Instituted by FDR in 1940 Active drafting Ended after WW2 (the draft was in effect only to fill vacant slots not filled by volunteers. Full wartime draft Reinstated in 1969 by Lyndon B. Johnson (inherited by Nixon) Draft ended under Nixon and selective service ended too.... Selective Service registering reinstated by Jimmy Carter in 1980. As of today, we still have to register and if a draft is reenstated we (adult males) would have to go. unless we were disqualified for somthing... Which is not hard. Before Congress made improvements to the draft in 1971, a man could qualify for a student deferment if he could show he was a full-time student making satisfactory progress toward a degree. Under the current draft law, a college student can have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior can be postponed until the end of the academic year. If a draft were held today, local boards would better represent the communities they serve. The changes in the new draft law made in 1971 included the provision that membership on the boards was required to be as representative as possible of the racial and national origin of registrants in the area served by the board. A draft held today would use a lottery to determine the order of call. Before the lottery was implemented in the latter part of the Vietnam conflict, Local Boards called men classified 1-A, 18 1/2 through 25 years old, oldest first. This resulted in uncertainty for the potential draftees during the entire time they were within the draft-eligible age group. A draft held today would use a lottery system under which a man would spend only one year in first priority for the draft - either the calendar year he turned 20 or the year his deferment ended. Each year after that, he would be placed in a succeedingly lower priority group and his liability for the draft would lessen accordingly. In this way, he would be spared the uncertainty of waiting until his 26th birthday to be certain he would not be drafted.
ZhukovCodeslinger Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Woo I can't be drafted! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unless they change the rules... they could draft you up to 45 years old
Steven Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Heh, try telling my father that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey Dad: once a soldier always a soldier. (spoken by a soldier)
Soulrev Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Yes Mark is right on that, you do have to serve 8 years as a reserve when you sign up. Chameleon said people are stupid if they sign up and think they're gunna get easy college.. He's right. There's a lot of good reasons to join the military, school isn't one of them unless you fully understand what you're really going to be doing. I'm doing it for reasons I know a lot of you will never understand, simply from what I've heard here before.
Shade Everdark Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Hey Dad: once a soldier always a soldier.(spoken by a soldier) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He'd laugh at you.
Steven Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 He'd laugh at you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'd laugh back. Did my time. Know the drill. Soldier On Dad, you've known since day 1. Deal.
Steven Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Yes Mark is right on that, you do have to serve 8 years as a reserve when you sign up. Chameleon said people are stupid if they sign up and think they're gunna get easy college.. He's right. There's a lot of good reasons to join the military, school isn't one of them unless you fully understand what you're really going to be doing. I'm doing it for reasons I know a lot of you will never understand, simply from what I've heard here before. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> it used to be 6 years. Either a 4 and 2 split (acitve for 4 - inactive reserve for two) or a 3 and 3. Changed in the late 80's. A forecaste of things to come. This is not the forst time this sort of thign has happend by the way. My wife came very close to having to go to Desert Storm because of her medical training. She had been a civilian by then for quite some time.
Steven Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 It was 8 years in 1984 when I signed up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I also enlisted in 84. As did my wife (in Detroit). I got the 3 and 3. She got a 4 and 2.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.