Video of run-down barracks

[Cancel7]

Believe me, this was pointed out to them when they signed. Most believe the risk to be worth the reward.

Believe me, you weren’t there and you are just going by your own experience, but all of that is besides the point. Who claimed that it wasn’t in their contract? No one. But the fact is, you can, under this clause, and our war on terror, be kept in the military forever. That is stop loss. Not the four years on ready reserve.

And that is the point so stop trying to deflect it so your side can be “right.”

 

[evince]

Give it a fucking rest. Can you come up with ONE thing not printed in bold by the democratic national party? While I have not once claimed to speak for ALL the military, I do believe that 40 years service has given me some significant insight how the military works.

No one's contract has been extended against their will. EVERY enlistment contract includes a period of inactive reserve service, during which one can be called to active duty. The most common division is 4 years active duty and 4 years inactive reserve. It is part of the contract, and is very carefully explained to incoming recruits. Activating the reserve clause is NOT extending a contract.

As for going in poorly armed, look to your precious democratic party for that fiasco. Both the Army and the Marine Corps pushed hard for armored personnel vehicles instead of the HMMVV. But the PTBs in congress decided they know more about military matters, and determined that vehicles intended for rear area use did not have to be armored. So that is what we went to war with. Personal armor was considered by the budget people to be low priority in "peacetime", so we didn't have enough in 2003. These situations all stem from the series of military cutbacks congress made in 1990, 1992 and 1993.

Those same cuts decimated the ready reserve, cutting ready reservist personnel by 38% nation wide and active duty personnel by 14%. So once again, look to the democrats for the reason our National Guard finds itself over extended and doing multiple tours of duty.

The conditions of veteran hospitals is nothing new, though the democratic party sure as hell likes to pretend it is. the democratic party has been sweeping their anti-military shit under the rug for decades, then act all surprised when it is revealed. The hospitals and level of medical care were just as bad, in some cases worse, when the democrats were in power as they are now. I know, I spent enough time in the damned places. I have a stainless steel ass because they were too fucking ignorant and cheap to remove a bullet fragment before it destroyed my hip socket.

And just MAYBE people would not be so reluctant to join if they did not see what you modern liberals think of them. ie: calling them "stupid" for volunteering for military service. And let's not mention how certain democratic politicians refer to them as terrorists. It is the typical anti-military bullshit that took place during Viet Nam, only today it is topped with the hypocritical LIE that you support the troops. If you supported the military, your party would not have cut the military to the bone and then act surprised at the condition of the military infrastructure.

Why is it people always forget what they really say.

Yes stop loss is extending it beyond their will.

 

[Damocles]

Believe me, you weren’t there and you are just going by your own experience, but all of that is besides the point. Who claimed that it wasn’t in their contract? No one. But the fact is, you can, under this clause, and our war on terror, be kept in the military forever. That is stop loss. Not the four years on ready reserve.

And that is the point so stop trying to deflect it so your side can be “right.”

I was there, and yes I am going by my experience. There is nothing like the consistency of the military. When you go to MEPS to sign, that contract is gone over, you are there for over 8 hours just for that event. They explain all of the important nuance to you, mostly to avoid lawsuit.

I remember thinking. "Wow, if we were to go to war tomorrow after I sign this, it is possible I could be held in the military until I die of old age, or wounds, whichever comes first!"

 

[Cancel7]

I was there, and yes I am going by my experience. There is nothing like the consistency of the military. When you go to MEPS to sign, that contract is gone over, you are there for over 8 hours just for that event. They explain all of the important nuance to you, mostly to avoid lawsuit.

I remember thinking. "Wow, if we were to go to war tomorrow after I sign this, it is possible I could be held in the military until I die of old age, or wounds, whichever comes first!"

Ok damo, I'm not going to argue something that nebulous with you, the point is, that's not what the debate was about.

 

[Socrtease]

I was there, and yes I am going by my experience. There is nothing like the consistency of the military. When you go to MEPS to sign, that contract is gone over, you are there for over 8 hours just for that event. They explain all of the important nuance to you, mostly to avoid lawsuit.

I remember thinking. "Wow, if we were to go to war tomorrow after I sign this, it is possible I could be held in the military until I die of old age, or wounds, whichever comes first!"

I remember that day as well, but I was foolish enough to believe that war meant the beginning of hostilities DECLARED by congress. Especially AFTER the debacle in Vietnam. What Darla says is correct. Using the War on Terror or War on Drugs as the example, a soldier could be stop lossed for decades just because the president says we are at war. The military does then become a non volunteer military.

 

[LadyT]

I was there, and yes I am going by my experience. There is nothing like the consistency of the military. When you go to MEPS to sign, that contract is gone over, you are there for over 8 hours just for that event. They explain all of the important nuance to you, mostly to avoid lawsuit.

I remember thinking. "Wow, if we were to go to war tomorrow after I sign this, it is possible I could be held in the military until I die of old age, or wounds, whichever comes first!"

And I'm going by personal experience. Recruiters lie and at the end fo the day you're contract isn't worth a pile 'o $hit if they choose to stop loss you. Military recruiters are liars. Period.

 

[Damocles]

I remember that day as well, but I was foolish enough to believe that war meant the beginning of hostilities DECLARED by congress. Especially AFTER the debacle in Vietnam. What Darla says is correct. Using the War on Terror or War on Drugs as the example, a soldier could be stop lossed for decades just because the president says we are at war. The military does then become a non volunteer military.

Truth to tell. I was foolish enough to think that we'd not be going to war, that we had entered some strong peace era or something. Minor skirmishes... never another war.

Boy I was dumb.

While I was in we went into Iraq and then into Somalia... I still thank the little gods that I was a RUSSIAN translator... Not much need for me in any of the places we went into while I was in the Military.

 

[Cancel7]

Truth to tell. I was foolish enough to think that we'd not be going to war, that we had entered some strong peace era or something. Minor skirmishes... never another war.

Boy I was dumb.

While I was in we went into Iraq and then into Somalia...

Do you think that prior to 9/11 anyone who entered the reserves really believed they could be sent to a war zone for year after year, tour after tour, indefinitely? Come on.

 

[Damocles]

Do you think that prior to 9/11 anyone who entered the reserves really believed they could be sent to a war zone for year after year, tour after tour, indefinitely? Come on.

I'm pretty sure they convinced themselves that it was "very unlikely" just as I did. That was my point.

What is your problem today?

What part of, "Most of them believe that the risk was beat out by the reward" meant that they all thought it was likely that it would happen?

 

[LadyT]

Before the Republican took over as CIC, I would definitely say the benefits outweighed the risks. I can honestly say I had a false sense of peace in the mid to late 90s.

 

[Damocles]

Before the Republican took over as CIC, I would definitely say the benefits outweighed the risks. I can honestly say I had a false sense of peace in the mid to late 90s.

I actually had that with Reagan. HW Bush messed it up.

 

[Cancel7]

I'm pretty sure they convinced themselves that it was "very unlikely" just as I did. That was my point.

What is your problem today?

What part of, "Most of them believe that the risk was beat out by the reward" meant that they all thought it was likely that it would happen?

Um, I don’t have a problem. I was just pointing something out. You are very sensitive. I am starting to think that you have fallen head over heels for me and I can’t argue with you about anything without you crying over it. Snap out of it!

 

[Good Luck]

Why is it people always forget what they really say.

Yes stop loss is extending it beyond their will.

No, it is NOT. They signed an 8 year contract. That contract specifically states that the ETS date from active duty can be unilaterally extended. They know it when they sign. It is only the brain dead as yourself that interprets extending ETS dates as "against their will" because you think it serves your political purpose. Each and every soldier who joined the military since we ended the draft willfully signed a contract for 8 years service.

 

[Damocles]

Um, I don’t have a problem. I was just pointing something out. You are very sensitive. I am starting to think that you have fallen head over heels for me and I can’t argue with you about anything without you crying over it. Snap out of it!

LOL.

 

[Damocles]

No, it is NOT. They signed an 8 year contract. That contract specifically states that the ETS date from active duty can be unilaterally extended. They know it when they sign. It is only the brain dead as yourself that interprets extending ETS dates as "against their will" because you think it serves your political purpose. Each and every soldier who joined the military since we ended the draft willfully signed a contract for 8 years service.

Believe me, this was pointed out to them when they signed. Most believe the risk to be worth the reward.

This clause has never been used. Soldiers in Iraq who reach the end of their 8 year contract are released, even now. It would take a major conflict on the level of WWII for this clause to be used. Stop-loss is limited to the reserve activation clause of the contract, and in all cases so far has only applied to the end of a unit's deployment.

Technically an inactive reserve soldier could be called our of inactive status for duty, or, if an active duty soldier's remaining years of contract extended beyond their unit's next deployment rotation, they could be held in active duty status. But that has not been done. The most that has been done is extend soldier's ETS date to the end of their current deployment.

I know three IRs that were called up to duty. They were Arabic translators. The CT community is rather small and "news" like that gets around.

 

[Good Luck]

And I'm going by personal experience. Recruiters lie and at the end fo the day you're contract isn't worth a pile 'o $hit if they choose to stop loss you. Military recruiters are liars. Period.

I seriously doubt your "experience" goes beyond meeting some first-contact recruiters. They do tend to paint an unrealistically rosy picture of military service.

The recruiters at the Military Entrance Processing Station are a completely different matter. At each stage of entry processing the recruiters duty is to make absolutely certain the volunteer is fully aware of what is in their contract, that they understand it, and that they agree to it. That includes the reserve activation clause.

There was a period of time in the early 80s when such care was not taken and some recruits were BS'd into a contract that did not place them where they thought they would be. There was a series of lawsuits which the military rightfully lost. From that point the military has taken GREAT care to assure service contracts are fully understood by the entrant.

Until the day a soldier is actually kept in active duty status beyond their 8 year contract, you people are blowing alarmist smoke.

One other point: the clause you are so worried about that can technically extend a soldier's service indefinitely -- It was written and sponsored by DEMOCRATS who were pissed we'd ended the draft.

 

[Good Luck]

And I'm going by personal experience. Recruiters lie and at the end fo the day you're contract isn't worth a pile 'o $hit if they choose to stop loss you. Military recruiters are liars. Period.

One other point: if a MEPS receives a number of recruits from a recruiting office who have significantly unrealistic expectations, the recruiters of that office are taken out of recruiting duty and often officially disciplined. Since most recruiters are career military, they do try to avoid telling lies which would risk their career. But I do not deny they paint as rosy a picture of military service as possible within the guidelines.

 

[Cancel7]

No, it is NOT. They signed an 8 year contract. That contract specifically states that the ETS date from active duty can be unilaterally extended. They know it when they sign. It is only the brain dead as yourself that interprets extending ETS dates as "against their will" because you think it serves your political purpose. Each and every soldier who joined the military since we ended the draft willfully signed a contract for 8 years service.

Did you delete your post which Damo responded to, claiming that "not a single" solider has been stop-lossed past their 8 year enlistment?


This appears to indicate otherwise:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june05/stop-loss_2-24.html

Is it at all possible that you were wrong?

 

[leaningright]

You'll get nowhere with this Good Luck....I have discussed recruiters with these ladies before. I think that most of them are fairly honest and forthright. But be warned, LadyT and Darla won't give an inch. So all I can say is, "Good luck, Good Luck,"

 

[Cancel7]

I seriously doubt your "experience" goes beyond meeting some first-contact recruiters. They do tend to paint an unrealistically rosy picture of military service.

The recruiters at the Military Entrance Processing Station are a completely different matter. At each stage of entry processing the recruiters duty is to make absolutely certain the volunteer is fully aware of what is in their contract, that they understand it, and that they agree to it. That includes the reserve activation clause.

There was a period of time in the early 80s when such care was not taken and some recruits were BS'd into a contract that did not place them where they thought they would be. There was a series of lawsuits which the military rightfully lost. From that point the military has taken GREAT care to assure service contracts are fully understood by the entrant.

Until the day a soldier is actually kept in active duty status beyond their 8 year contract, you people are blowing alarmist smoke.

One other point: the clause you are so worried about that can technically extend a soldier's service indefinitely -- It was written and sponsored by DEMOCRATS who were pissed we'd ended the draft.

Wait a minute…the same Congress that instated stop-loss (first used by Republican President Bush Sr) voted to eliminate the draft. So they were angry at themselves and legislated Stop-loss as a way of getting back at themselves? Or could it be that you just hate Democrats?