Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 In the French and Indian War, Revolutionary War, Tripolitan War, War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and World War I, in which men VOLUNTEERED their services in defense of this country or others freedom, were NEVER ONCE FORCED into staying on BEYOND their enlisted time during those wars. This soldier has a totally legitimate beef; America has forgotten where it comes from, and now our government looks more like George III's parliament than the body that was created by our Founding Fathers. Stop-loss oversteps the bounds of reasonable service, in my opinion. We didn't need it then, and we don't need it NOW. This man is no whiner; he's telling it like it is... these days, honesty means CRAP. 170060[/snapback] News Flash: When you sign a contract with the military, you sign on for EIGHT YEARS. Not 2, 3, 4 or even 5, EIGHT. So for those eight years, they can damn well do whatever they wish with you. And yes, this uy is probably whining because he married a whore who cheated on him while he fulfilled his obligation. TOUGH sh--. Not the problem of the US government.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 News Flash: When you sign a contract with the military, you sign on for EIGHT YEARS. Not 2, 3, 4 or even 5, EIGHT. So for those eight years, they can damn well do whatever they wish with you. And yes, this uy is probably whining because he married a whore who cheated on him while he fulfilled his obligation. TOUGH sh--. Not the problem of the US government. 170822[/snapback] Do you know the definition of STOP-LOSS??? It means that if you sign a six year contract, they can KEEP YOU AFTER six years and a day, EXTENDING you INVOLUNTARILY. THIS is not right, and you should learn about it before you criticize someone for FULFILLING a CONTRACT in full, and then getting hosed after. This 'keeps unit cohesion' BS excuse is just another reason for avoiding the draft issue to keep numbers up, or actually having to come up with a viable strategy with limited human resources. Stop-loss is not viable; it has the opposite effect that it proclaims. Thus, the letter, a prime example. No one who is forced to stay in if they don't want to will EVER want to serve again, and I don't blame them. Why not just have compulsory service then for every qualified man and woman? When does it end, when the region explodes, and even stop-loss isn't enough? NOW the guys who hosed, who were trained and able, are ZERO percent likely to be persuaded to help.
KRC Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Do you know the definition of STOP-LOSS??? It means that if you sign a six year contract, they can KEEP YOU AFTER six years and a day, EXTENDING you INVOLUNTARILY. THIS is not right, and you should learn about it before you criticize someone for FULFILLING a CONTRACT in full, and then getting hosed after. 170831[/snapback] Stop-loss was around before this guy signed his contract, correct?. Maybe he is the one that needs to do some research before signing his contract.
UConn James Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Do you know the definition of STOP-LOSS??? This 'keeps unit cohesion' BS excuse is just another reason for avoiding the draft issue to keep numbers up, or actually having to come up with a viable strategy with limited human resources. Stop-loss is not viable; it has the opposite effect that it proclaims. Thus, the letter, a prime example. 170831[/snapback] Stop-loss is a big reason why my brother got out of active duty right after they took him out of it. (An a-hole, dumbschitt commander was another.) Still does Reserves, tho. Opposite effect is right. A lot of people will leave just for spite. This is being shown in the current recruiting and retention rates. Army National Guard recruiters are 30 percent short of their goals, the New York Times reports today: "The sharp decline in recruiting is significant because National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers now make up nearly 40 percent of the 148,000 troops in Iraq, and are a vital source for filling the ranks, particularly those who perform essential support tasks, like truck drivers and military police." An Army recruiter from Brooklyn has an idea about why the Reserves aren't luring lines of ready recruits these days: "People have the misconception that everyone goes to war and gets killed," he said. Well, can you blame them? The biggest drain on recruitment is the soldiers who leave active duty deciding against the Guard and Reserves -- they know they'll likely get sent away to Iraq or Afghanistan for a 12-month tour. These soldiers know the drill; many have been there already. "Indeed, many of the active-duty soldiers the Army would like to enlist in the Reserves have recently fought in Afghanistan or Iraq, and some have no inclination to do so again," the Times reported. One proposed solution is to attract more recruits with bigger signing bonuses: $15,000 for soldiers who sign up for six years (tax-free if they sign overseas!)and $10,000 for new enlistees. Is that a big enough reward for risking life and limb for this administration's bungled military escapades? For many cash-strapped soldiers and potential enlistees, it just may be incentive enough -- fitting with our history of luring and sending the less privileged among us to fight our wars. -- Geraldine Sealey
RkFast Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Correct me if Im wrong, but STOP-LOSS has been around since WWII, no? Sorry...this guy is whining.
VABills Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Everyone, nwadays, signs an 8 year commitment. Even if you join for 4 active, you are still required to serve 4 more in the "inactive reserves". In time of need it is the option of the military to call you back to active duty. You are actually required to maintain your uniforms during this timeframe, as well as remain in basic physical shape. That is the contract these guys signed. This is what a lot of these guys who have nothing beyond a high school education have signed. This is why the military is helping with their college, paying them, giving them training in a skillset, giving them tax free room and board for the duration of their active duty, 30 days of vacation per year, an opportunity to meet people in foraign lands, and possibly kill them. This is what they have signed, if they don't like it, them give them a big chicken dinner, send them to the brig and find someone else. Seems like for the most part most of the services are exceeding their recritment goals. Just because one aspect isn't doesn't mean as a whole that eevryone is.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Stop-loss is a big reason why my brother got out of active duty right after they took him out of it. (An a-hole, dumbschitt commander was another.) Still does Reserves, tho. Opposite effect is right. A lot of people will leave just for spite. This is being shown in the current recruiting and retention rates. 170852[/snapback] Gee, that's too bad. The Guard have had all the benefits of being in the military with virtually none of the commitments. I'd love to see most of it completely scaled back because the program is no longer worth what it costs the taxpayers. Very few military jobs can be decently trained on 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year. As far as "Stop Loss" goes, it's been around a long time. This ain't news. It affected me and it sucked. Welcome to being a GI. Where else do they put you up, feed you, and teach you a skill while PAYING YOU the whole time? Poor soldier, raising his right hand and signing his name.
nobody Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 I wonder how troop morale will be affected the more that this type of thing happens? The yellow ribbons are starting to fade... how do you spell vietnam?
Mickey Posted December 21, 2004 Author Posted December 21, 2004 Why is everyone focusing on the stop-loss thing so much? That is only one of the criticism's made by this soldier. Why are there no comments about his charge that there weren't enough troops, that they were not sufficiently trained and had inadequate resources from uniforms to bullet proof vests? What about his objection to the President using the royal "we" all the time as if he is the one sacrificing? Is there any source from whom some of you would accept criticism about any apect of this war or are all such concerns the sole traffic of treasonous liberals and whining troops? The election is over, you don't have to go into "protect Bush at all costs" mode at the mere mention of any possible imperfections. Though the election is over the war is not. We have a lot of work to do over there and we aren't going to get it done if we aren't willing to take a good long look at the good, the bad and the ugly.
KRC Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Why is everyone focusing on the stop-loss thing so much? That is only one of the criticism's made by this soldier. Why are there no comments about his charge that there weren't enough troops, that they were not sufficiently trained and had inadequate resources from uniforms to bullet proof vests? What about his objection to the President using the royal "we" all the time as if he is the one sacrificing? Is there any source from whom some of you would accept criticism about any apect of this war or are all such concerns the sole traffic of treasonous liberals and whining troops? The election is over, you don't have to go into "protect Bush at all costs" mode at the mere mention of any possible imperfections. Though the election is over the war is not. We have a lot of work to do over there and we aren't going to get it done if we aren't willing to take a good long look at the good, the bad and the ugly. 171307[/snapback] It's all Rush's fault.
VABills Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Why is everyone focusing on the stop-loss thing so much? That is only one of the criticism's made by this soldier. Why are there no comments about his charge that there weren't enough troops, that they were not sufficiently trained and had inadequate resources from uniforms to bullet proof vests? What about his objection to the President using the royal "we" all the time as if he is the one sacrificing? Is there any source from whom some of you would accept criticism about any apect of this war or are all such concerns the sole traffic of treasonous liberals and whining troops? The election is over, you don't have to go into "protect Bush at all costs" mode at the mere mention of any possible imperfections. Though the election is over the war is not. We have a lot of work to do over there and we aren't going to get it done if we aren't willing to take a good long look at the good, the bad and the ugly. 171307[/snapback] Mickey, as far as the "body armor" goes. One it isn't fullproof against a higher speed round, two none of the troops even started getting them "offically" until last december, because they were still be tested here at Ft Belvoir. The military actually let a contract to start making them in Oct 2003 but until tested they weren't going to the troops. 3, they cannot all of a sudden be tested and on the troops back the same day, it takes time to make, send over there, distribute, etc... Of course don't let facts get in yours or anyone elses way. Finally, every swinging dick over there had a flak jacket. Sue they didn't have the latest and greatest, but then again noone did when it all started. Of course the ones who didn't get it first started bitching, and having their families send them "untested" ones illegally. You know these are illegal for the general population to have right? There is a reason for that. Remember those bank robbers who were fully suited up? Yeah ignore that fact also, why don't you. Finally, as anyone who has actually served walking/marching in combat or hell even in training, the body armor / flak jacket suck. They are heavy and combersome and slow you down a lot. It is impossible to climb over and into buildings with them on. The only folks who wore them when I wa in where chopper gunners, tankers, REMF's, etc... None of the front lines troops I was with actually ever trained with them. But again, lets ignore the facts and let someone, who probably is an admin clerk in the "protected green zone", sway your decision on how bad it is there. Sorry, I have a friend who just got back yesterday, and it isn't as bad as you or these troops want to make it out to be. In fact a bigger problem which you and the media choose to ignore is that 50 or more "foreign or important Iraqi's" are being kidnap and / or killed monthly. Our troops are doing their best to get them back. And to be honest from what I hear they are somewhat successful. Of cours the majority of the folks doing the kidnapping turns out to be primarily "foreign insurgants" or "former Sunni insider who are now displaced from their rolls". But go ahaead and ignore that fact as well. Considering the majority of the country is Kurds or Shiite. But why should they have a say after all, the Sunni's eem to be the more aggressive populations, lets just let the minority rule and butcher the people there. I am sure that is better. Again, sorry I am giving you "real" facts especially when they don't match your agenda.
_BiB_ Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 How come everyone says "we" when talking about the Bills? I know I never suited up for them. "We" refers to us as a Nation, I think. GWB is the Commander in Chief. Let me see a show of hands of all of those who think this doesn't affect him, or anyone else involved, at a personal level? I just spent the entire day at the Pentagon. I'll be there all day tomorrow too. I can pretty well guarantee you that there isn't a cavalier attitude over there towards any of this. Most people over there who actually do anything real and accountable spend some awfully long days and have the weight of their interpretations and decisions on their shoulders. Not a single person I was working with today has not personally experienced combat, whether wearing a uniform or a business suit. Plus, get it out of your heads that the only thing people over there are thinking about is Iraq. There's a lot of world out there. And a lot going on. If you want to continue to use every vignette that pops into the media to portray the overall, have at it. I'm certain you will get plenty more. Signed: A has been wannabe who has never been quoted on the news (by name) and has no idea of what he is talking about. A fellow poster said so, so it must be true.
blzrul Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 How come everyone says "we" when talking about the Bills? I know I never suited up for them. "We" refers to us as a Nation, I think. GWB is the Commander in Chief. Let me see a show of hands of all of those who think this doesn't affect him, or anyone else involved, at a personal level? I just spent the entire day at the Pentagon. I'll be there all day tomorrow too. I can pretty well guarantee you that there isn't a cavalier attitude over there towards any of this. Most people over there who actually do anything real and accountable spend some awfully long days and have the weight of their interpretations and decisions on their shoulders. Not a single person I was working with today has not personally experienced combat, whether wearing a uniform or a business suit. Plus, get it out of your heads that the only thing people over there are thinking about is Iraq. There's a lot of world out there. And a lot going on. If you want to continue to use every vignette that pops into the media to portray the overall, have at it. I'm certain you will get plenty more. Signed: A has been wannabe who has never been quoted on the news (by name) and has no idea of what he is talking about. A fellow poster said so, so it must be true. 172358[/snapback] So the Pentagon has a core competence at holding meetings discussing weighty subjects. If there's so much in the world out there to deal with, perhaps starting a war NEEDLESSLY was not the brightest idea. How often do they check the water coolers for LSD?
_BiB_ Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 So the Pentagon has a core competence at holding meetings discussing weighty subjects. If there's so much in the world out there to deal with, perhaps starting a war NEEDLESSLY was not the brightest idea. How often do they check the water coolers for LSD? 172380[/snapback] How often does the Pentagon get to pick a war?
Tux of Borg Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 I think the term bullet proof armor is a bit deceptive. The Interceptor flak (a hybrid of the old ranger body armor) is what rangers and special forces wear. The problem with it is it can only stop 9mm and 44 rounds. It can NOT stop a 7.62 round being shot out of an AK47 or Russian SKS. Basically it can stop pea shooters but not the rifles the terrorist are using. A few months ago I was shooting off rounds with an AK-47. My buddy had a half inch steel plate and wanted to see if we could shoot through it. From the distance of 20 meters, the AK-47 shot clean through it.
blzrul Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Headline on page A12 of today's Post-Intelligencer: "President says violence will not deter him from Iraq". This during yesterday's press conference. Deter HIM?! Hey, he's on his way to Camp David and then Crawford to enjoy the holidays, while OUR soldiers are sitting ducks in a mess tent. Isn't he going to go serve them another plastic turkey at least? What an hypocritical, lying ass. May he rot in hell for the families who have been devastated, and are about to be torn to their very souls this Christmas, for starting a war without reason, or end.
_BiB_ Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Headline on page A12 of today's Post-Intelligencer: "President says violence will not deter him from Iraq". This during yesterday's press conference. Deter HIM?! Hey, he's on his way to Camp David and then Crawford to enjoy the holidays, while OUR soldiers are sitting ducks in a mess tent. Isn't he going to go serve them another plastic turkey at least? What an hypocritical, lying ass. May he rot in hell for the families who have been devastated, and are about to be torn to their very souls this Christmas, for starting a war without reason, or end. 172712[/snapback] Does being this bitter actually help you in any way? I use not caring about anything. It burns less.
Mark VI Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 What an hypocritical, lying ass. May he rot in hell for the families who have been devastated, and are about to be torn to their very souls this Christmas, for starting a war without reason, or end. 172712[/snapback] The first lady of American Theater. Take a bow.
Mickey Posted December 22, 2004 Author Posted December 22, 2004 Mickey, as far as the "body armor" goes. One it isn't fullproof against a higher speed round, two none of the troops even started getting them "offically" until last december, because they were still be tested here at Ft Belvoir. The military actually let a contract to start making them in Oct 2003 but until tested they weren't going to the troops. 3, they cannot all of a sudden be tested and on the troops back the same day, it takes time to make, send over there, distribute, etc... Of course don't let facts get in yours or anyone elses way. Finally, every swinging dick over there had a flak jacket. Sue they didn't have the latest and greatest, but then again noone did when it all started. Of course the ones who didn't get it first started bitching, and having their families send them "untested" ones illegally. You know these are illegal for the general population to have right? There is a reason for that. Remember those bank robbers who were fully suited up? Yeah ignore that fact also, why don't you. Finally, as anyone who has actually served walking/marching in combat or hell even in training, the body armor / flak jacket suck. They are heavy and combersome and slow you down a lot. It is impossible to climb over and into buildings with them on. The only folks who wore them when I wa in where chopper gunners, tankers, REMF's, etc... None of the front lines troops I was with actually ever trained with them. But again, lets ignore the facts and let someone, who probably is an admin clerk in the "protected green zone", sway your decision on how bad it is there. Sorry, I have a friend who just got back yesterday, and it isn't as bad as you or these troops want to make it out to be. In fact a bigger problem which you and the media choose to ignore is that 50 or more "foreign or important Iraqi's" are being kidnap and / or killed monthly. Our troops are doing their best to get them back. And to be honest from what I hear they are somewhat successful. Of cours the majority of the folks doing the kidnapping turns out to be primarily "foreign insurgants" or "former Sunni insider who are now displaced from their rolls". But go ahaead and ignore that fact as well. Considering the majority of the country is Kurds or Shiite. But why should they have a say after all, the Sunni's eem to be the more aggressive populations, lets just let the minority rule and butcher the people there. I am sure that is better. Again, sorry I am giving you "real" facts especially when they don't match your agenda. 171531[/snapback] Maybe you can tell me just what my agenda is? I supported this war so my basic "agenda" is to win it and get the eff out. There have been plenty of letters from soldiers passed on here, mostly of the type that says something along the lines of "things are much better in Iraq than is being reported, here is the real story". I have read all of those and I don't think you'll find a single post from me dismissing out of hand any of them. I got up the other morning and there was a long letter from a soldier in the letters to the editor section of the Syracuse Post Standard. So I passed it on with little comment other than to point out that since so many similar letters have been posted here, I wanted to add that one for a little balance. Sound like a diabolical agenda to you?
KRC Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Headline on page A12 of today's Post-Intelligencer: "President says violence will not deter him from Iraq". This during yesterday's press conference. Deter HIM?! Hey, he's on his way to Camp David and then Crawford to enjoy the holidays, while OUR soldiers are sitting ducks in a mess tent. Isn't he going to go serve them another plastic turkey at least? What an hypocritical, lying ass. May he rot in hell for the families who have been devastated, and are about to be torn to their very souls this Christmas, for starting a war without reason, or end. 172712[/snapback] I guess you didn't get the DNC memo. The current talking points are to attack Rumsfeld. Please stay on message, like a good little political operative.
Recommended Posts