Army Louie refuses to deploy to Iraq

[TexasTiger 12,988]

During Kerry's presidential debate and his speeches he associated the bringing up guard troops as a backdoor draft. Heard it with my own ears. If HE's confused, its not my fault.

239541[/snapback]

Heard it myself. He's got you there, Tex.

239562[/snapback]

Okay, so two very unreliable, highly partisan folks claim something was said during a debate for which transcripts exists, and yet neither provides a link to support their claims. Sounds to me like you've got nothing and are pulling it out of your asses.

239654[/snapback]

"Our military is overextended under Bush. Our Guard and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. You've got people doing two and three rotations. You've got stop-loss policies so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got a backdoor draft right now."

http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/Bush_Ker...nd_Security.htm

This is from the 2nd debate... in St. Louis

239655[/snapback]

Yeah, I know. You've got the quote right. Don't know why you boldened what you did. Here's the key part:

You've got stop-loss policies so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got a backdoor draft right now."

The "backdoor draft" comment obviously refers to the way "stop-loss" is being employed. As I indicated before, he's been pretty consistent on this issue:

All Things Considered, June 3, 2004 · Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry accuses the Bush administration of instituting a "backdoor draft" by requiring soldiers to remain in service even after their volunteer commitments expire.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1921747

239667[/snapback]

I disagree.

He says this directly after Bush mentions that we will not have a draft...but will stick with the all volunteer army. Kerry then says what I quoted.

If someone says, we will not have a draft...and then someone responds..I think the entire paragraph is trying to refute the fact that we won't have a draft. In my mind, he mentions 2 or 3 reasons why we still have a backdoor draft, and I disagree with one of those reasons.

I'm no fan of Bush...but neither was I a fan of Kerry. But in any case, I think you are wrong in that Kerry does cite the use of the reserves and national guard to try to prove we have a "backdoor draft"

239680[/snapback]

It was a live debate, not an essay. There is no "paragraph." You cite a summary which clumps it together as a paragraph. The thrust of his comments was that the military was overextended. He makes several points in that regard. You can place logical breaks in the statement and get several small "paragraphs".

Our military is overextended under Bush. Our Guard and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. You've got people doing two and three rotations.

You've got stop-loss policies so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got a backdoor draft right now.

And a lot of our military are underpaid.

These are families that get hurt. It hurts the middle class. It hurts communities, because these are our first responders and they're called up and they're over there, not over here.

Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military, and I'm going to make people feel good about being safe in our military and not overextended, because I'm going to run a foreign policy that actually does what President Reagan and President Eisenhower did and others. We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally. We're not going alone like this president did

This was the question: " Mr. President, since we continue to police the world, how do you intend to maintain our military presence without reinstituting a draft?

Kerry's response explains how to address the problem of being overextended without implementing a draft, i.e. expanding the active duty and building alliances. The comment about the "back-door draft" is included in reference to Bush's use of the stop-loss program. You could check several speeches and see him made the same comment repeatedly and consistently in regard to the stop-loss program as he did here.

[Ranger12 46]

Back to the original point of the thread...regadless of what the dumb comment made by John Kerry, it does not change the fact that this guy is a gutless coward for not fulfulling his duty.

[CCTAU 3,336]

Kerry's response explains how to address the problem of being overextended without implementing a draft, i.e. expanding the active duty and building alliances. The comment about the "back-door draft" is included in reference to Bush's use of the stop-loss program. You could check several speeches and see him made the same comment repeatedly and consistently in regard to the stop-loss program as he did here.

Quoting an idiot is still idiocy. Hence my reply to this.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Okay, so two very unreliable, highly partisan folks claim something was said during a debate for which transcripts exist, and yet neither provides a link to support their claims.  Sounds to me like you've got nothing and are pulling it out of your asses.

239654[/snapback]

Here you go, Einstein. You know, you should really try and stay awake during these debates. They can be pretty enlightening.

Kerry says U.S. now has 'backdoor draft'

Democrat says Bush policies spread military too thin

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry said Thursday that the Bush administration has instituted a “backdoor draft” by requiring thousands of soldiers to stay in the military if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kerry said the Pentagon’s announcement of the “stop-loss” program Wednesday may have increased the forces by 30,000 troops. “But this has happened on the backs of the men and women who’ve already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country — and it runs counter to the traditions of an all-volunteer Army,” he said during a speech on modernizing the military at the Truman Presidential Library.

“They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft,” he said.

Link

[TexasTiger 12,988]

Okay, so two very unreliable, highly partisan folks claim something was said during a debate for which transcripts exist, and yet neither provides a link to support their claims.  Sounds to me like you've got nothing and are pulling it out of your asses.

239654[/snapback]

Here you go, Einstein. You know, you should really try and stay awake during these debates. They can be pretty enlightening.

Kerry says U.S. now has 'backdoor draft'

Democrat says Bush policies spread military too thin

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry said Thursday that the Bush administration has instituted a “backdoor draft” by requiring thousands of soldiers to stay in the military if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kerry said the Pentagon’s announcement of the “stop-loss” program Wednesday may have increased the forces by 30,000 troops. “But this has happened on the backs of the men and women who’ve already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country — and it runs counter to the traditions of an all-volunteer Army,” he said during a speech on modernizing the military at the Truman Presidential Library.

“They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft,” he said.

Link

239704[/snapback]

You should stay awake while you are on this forum. Read my posts, read this post and you will realize you just reiterated my point. Or maybe you won't realize it, but if you were at least of average intelligence, you would. This is truly amazing. Further explains the "Bush base."

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Okay, so two very unreliable, highly partisan folks claim something was said during a debate for which transcripts exist, and yet neither provides a link to support their claims.  Sounds to me like you've got nothing and are pulling it out of your asses.

239654[/snapback]

Here you go, Einstein. You know, you should really try and stay awake during these debates. They can be pretty enlightening.

Kerry says U.S. now has 'backdoor draft'

Democrat says Bush policies spread military too thin

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry said Thursday that the Bush administration has instituted a “backdoor draft” by requiring thousands of soldiers to stay in the military if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kerry said the Pentagon’s announcement of the “stop-loss” program Wednesday may have increased the forces by 30,000 troops. “But this has happened on the backs of the men and women who’ve already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country — and it runs counter to the traditions of an all-volunteer Army,” he said during a speech on modernizing the military at the Truman Presidential Library.

“They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft,” he said.

Link

239704[/snapback]

You should stay awake while you are on this forum. Read my posts, read this post and you will realize you just reiterated my point. Or maybe you won't realize it, but if you were at least of average intelligence, you would. This is truly amazing. Further explains the "Bush base."

239725[/snapback]

BG said Kerry mentioned the backdoor draft, I backed him up on it since I heard it live during the debate myself. You insinuated that since we didn't link his quote, that we were "pulling it out of our butts." We provided the link and you responded with "The thrust of his comments was that the military was overextended. He makes several points in that regard." Once again, the apologist strikes. It's not what he says, its the "thrust" of his comment.

Why must you deal in lies and double speak, Tex? Why can't dems say what they mean to say?

[TexasTiger 12,988]

Okay, so two very unreliable, highly partisan folks claim something was said during a debate for which transcripts exist, and yet neither provides a link to support their claims.  Sounds to me like you've got nothing and are pulling it out of your asses.

239654[/snapback]

Here you go, Einstein. You know, you should really try and stay awake during these debates. They can be pretty enlightening.

Kerry says U.S. now has 'backdoor draft'

Democrat says Bush policies spread military too thin

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry said Thursday that the Bush administration has instituted a “backdoor draft” by requiring thousands of soldiers to stay in the military if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kerry said the Pentagon’s announcement of the “stop-loss” program Wednesday may have increased the forces by 30,000 troops. “But this has happened on the backs of the men and women who’ve already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country — and it runs counter to the traditions of an all-volunteer Army,” he said during a speech on modernizing the military at the Truman Presidential Library.

“They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft,” he said.

Link

239704[/snapback]

You should stay awake while you are on this forum. Read my posts, read this post and you will realize you just reiterated my point. Or maybe you won't realize it, but if you were at least of average intelligence, you would. This is truly amazing. Further explains the "Bush base."

239725[/snapback]

BG said Kerry mentioned the backdoor draft, I backed him up on it since I heard it live during the debate myself. You insinuated that since we didn't link his quote, that we were "pulling it out of our butts." We provided the link and you responded with "The thrust of his comments was that the military was overextended. He makes several points in that regard." Once again, the apologist strikes. It's not what he says, its the "thrust" of his comment.

Why must you deal in lies and double speak, Tex? Why can't dems say what they mean to say?

239776[/snapback]

There were no lies or doublespeak in my comments. Now if my plan to pollute the air was called, "The Clean Skies Initiative", that would be lies and doublespeak, and you'd be right on board. Any reasonable person of average intelligence could follow my point. You obviously can't. Like your sig line says, "you can't fix stupid," so there is only so much I can do to help you understand, Einstein.

BG said this:

This is why i was utterly insulted when Kerry kept referring to Bush's bringing up guard troops as a 'backdoor draft'. As if National Guard troops were supposed to collect a check and never be used in time of need.

ITS WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR!

Kerry never said the use of guard troops was a back door draft. He said it the way Bush was using the stop loss program was. This ain't complicated. Agree with it or disagree with it, I don't care, but don't distort it.

[Tiger Al 0]

Okay, so two very unreliable, highly partisan folks claim something was said during a debate for which transcripts exist, and yet neither provides a link to support their claims.  Sounds to me like you've got nothing and are pulling it out of your asses.

239654[/snapback]

Here you go, Einstein. You know, you should really try and stay awake during these debates. They can be pretty enlightening.

Kerry says U.S. now has 'backdoor draft'

Democrat says Bush policies spread military too thin

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry said Thursday that the Bush administration has instituted a “backdoor draft” by requiring thousands of soldiers to stay in the military if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kerry said the Pentagon’s announcement of the “stop-loss” program Wednesday may have increased the forces by 30,000 troops. “But this has happened on the backs of the men and women who’ve already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country — and it runs counter to the traditions of an all-volunteer Army,” he said during a speech on modernizing the military at the Truman Presidential Library.

“They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft,” he said.

Link

239704[/snapback]

You should stay awake while you are on this forum. Read my posts, read this post and you will realize you just reiterated my point. Or maybe you won't realize it, but if you were at least of average intelligence, you would. This is truly amazing. Further explains the "Bush base."

239725[/snapback]

BG said Kerry mentioned the backdoor draft, I backed him up on it since I heard it live during the debate myself. You insinuated that since we didn't link his quote, that we were "pulling it out of our butts." We provided the link and you responded with "The thrust of his comments was that the military was overextended. He makes several points in that regard." Once again, the apologist strikes. It's not what he says, its the "thrust" of his comment.

Why must you deal in lies and double speak, Tex? Why can't dems say what they mean to say?

239776[/snapback]

TIS, you are wrong on two counts:

First, as TexasTiger already pointed out, the quote you provided never mentions the National Guard in relation to a "back door draft." The NG is only mentioned once in the entire article and it is not regarding any "back door" draft:

Kerry said he would also:

Double the number of Special Forces.

Provide troops with the best training and most modern equipment and technology.

Modernize the National Guard for a primary responsibility of security in the United States.

Accelerate development of non-lethal weapons that can stop an enemy without killing innocent bystanders.

Secondly, you claimed to provide the link that proved BG's assertion

This is why i was utterly insulted when Kerry kept referring to Bush's bringing up guard troops as a 'backdoor draft'. As if National Guard troops were supposed to collect a check and never be used in time of need.

and yours

Heard it myself. He's got you there, Tex.

but you didn't support anything because what you linked was an article from MSNBC that was quoting Kerry from a speech 6/3/2004 given in Independence, Mo., not the debates.

The term "back door draft" has always meant the use of the stop-loss policy that keeps soldiers (RA/NG/AR alike) deployed past their ETS date, so as to "stop" the "loss" of that asset, and not the specific use of National Guard/Reservists in Iraq. If you Google the words "Kerry" and "back door draft" you'll see that Kerry never said using the NG/R was itself the "back door draft" and that he was always referring to stop-loss.

[TexasTiger 12,988]

Tiger Al returns!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger Al returns!!!!!!!!!!!!!          

239796[/snapback]

Just remember to tip the waitresses and bartenders!!!

[quietfan 233]

Kerry says U.S. now has 'backdoor draft'

Democrat says Bush policies spread military too thin

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry said Thursday that the Bush administration has instituted a “backdoor draft” by requiring thousands of soldiers to stay in the military if their units are ordered to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Kerry said the Pentagon’s announcement of the “stop-loss” program Wednesday may have increased the forces by 30,000 troops. “But this has happened on the backs of the men and women who’ve already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country — and it runs counter to the traditions of an all-volunteer Army,” he said during a speech on modernizing the military at the Truman Presidential Library.

“They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a backdoor draft,” he said.

Link

Point of clarity, guys. BG said Kerry called the use of Guard troops a "backdoor draft"

This is why i was utterly insulted when Kerry kept referring to Bush's bringing up guard troops as a 'backdoor draft'. As if National Guard troops were supposed to collect a check and never be used in time of need.

ITS WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR!

Dont be all happy to take part in a military that pays your school and rent and keeps money in your pocket...if you arent going to be happy about earning that money. Funny that he didnt grow a consciense until he had to earn the checks he's been getting.

239384[/snapback]

Tex points out that Kerry was refering to the stop-loss program as the backdoor draft. A fact clearly illustrated by Tiger in Spain's own link. Kerry's debate statement is open to interpretations, as Tex points out, and does not mean unambiguously that Kerry called the use of the Guard a "backdoor draft". Does anyone have a link that conclusively and unambiguously shows Kerry calling use of the Guard a draft?

Bottom line, like it or not, people who join the National Guard are volunteering for service as the country orders them and have no grounds for complaint. Given that they volunteered, I see no justification for calling their use a "draft" and I don't think that's what Kerry meant either.

Forcing people to serve against their will, including keeping in people who have not volunteered for any further service is a form of a draft. Now, I'm not sure exactly how the stop loss policies are written. If those policies were clear and the service persons involved understood the full implications of those policies when they initially signed up, then I'd say they volunteered for that eventuality and it is not a draft. If the policies were not explained to them, or were changed after they signed on the dotted line, then I'd call it a draft.

Back to the subject of the thread:

The military has in place a process for seeking contientious objector status. He should either avail himself of that process, or shut up and take his medicine. Perhaps he's merely a cowardly deserter looking for an excuse, or perhaps he really does fell the need to take a moral stand. But either way he's subject to prosecution and appropriately so. When someone takes a moral stand on any issue (if that is genuinely what he's doing) , he/she must also be willing to accept the consequences of taking that stance.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Welcome back, Al!

Kerry did refer to the "Backdoor draft" in the debate. I didn't have time to poke through the transcripts to find it, so I went to this article. It says some of the things he kept repeating during the run-up to the election. As a matter of fact, this was the beginning of the call for reinstating the draft by Kerry, Rangel, and other democrats.

[TexasTiger 12,988]

Welcome back, Al!

Kerry did refer to the "Backdoor draft" in the debate. I didn't have time to poke through the transcripts to find it, so I went to this article. It says some of the things he kept repeating during the run-up to the election. As a matter of fact, this was the beginning of the call for reinstating the draft by Kerry, Rangel, and other democrats.

239800[/snapback]

Kerry called to reinstate the draft???? :huh:

You don't really know what the factual basis for your beliefs are, do you?

[Tiger Al 0]

Welcome back, Al!

Kerry did refer to the "Backdoor draft" in the debate. I didn't have time to poke through the transcripts to find it, so I went to this article. It says some of the things he kept repeating during the run-up to the election. As a matter of fact, this was the beginning of the call for reinstating the draft by Kerry, Rangel, and other democrats.

239800[/snapback]

Thanks, TIS...

OK, that's done...in the words of the gipper, 'There you go again.' I took the time to poke and that's not what he said. Aubie16 provided a partial text from their second debate. The full text regarding this dilemma:

Q: [To Bush]How do you intend to maintain our military presence without reinstituting a draft?

A: [bush]We're not going to have a draft, period. The all-volunteer Army works. It works particularly when we pay our troops well, it works when we make sure they've got housing, like we have done in the last military budgets. An all-volunteer Army is best-suited to fight the new wars of the 21st century, which is to be specialized and to find these people as they hide around the world. We don't need mass armies anymore. We're beginning to transform our military, and by that I mean we're moving troops out of Korea and replacing them with more effective weapons. So, the answer to your question is, we're withdrawing, not from the world, we're withdrawing manpower so they can be stationed here in America so there's less rotation so life is easier on their families and, therefore, more likely to be - we'll be more likely to be able to keep people in the all-volunteer Army.

Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO

Kerry:Our military is overextended under Bush. Our Guard and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. You've got people doing two and three rotations. You've got stop-loss policies so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got a backdoor draft right now. And a lot of our military are underpaid. These are families that get hurt. It hurts the middle class. It hurts communities, because these are our first responders and they're called up and they're over there, not over here. Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military, and I'm going to make people feel good about being safe in our military and not overextended, because I'm going to run a foreign policy that actually does what President Reagan and President Eisenhower did and others. We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally. We're not going alone like this president did.

The third debate:

Question 15: What relief can be offered to Guard and Reserve forces?

SCHIEFFER: All right, let's go to another question. And it is to Sen. Kerry.

You have two minutes, sir.

Senator, the last debate, President Bush said he did not favor a draft. You agreed with him. But our National Guard and Reserve forces are being severely strained because many of them are being held beyond their enlistments. Some of them say that it's a back-door draft.

Is there any relief that could be offered to these brave Americans and their families?

If you became president, Sen. Kerry, what would you do about this situation of holding National Guard and Reservists for these extended periods of time and these repeated call-ups that they're now facing?

KERRY: Well, I think the fact that they're facing these repeated call-ups, some of them two and three deployments, and there's a stop-loss policy that prevents people from being able to get out when their time was up, is a reflection of the bad judgment this president exercised in how he has engaged in the world and deployed our forces.

Our military is overextended. Nine out of 10 active-duty Army divisions are either in Iraq, going to Iraq or have come back from Iraq. One way or the other, they're wrapped up in it.

Now, I've proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the Armed Forces of the United States -- one combat, one support.

In addition, I'm going to double the number of Special Forces so that we can fight a more effective war on terror, with less pressure on the National Guard and Reserve. And what I would like to do is see the National Guard and Reserve be deployed differently here in our own country.

There's much we can do with them with respect to homeland security. We ought to be doing that. And that would relieve an enormous amount of pressure.

But the most important thing to relieve the pressure on all of the armed forces is frankly to run a foreign policy that recognizes that America is strongest when we are working with real alliances, when we are sharing the burdens of the world by working through our statesmanship at the highest levels and our diplomacy to bring other nations to our side.

I've said it before, I say it again: I believe the president broke faith to the American people in the way that he took this nation to war.

He said he would work through a real alliance. He said in Cincinnati we would plan carefully, we would take every precaution. Well, we didn't. And the result is our forces today are overextended.

The fact is that he did not choose to go to war as a last result.

And America now is paying, already $120 billion, up to $200 billion before we're finished and much more probably. And that is the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: The best way to take the pressure off our troops is to succeed in Iraq, is to train Iraqis so they can do the hard work of democracy, is to give them a chance to defend their country, which is precisely what we're doing. We'll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year.

I remember going on an airplane in Bangor, Maine, to say thanks to the Reservists and Guard that were headed overseas from Tennessee and North Carolina, Georgia. Some of them had been there before.

The people I talked to, their spirits were high. They didn't view their service as a back-door draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country.

My opponent, the senator, talks about foreign policy.

In our first debate he proposed America pass a global test. In order to defend ourselves, we'd have to get international approval. That's one of the major differences we have about defending our country.

I'll work with allies. I'll work with friends. We'll continue to build strong coalitions. But I will never turn over our national security decisions to leaders of other countries.

We'll be resolute, we'll be strong, and we'll wage a comprehensive war against the terrorists.

And, unfortunately, Kerry has never said he supported reinstating the draft. In fact, he's said the opposite. Rangel said he did, because it would spread the responsibility for fighting wars across all demographics of the population. For the record, though Rangel's proposition would force those who get hard-on's for war to actually man-up and join in, I would be opposed to reinstating it.

I won't say anything about lies and doublespeak because I'm feeling charitible today!!!

[Ranger12 46]

When you sign your contract and take that oath, you are told, and I'll out in the terms it was explained to me, that if your committment ends in a time of war or conflict in which your services are still needed, the Army reserves the right to hold you in service past your committment until such time in which you can be properly discharged. So, regardeless of how Kerry used the term "backdoor draft" anybody that signs up knows about IRR and stopless. If they did not, then their recruiter and the personnel at the MPPS site failed to do their job properly.

I know for a fact that instead of making some of the full-time military personnel stay on full time, they are giving them the option of going into the Guard or Reserves when their full time service is over. If I was ready to get out, I would rather take that type of stopless offer rather then re-up for my full time service.

Welcome back Al or should I call you doc now?

[Tiger Al 0]

When you sign your contract and take that oath, you are told, and I'll out in the terms it was explained to me, that if your committment ends in a time of war or conflict in which your services are still needed, the Army reserves the right to hold you in service past your committment until such time in which you can be properly discharged. So, regardeless of how Kerry used the term "backdoor draft" anybody that signs up knows about IRR and stopless. If they did not, then their recruiter and the personnel at the MPPS site failed to do their job properly.

I know for a fact that instead of making some of the full-time military personnel stay on full time, they are giving them the option of going into the Guard or Reserves when their full time service is over. If I was ready to get out, I would rather take that type of stopless offer rather then re-up for my full time service.

Welcome back Al or should I call you doc now?

239827[/snapback]

Stop-loss has nothing to do with IRR. What you are referring to is TITLE 10 Subtitle E PART II CHAPTER 1209 § 12302, better known as part of the President's 'Reserve Call-Up Authority.'

( a) In time of national emergency declared by the President after January 1, 1953, or when otherwise authorized by law, an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may, without the consent of the persons concerned, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty for not more than 24 consecutive months.

( b.) To achieve fair treatment as between members in the Ready Reserve who are being considered for recall to duty without their consent, consideration shall be given to—

(1) the length and nature of previous service, to assure such sharing of exposure to hazards as the national security and military requirements will reasonably allow;

(2) family responsibilities; and

(3) employment necessary to maintain the national health, safety, or interest.

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such policies and procedures as he considers necessary to carry out this subsection. He shall report on those policies and procedures at least once a year to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

( c) Not more than 1,000,000 members of the Ready Reserve may be on active duty, without their consent, under this section at any one time.

Stop-loss is a probably slightly less obscure section in the enlistment contract. Paragraph 9c of DD form 4/3,the enlistment contract, states:

In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States.

Maybe you remember this being explained to you. It wasn't explained to me any of the times I signed one, nor was I even aware of such a thing. I doubt many of the people who signed it were, either.

And, ranger, you may call me anything you want just as long as you call me!!!

[Captain Liger 0]

Maybe you remember this being explained to you. It wasn't explained to me any of the times I signed one, nor was I even aware of such a thing. I doubt many of the people who signed it were, either.

239832[/snapback]

"But my recruiter told me.........."

Obscure as it may be, maybe you should have done a better job of reading the fine print of your enlistment contract. The stop-loss inclusion is nothing new and apparently its presence isn't having much of a negative impact as my own personal experience is that soldier reenlistment (before, during, and post-deployment) continues to outweigh soldier seperations.

Stop-loss isn't that big of a deal, really. It's not like it keeps a soldier in uniform for an extra 5 years or something. If a soldier is due to seperate prior to a deployment and gets stop-lossed then the worst case scenario is that they have to hang around for an extra year. Big deal. Most soldiers that get out don't have a plan for success anyway so stop-loss is probably doing a lot of these guys a favor anyway.

[TexasTiger 12,988]

Most soldiers that get out don't have a plan for success anyway so stop-loss is probably doing a lot of these guys a favor anyway.

239845[/snapback]

Yeah, Al, stop-loss is just doing those guys a favor.

[Tiger Al 0]

Maybe you remember this being explained to you. It wasn't explained to me any of the times I signed one, nor was I even aware of such a thing. I doubt many of the people who signed it were, either.

239832[/snapback]

"But my recruiter told me.........."

Obscure as it may be, maybe you should have done a better job of reading the fine print of your enlistment contract. The stop-loss inclusion is nothing new and apparently its presence isn't having much of a negative impact as my own personal experience is that soldier reenlistment (before, during, and post-deployment) continues to outweigh soldier seperations.

Stop-loss isn't that big of a deal, really. It's not like it keeps a soldier in uniform for an extra 5 years or something. If a soldier is due to seperate prior to a deployment and gets stop-lossed then the worst case scenario is that they have to hang around for an extra year. Big deal. Most soldiers that get out don't have a plan for success anyway so stop-loss is probably doing a lot of these guys a favor anyway.

239845[/snapback]

That's certainly one slant that could be taken. Of course, another one might be that recruiters, et al, could be more thorough when they explain multi-page contracts that young men and women sign during the whirlwind trip through chaos known as MEPS.

I agree with you that stop-loss isn't a big deal to anyone, at least until they are the one that it's used on. I don't assume to know what plans most soldiers have for their post-separation lives but I would assume if he or she didn't re-enlist that further military service wasn't in the plan. I'm rather skeptical that it would be seen as a 'favor.'

Also, according to the code that governs stop-loss, no set time limit is given as to when soldiers would be released. You said an extra year, worst case scenario. The law says it would be no more than six months beyond the end of the war. Most tours are for 18 mos. which seems to me that we could be talking about a significant amount of time, even for someone without what others might view as a 'plan for success.' I'd bet mommy and daddy would consider junior coming home with a heartbeat and five appendages a major success.

[AURaptor 1,126]

From what I heard, this guy has no case. He states 2 primary reasons that he shouldn't live up to his obligations.

He said that we were lead into Iraq under false pretenses, that Bush lied. Nope, Bush didn't lie, and that is clearly provable. The fact that we telegraphed our intention months, if not years in advance and that no 'warehouses' of WMD stockpiled were discovered doesn't by any means let Iraq off the hook.

He said that this war was illegal . It wasn't Use of force was voted on and approved by Congress, and use of force was stipulated for in the U.N. resolutions, should Iraq fail to comply. Iraq failed to comply.

Sad that an officer would make such poor judgements as this.

[Ranger12 46]

TA, just because it was not explained to you does not mean that it does not get explained at all. Heck, it probably was explained to you, but you just don't remember.

Like Capt. Liger said, it is also your own responsibilty to read your contract.

Stop-loss is much better then using the draft and it is not used as much as some would make it out to be. But stop-loss has nothing to do with this guy whatsoever. This guy is still in his committment time and can we at least agree that he needs to shut up and do his duty?

One thing puzzles me about the article. It mentioned that there have been about 80 something conscientious objectors approved. Now, I can understand that happening in a draft, but it happening in a volunteer military confuses me. If you were truly a concientious objector, why would you join the military to begin with? If you hate war in any form, why would you choose a line of work in which the main job description is to wage war if necessary? If I say I can't stand a Ford and will never buy one, but then I buy one, but still say I hate them, then could it not be said that I must not really hate them as I claim? Now, if I did not hate them before I bought one and then decided after I bought a Ford, that I hated them, that is different, because maybe I did not know a Ford was a bad vehicle. But, for one to say they decided they don't agree with war in any form after the have joined seems kind of ludicrous. Who the heck would not know something like that before the joined?

This guys is just screwing himself by admitting that he is not a conscientious objector. I guess you got to give it to him for not trying to go that route. But that is all you can give him.

[Captain Liger 0]

Most soldiers that get out don't have a plan for success anyway so stop-loss is probably doing a lot of these guys a favor anyway.

239845[/snapback]

Yeah, Al, stop-loss is just doing those guys a favor.

239849[/snapback]

I'm fine with your snide and less than intelligent comments. I don't expect you to understand the inner workings of the United States military. And no, I'm sorry, being a military brat doesn't give you any sort of expertise in the least.

[TexasTiger 12,988]

Most soldiers that get out don't have a plan for success anyway so stop-loss is probably doing a lot of these guys a favor anyway.

239845[/snapback]

Yeah, Al, stop-loss is just doing those guys a favor.

239849[/snapback]

I'm fine with your snide and less than intelligent comments. I don't expect you to understand the inner workings of the United States military. And no, I'm sorry, being a military brat doesn't give you any sort of expertise in the least.

239915[/snapback]

If I were to make "less than intelligent comments", chances are, those are the ones you would best comprehend. And no, being in the military doesn't give you any expertise on what those in the military who choose not to re-enlist, but are, nonetheless, required to stay, think about that. But I can't really improve on Tiger Al's phrasing:

I don't assume to know what plans most soldiers have for their post-separation lives but I would assume if he or she didn't re-enlist that further military service wasn't in the plan.

Just good 'ole logic and common sense. No wonder it went over your head.

A stupid comment is a stupid comment. And you know what your buddy TIS says about stupid-- can't be fixed.

[Captain Liger 0]

Maybe you remember this being explained to you. It wasn't explained to me any of the times I signed one, nor was I even aware of such a thing. I doubt many of the people who signed it were, either.

239832[/snapback]

"But my recruiter told me.........."

Obscure as it may be, maybe you should have done a better job of reading the fine print of your enlistment contract. The stop-loss inclusion is nothing new and apparently its presence isn't having much of a negative impact as my own personal experience is that soldier reenlistment (before, during, and post-deployment) continues to outweigh soldier seperations.

Stop-loss isn't that big of a deal, really. It's not like it keeps a soldier in uniform for an extra 5 years or something. If a soldier is due to seperate prior to a deployment and gets stop-lossed then the worst case scenario is that they have to hang around for an extra year. Big deal. Most soldiers that get out don't have a plan for success anyway so stop-loss is probably doing a lot of these guys a favor anyway.

239845[/snapback]

That's certainly one slant that could be taken. Of course, another one might be that recruiters, et al, could be more thorough when they explain multi-page contracts that young men and women sign during the whirlwind trip through chaos known as MEPS.

I agree with you that stop-loss isn't a big deal to anyone, at least until they are the one that it's used on. I don't assume to know what plans most soldiers have for their post-separation lives but I would assume if he or she didn't re-enlist that further military service wasn't in the plan. I'm rather skeptical that it would be seen as a 'favor.'

Also, according to the code that governs stop-loss, no set time limit is given as to when soldiers would be released. You said an extra year, worst case scenario. The law says it would be no more than six months beyond the end of the war. Most tours are for 18 mos. which seems to me that we could be talking about a significant amount of time, even for someone without what others might view as a 'plan for success.' I'd bet mommy and daddy would consider junior coming home with a heartbeat and five appendages a major success.

239850[/snapback]

I can agree with you on that as I'm quite sure there are a number of recruiters that just skim and fly thru the highlights of an elistment contract. I'm somewhat skeptical of recruiters anyway as the quality of recruits they are sending us these days ain't quite what it used to be. Having said that, having said that a number of recruiters could take more time to explain a contract it is STILL a personal responsibility of the recruit to thoroughly read their contract. Recruits are at a minimum of 18 years of age (with one exception). They are old enough to vote. They are old enough to be considered a man (or woman). They are old enough to take responsibility and read their contract without someone having to hold their hand.

I'm telling you, 90 to 95% of soldiers that get out DON'T have a clue as to what they are going to do when they get out other than go home and live with mommy and daddy till they figure it out. They AREN'T looking for jobs in advance of their seperation date nor are most looking at prospective universities to attend prior to getting out. The majority that get out are getting out just for the sake of getting out. Those that do usually have bad attitudes and were dirtbags anyway. And sometimes, those guys end up getting back in when the reality of the real world hits them. So like I said, stop-loss does these guys a favor because they continue to get paid, hopefully put away some money, and hopefully mature a little in the extra year they are required to serve. Stop-loss is not an evil thing.

I don't know anyone (active duty) that has served an 18 month tour in a war zone outside the original units that took part in the invasion. I served in OIF II, meaning we were the relief in place for the units that kicked off the war. I was deployed two days shy of one year exactly. So lets end the confusion right now as to how long a deployment "these days" last. And I'm speaking in terms of active duty troops. I'm sure there are certain instances where someone may serve 13 or 14 months in theater but I certainly do not know anyone that has served 18 months and if there are any then I'd have to believe they volunteered to stay behind.

Look, I don't have to explain how stop-loss works to you. I don't know you but obviously you are associated with the military in some way (active, guard?) but I will explain it for those that are reading this and aren't familiar with how we work.

Here's a scenario:

PFC Snuffy enlisted in the Army in November 1999 for what he thought was a 4 year enlistment. His ETS date, therefore, would be November 2003. In the spring of 2003 rumors start to spread that PFC Snuffy's division will be deployed in March 2004. Sure enough, in July 2003 orders come down from the Department of the Army that PFC Snuffy's division will deploy to Iraq with lead elements leaving in January 2004 and the final units leaving in March 2004. Ninety days prior to the division deploying, in this case October 2003, stop-loss will take effect. Anyone with ETS and retirement dates AFTER October 2003 will stay in uniform and most likely deploy with their unit. PFC Snuffy falls into this category since his original ETS date was November 2003. So PFC Snuffy just happens to be in a unit that is one of the first to leave for Iraq. His days in country start ticking the moment his aircraft touches down in Kuwait. January 2005 rolls around and it's time to go home. But wait, there are elections going on and the sheer numbers and combat power of PFC Snuffy's unit are needed so PFC Snuffy has to hang around for an extra two weeks. After that, PFC Snuffy gets to go home...and he does. PFC Snuffy arrives home at his post. He is given a 3 day pass after his return after which 10 consecutive days of reintegration training is given to help him get used to being home. After those 10 days, PFC Snuffy's unit is given a 30 day block of leave. It is up to PFC Snuffy whether he wants to take this leave or not because he may want to save it for when he gets out of the Army. In fact, PFC Snuffy decides he still wants to get out. No one is allowed to seperate from the Army for 90 days after returning from a deployment. PFC Snuffy has exactly 30 days of leave saved up and he wants his last day of leave to coincide with the day he is effectively out of the Army so instead of having to stay in the Army an extra 90 days he only has to stick around for 60. The last 30 days he will be on leave. Come day 90, PFC Snuffy is no longer in the active duty Army. Total time he was forced to stay in: 17 months. So my estimate of "an extra year" was a little off but it is a rule of thumb to go by...an extra year, give or take a little. And in that extra year PFC Snuffy had the opportunity to put back a very decent amount of tax free earnings, was still eligible for promotion (perhaps he is now SPC Snuffy), and hopefully matured a little.

That's how it works. This scenario is based on one of my former soldiers.

[Captain Liger 0]

Most soldiers that get out don't have a plan for success anyway so stop-loss is probably doing a lot of these guys a favor anyway.

239845[/snapback]

Yeah, Al, stop-loss is just doing those guys a favor.

239849[/snapback]

I'm fine with your snide and less than intelligent comments. I don't expect you to understand the inner workings of the United States military. And no, I'm sorry, being a military brat doesn't give you any sort of expertise in the least.

239915[/snapback]

If I were to make "less than intelligent comments", chances are, those are the ones you would best comprehend. And no, being in the military doesn't give you any expertise on what those in the military who choose not to re-enlist, but are, nonetheless, required to stay, think about that. But I can't really improve on Tiger Al's phrasing:

I don't assume to know what plans most soldiers have for their post-separation lives but I would assume if he or she didn't re-enlist that further military service wasn't in the plan.

Just good 'ole logic and common sense. No wonder it went over your head.

A stupid comment is a stupid comment. And you know what your buddy TIS says about stupid-- can't be fixed.

239917[/snapback]

Yeah, actually, being a leader in the military does give me some expertise on what people who are "forced" to stay on think. I don't have to assume what the plans are of those who decide to get out. I already know because I make it my business because I'm a good leader. They don't have to stay in if they don't want to but they do have a responsibility to themselves and to their family to succeed when they get out. If they don't have a plan to do so then I am going to do my best to persuade them to stay in if they are worth a crap. The military isn't a civilian profession where you come in, work 8 hours, and go home and don't give a rip about what your co-workers are doing or what is going on in their life. Our commodity isn't some product that can be manufactured. Our commodity is our soldiers. Military leaders MUST be involved in their soldiers' lives and know what is going on. I care about my soldiers and I want them to succeed whether in uniform or out of it and therefore I make their personal plans after military life my business. I don't expect you to understand any of this.

Trust me, I don't expect you to ever say anything that will be over my head and you wouldn't know good 'ole logic and common sense if it bit you on the ass.

Very true what TIS says about stupid. I guess there's no hope for you after all.