Quit crying about stop-loss.

You know who is crying about the stop-loss policy, they are the ones they have never served in the miilitary or they never should have.

I was stop-lossed prior to Desert Storm and got my fricking leg almost ripped off. (during)

It's war, it happens.

No one has served one day more than they agreed to on their contract. I guess they should not have signed the contract if they didn't like its terms.

Goatie, I served 6 months and 24 days longer then I signed up for.

It was traitorous to send Reservists and Guard units overseas. Never done before. There first job is civilian and their second was domestic defense and rescue. Rummy double crossed them.

You haven't a clue nutsack.

I guess if the majority of the good men and woman serving in Iraq don't have a problem with this...then I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable, disagreeing with them.

One question though guys(rex and goat)...doesn't this policy have SOME effect on moral?

Soul, it did have some effect on the morale when I served 1991, but most looked at it as a chance to save more money before ets'ing.

Goatie, I served 6 months and 24 days longer then I signed up for.

That was above the 8 years that is included in the inactive reserves?

You are the first I've heard who has. How did that come about?

Stop-loss is a direct result of dems ending the draft. I don't hear too much crying about stop-loss from the troops. but you should have heard the crying when the draft was on during the Vietnam War. I saw a grown man cry just because he was assigned to Ft Polk for infantry AIT.

Stop-loss is a direct result of dems ending the draft.

No, stop-loss is a direct result of going into an unnecessary war with the "Army you have, not the Army you want."

FWTHOM, I am all for the draft as long as your chances of being drafted increase with family wealth. No exemptions for anyone - other than handicapped. Try and start a war where a rich man may lose his son, and see where you end up.

I saw a grown man cry just because he was assigned to Ft Polk for infantry AIT.

#13 | Posted by fwthom at 2008-12-08 10:49 PM | Reply |

The crying man was obviously a republican who finally had to do something for his country rather than sending others off to die.

Are you sure it wasn't Bushie going to Georgia to hide? I'm sure it wasn't that liberal Max Cleland, or John Kerry---both wounded war heroes.

Maybe Bushie got a medal for pants-pissing. The halls of the White House smell like urine now.

Iraq is going so great right now--start with the over extenders to come home first.

Get the forces down to 50k or less. There will be a base or two.

Afghanistan needs more attention.

They need a job and burn the poppy fields and make or pay them to grow something else.

Build a pipeline--that will create jobs. Keep them busy.

Oh Yes You Can Just Feel So Puffed Up and Proud About Being a Willing Part of the Bush Iraq "Oil War"!!!

I served a number of years active Army and National Guard. As much as I disliked being Stop-Lossed (for around a year), I don't see any alternatives.

A typical active duty enlistment is 3 years and a typical deployment is around 15 months (1 year deployed, 3 months training). This means any mobilizing unit would have around a third of its lower enlisted personnel ETS during the deployment. It's also been my experience that a fairly large numbers of personnel are unable to mob due to various reasons (physical, administrative, family, etc.).

Without Stop-Loss, units would only be able to deploy at less than 1/2 strength. This is assuming that most units are at 100% strength to begin with, which most are not (the Guard especially, used to be notorious for exaggerating unit strength). This would mean we'd be force to either send grossly understrength units into combat zones or conglomerate units together.

The only safe and practical way to end Stop-Loss is to end the deployments.

While I was in college, I worked in a recruiting office for the Guard. Everybody going in knew about the ramifications of Stop-Loss. In addition, during my deployments in the Guard, I would say that 90% of those who were Stop-Lossed were actually still in their IRR time (a typical enlistment is 6x2, with 6 years Active Reserve and 2 years Inactive).

Stop loss.......LOL

When they finally let the troops come home they will be without a job because it was shipped overseas because these guys are all unskilled lazy pieces of shit, but apparently they are skilled for the government.

No Stop-losee cannnot be stopped. It's either stop-loss or draft.

There is an alternative however. it will not be respected by most chest thumping joe-the-plumer types.......peace.

No Stop-losee cannnot be stopped. It's either stop-loss or draft.

LOL!

The high and mighty thinker here.

How about dealing with the situations at home and stop creating major problems in other countries, it will be amazing how suddenly those stop loss troops services won't be needed.

Zgeist,

I served 6 years in the Reserves TO AVOID VIETNAM, as did others, including Shrub. Of course, had I failed to show up, like Shrub who skipped out when drug testing for pilots was mandated, I would have been immediately shipped to NAM.

But those that signed up after Mar-2002 had a pretty good idea what they were getting into. No officials who finished their public service under Shrub ever admitted it would take this long or cost so much. The regular military must always be ready.

Those reservists and guardsman who have served three and four tours, with families and civilian jobs have had their lives grossly disrupted, even if they survived in one piece.

Virtually NO Military equipment will ever make it back to the States (aircraft excepted). Another uncounted cost to that unnecessary war. The homefront unpreparedness that implies and future cost will have to be led by Shrub's successors and born by taxpayers.

Virtually NO Military equipment will ever make it back to the States (aircraft excepted). Another uncounted cost to that unnecessary war.

Presumably Obama will be president when the war ends. Why would the annointed one be so foolhardy with America's military hardware?

Blaming the dems for ending the draft? What YEAR did that happen?

Give me a break - ANYTHING to avoid accepting responsibility for the fact YOU VOTED FOR SHRUB!

Stop LOSS is meant to be used ONLY when the US is at a state of war!

Since NO WAR has been declared or approved by congress STOP LOSS should currently be illegal!

Gman,

Six years into a sand battle, most of the equipment is worth less than the cost of returning and repairing, particularly Reserve and Guard equipment which was older to begin with.

After we left Vietnam, the second largest Air Force in the world was Vietnam, by virtue of what we abandoned. Exits from a stalemate battle are anything but clean.

Some of you people are crazy...

When a soldier signs the enlistment contract they sign for an 8 year commitment. That might be only active for 2-5 yrs but they are required to give 8 yrs service. with the remaining time being IRR or inactive Ready reserve. During the inactive time, AT ANY TIME, the government can recall a soldier to active status. ITS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED. Read the contract if you don't like it don't sign... BUT PLEASE quit your BITCHING!!!!!

Stop LOSS is meant to be used ONLY when the US is at a state of war!

Since NO WAR has been declared or approved by congress STOP LOSS should currently be illegal!

#26 | Posted by Monstman at 2008-12-09 10:14 AM | Reply |

PLEASE SHOW ME THIS REGULATION!!!!

I don't get it. There's no draft. These people went in voluntarily, right?

"Stop-loss is a direct result of dems ending the draft." When we pick the most preposterous deflection of '08, this should be right up there. Blame DEMOs for the mideast atrocity? herm

If you have followed this story: Anna Berlinrut has lied about her son's status in the military to gain media sympathy. Her son is a Marine who has volunteered to return and is happy to serve his country. As the Lt. Col. TV Johnson, spokesperson for the Comandant of the USMC stated: "Had the CBS correspondent working this story bothered to check the facts, she probably would have totally discounted Ms. Anna Berlinrut''s interview. The Marine Corps is NOT using "stop-loss." Berlinrut''s son has REPEATEDLY VOLUNTEERED to extend his service in order to deploy. My office was on the phone with him this morining. From Iraq, he stated that "This is a great way to spend your twenties (going to college and going to combat)." Because of this inaccurate story, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, has to meet with the Secretary of Defense to explain that the Marine Corps is NOT using "stop-loss." Marines are staying on because we understand that the Nation is at war. Like Ms. Berlinrut's son, we are ALL volunteers."

Get a life and stay out of your son's Ms. Berlinrut. A lot of Marine families were very paniced by your false claims. Mine being one of them.