Soldier files suit to avoid Iraq tour - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 10-24-2004, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Soldier files suit to avoid Iraq tour
BY PATRICIA HURTADO AND PETE BOWLES
STAFF WRITERS

October 23, 2004

A New York City man who says he has completed his eight-year military obligation to the Army -- described by his attorney as a "true patriot" -- filed a federal lawsuit Friday seeking to block his deployment to Iraq.

Jay J. Ferriola, 31, a former football player at St. Francis Prep in Fresh Meadows, alleges that although he submitted his resignation papers in June the Army notified him this week that he is still in the service and ordered him to report to duty on Monday for assignment to Iraq.

"He's done his tour of duty," said Ferriola's attorney, Barry Slotnick. "He's been in Bosnia, he's been in Germany and other countries. He's a true patriot, and his career with the Army is over."

Ferriola charged in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that the Pentagon and the Department of the Army had violated his due process rights and was forcing him into "involuntary servitude" by dispatching him "on a dangerous mission in Iraq."

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet, who received the lawsuit late Friday, scheduled an emergency hearing for 4 p.m. Sunday. The office of U.S. Attorney David Kelly, which represents the government, said it had no comment and would file court papers during the weekend.

In his lawsuit, Ferriola said that he enlisted in the Army as a student at Virginia Military Institute and that he had received three commendations for meritorious service during his four-year tour.

He completed his active service as a captain in 2000, receiving an honorable discharge, and joined the Army Reserve for a four-year term.

He said his Reserve service expired Feb. 26 -- while he was attached to the 306th Military Police Battalion in Uniondale -- and that he submitted his resignation papers in June. He said his commanding officer recommended his resignation for approval.

But without explanation, Ferriola said, the Army did not accept his resignation and on Oct. 19 ordered him to report to his Uniondale unit on Monday and be prepared for an 18-month assignment to Iraq.

Asked by reporters if he is afraid of serving there, Ferriola said: "Not at all."

"I complied with my eight-year obligation," he said. "I never intended to make a career of the Army. I wanted to pursue other careers in civilian life."

Slotnick said Ferriola is fully employed but declined to state his occupation. "He's decided to go into private life, start a family and do other things," Slotnick said. "He is at this point not a member of the armed forces. He is a civilian now. Certainly he has the right to resume his life."

Ferriola is not the first soldier to seek relief in the courts. Because of the war in Iraq, the Army has extended the enlistments of thousands of active-duty soldiers and members of National Guard and Reserve units.

The so-called "stop loss" extensions have sparked a number of pending legal challenges across the country. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and other critics have labeled stop-loss orders a "backdoor draft" and called them evidence that President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy is flawed.

Slotnick said his client is a victim of the extension policy. "The Army can't go out on the street corner and say, 'You're in the Army now,'" he said. "This backdoor draft will be determined by the voters."

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

What do board members think of Ferriola's action?

Is he indeed, as his lawyer claims, a "true patriot"? Alternatively, is this the thin end of the wedge with regards to conscription?

Mr Mephisto

daking · 10-24-2004, 11:32 PM

Conscription in sheeps clothing

Paq · 10-25-2004, 12:18 AM

yeah, i mean, he served his term, he resigned....then bam, no he can't and he's assigned to iraq....ummm...i'd call it backdoor conscription, easily..

host · 10-25-2004, 01:38 AM

A temporary reprieve from forced duty for the former army captain....
(The group that got our country into this quagmire under misleading and
false pretenses, almost to a man.......personally avoided military service,
and they ordered this patriot who already served 8 years in uniform, to
go serve in harm's way in Iraq for 18 more months. How about 2 years of
humanitarian service in Iraq for Bush's twin daughters, it's such a worthwhile
cause for other familys' children to serve in and die in, according to Bush,
Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, and Feith!)

Quote:

<a href="http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_102404_soldierreprieve.html">http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_102404_soldierreprieve.html</a>
Reprieve for Army Captain Ordered to Iraq after Resigning
( -WABC, , 2004 ) — The government has agreed that an Army captain will not have to report for duty on Monday for an assignment to Iraq while the Army decides whether to approve his June resignation application.

Jay Ferriola, 31, appeared briefly Sunday before U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet. The judge agreed to delay action until November 1st on a lawsuit Ferriola filed against the government.

In a letter Saturday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Judd Lawler asked the judge to delay the case until the Army takes action on Ferriola's resignation letter. Lawler said the government agrees Ferriola is not required to report for duty at 7:00 a.m. Monday, as he had been told to.

Ferriola, a New York resident, finished eight years in the Army and Army Reserve in February. He said in his lawsuit that he resigned, and was told to turn in his equipment and not to report for any more monthly drills. But last week, he said, he received an order directing him to report on Monday to be assigned to duty in Iraq.

Ferriola's lawyer, Barry Slotnick, said outside court Sunday that he was "extremely optimistic" that the Army would decide in Ferriola's favor.

It probably won't be the last case of its kind. Last month, a judge ruled that an Army reservist from North Carolina must report to active duty. The reservist, Todd Parrish, had argued he had fulfilled his military obligation and sent the Army a letter resigning his commission, but the judge agreed with the Army that he could be recalled to duty because he failed to sign a resignation line on a letter asking for an update on his personal information.

Quote:

Richard Perle: Whose Fault Is He?

Consider kids who bullied Richard Perle--
Those kids who said Perle threw just like a girl,
Those kids who poked poor Perle to show how soft
A mamma's boy could be, those kids who oft-
Times pushed poor Richard down and could be heard
Addressing him as Sissy, Wimp or Nerd.
Those kids have got a lot to answer for,
'Cause Richard Perle now wants to start a war.
The message his demeanor gets across:
He'll show those playground bullies who's the boss.
He still looks soft, but when he writes or talks
There is no tougher dude among the hawks.
<b>And he's got planes and ships and tanks and guns--
All manned, of course, by other people's sons.</b>
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020916&s=trillin">by Calvin Trillin</a>

Fred181 · 10-25-2004, 01:39 AM

It is interesting to note that Stop loss has existed since the first Gulf War. The problem that we are running into to day is that the size of the military is so much smaller that we can not sustain operations like Iraq and Afghanistan for this long with a bunch of volunteers; i.e. the reason why there are so many guard/reserves currently serving in the middle east. Stop loss and (to a lesser extent) the guard and reserves serve as this nations military shock absorber. When the military needs to flux for an impending conflict or situation they call up the guard and reserves. Most often at the same time they are issuing call-ups they also implement stop loss.

All 4 services following 9-11 implemented stop loss because of the uncertain situation ahead. I have no problem with stop loss in this situation. An informed member of the military knows that stop loss is an option, and with an impending war the military can't have everyone jumping ship. I do however have a problem with the Army continuing to issue stop loss orders almost 2 years after the war in Iraq began. Is it a "back door draft" as Kerry calls it? You're damn right. The problem with W Bush, the DOD and Congress is that they have no foresight into the future. They are not concerned with what we are going to do to get us out of this mess. I don't advocate just up and pulling out; we are in way to deep for that now, but we NEED A PLAN of how to get the ~150,000 troops that are currently in the middle east out of there. Our Guardsmen and Reservists can't and won't serve in a environment where thy are are in constant fear of an activation. Recruiting efforts are way down. The active duty troops will not stay in under the threat that they will be deployed for 12 months every other year. Stop loss is a backdoor draft, but if the US Govt does not develop a plan to get us out of this soon we will be faced with more than just a back door draft....

Sorry I digressed, didn't mean to derail the thread
F

irateplatypus · 10-25-2004, 08:53 AM

the previous administration tried to get the military to do more with fewer people. that worked for a while, but then we had to actually fight a war. we spent the 90's closing bases and giving severance pay to soldiers who elect to leave early... and we complain about the current President when we're short on troops.

training a division of soldiers isn't like ordering a pizza. it's a major operation that requires millions in equipment and infrastructure on top of the task of finding adequate people to fill those positions.

Seaver · 10-25-2004, 10:09 AM

This man is an officer. I dont know if yall know this, but when you get commissioned it's for your entire able-life. So until about the age of 60~ you're able to be called up at ANY time the gov. needs you. This is explained to ALL of us in the Academies or ROTC, so I cant shed a tear.

filtherton · 10-25-2004, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the previous administration tried to get the military to do more with fewer people. that worked for a while, but then we had to actually fight a war. we spent the 90's closing bases and giving severance pay to soldiers who elect to leave early... and we complain about the current President when we're short on troops.

training a division of soldiers isn't like ordering a pizza. it's a major operation that requires millions in equipment and infrastructure on top of the task of finding adequate people to fill those positions.

How many years has bush had to increase troop levels? It has been almost four years since clinton was gone, certanly bush has had some input in that time. Besides, i thought it was rumsfeld who was all gung ho about a sleeker military with quick-strike capablilites.

host · 10-25-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

This man is an officer. I dont know if yall know this, but when you get commissioned it's for your entire able-life. So until about the age of 60~ you're able to be called up at ANY time the gov. needs you. This is explained to ALL of us in the Academies or ROTC, so I cant shed a tear.

That's good to know. If the pentagon can initiate the paperwork soon after
November 2nd, they can call up Lt. George W. Bush and send him to Iraq for
18 months. He's 58 now, he'll just fit a twilight tour of duty in before his
60th birthday. A just and fitting ending to a brilliant career........

Lebell · 10-25-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

That's good to know. If the pentagon can initiate the paperwork soon after
November 2nd, they can call up Lt. George W. Bush and send him to Iraq for
18 months. He's 58 now, he'll just fit a twilight tour of duty in before his
60th birthday. A just and fitting ending to a brilliant career........

Sarcasm aside, Bush is already serving...as commander-in-chief.

Secondly, even if he weren't, he would be far down the list, being 58.

Eligible, but far down the list.

As to this case, I can understand what the Army is doing in the short term by these stop gap measures, but I think that the ultimate solution still lies in repositioning our troops in Europe.

The coldwar is over and is not likely to start again. So let Europe suck on someone elses teat for awhile.

Bill O'Rights · 10-25-2004, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I can understand what the Army is doing in the short term by these stop gap measures, but I think that the ultimate solution still lies in repositioning our troops in Europe.

The coldwar is over and is not likely to start again. So let Europe suck on someone elses teat for awhile.

My sentiments, exactly. Our job there is done. Pack up, give 'em a hearty hand shake, thank 'em for having us (it's been...swell), and get the hell out. We need those troops where they are going to be doing the most good.

Ustwo · 10-25-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

My sentiments, exactly. Our job there is done. Pack up, give 'em a hearty hand shake, thank 'em for having us (it's been...swell), and get the hell out. We need those troops where they are going to be doing the most good.

The only problem I see about this is Europeans like to fight each other, alot.

We pull out, they up their own armies, one of them goes into economic decline, they get a nationalist government talking about the good old days, WWII generation has mostly died off to say 'what the hell are you doing', and bingo another European war.

Based on European history, this is more likely than thinking that wars are over with.

Bill O'Rights · 10-25-2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The only problem I see about this is Europeans like to fight each other, alot.

True. But I don't see that as big of a threat as it was 50 or 60 years ago. Europe is all grown up now, and able to take care of itself. Besides, I'm tired of babysitting them. If they can't keep their hands to themselves by now, then it's time someone else gives 'em a time out. We need our resources.

daswig · 10-25-2004, 01:02 PM

Once you join the army, you're in it until THEY say you are not. He's going to Iraq or prison.

"You can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps!"

daswig · 10-25-2004, 01:07 PM

This whole thing is an object lesson in why we shouldn't have streamlined and outsourced the military as much as we did. It used to be that the "undesireables" in the service got shunted off to nasty jobs like KP, et cetera while they served out the rest of their enlistments. In times of crisis, they could still be called on to fight. Now, the jobs people in the military wouldn't want to do have been turned over to civilian contractors, and the "undesireables" separated from the service.

We shouldn't have skimped on national defense.

Mephisto2 · 10-25-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The only problem I see about this is Europeans like to fight each other, alot.

I think you'll find that the United States has been involved in more wars the past 100 years than Europe (that is, the countries that make up the EU).

Having said that, the European Union and economic stability has made a war amongst the major countries a virtual impossibility. So your "concern" is unfounded.

The US troops were in Europe because of teh Cold War, not to act as police or to stop countries squabling.

I also find it amusing that you cite leaving Europe as a "problem" when you have a history on this board of ranting against Europe, complaining that they rely upon the US too much, that America is fed up being the world's policeman etc.

So which one is it?

Quote:

We pull out, they up their own armies, one of them goes into economic decline, they get a nationalist government talking about the good old days, WWII generation has mostly died off to say 'what the hell are you doing', and bingo another European war.

Based on European history, this is more likely than thinking that wars are over with.

No it's not.

Mr Mephisto

Boo · 10-25-2004, 07:22 PM

I recommend UCMJ punishment. Make an example of this "Captain". Dishonorable discharge and loss of benefits.

If you can't do the time, don't sign the line.

cthulu23 · 10-25-2004, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

This whole thing is an object lesson in why we shouldn't have streamlined and outsourced the military as much as we did. It used to be that the "undesireables" in the service got shunted off to nasty jobs like KP, et cetera while they served out the rest of their enlistments. In times of crisis, they could still be called on to fight. Now, the jobs people in the military wouldn't want to do have been turned over to civilian contractors, and the "undesireables" separated from the service.

We shouldn't have skimped on national defense.

I don't know if "skimp" is the right word. We shouldn't have blown trillions on high-tech weaponry while ignoring the troops.

daswig · 10-25-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Having said that, the European Union and economic stability has made a war amongst the major countries a virtual impossibility. So your "concern" is unfounded.

I dunno...a while back I read an article about Germany making noises towards Poland about seeking "reparations" for germanic peoples driven from Poland around the end of WWII...

Quote:

For though the world stood up and killed the Beast, the Bitch that bore the Bastard is in heat again.

You may be willing to say that Europe could never have another war. But war as a virtual impossibility? Didn't they say that after WWI?

Bill O'Rights · 10-26-2004, 04:42 AM

Ok...this thread is getting off topic fast. Not that it's not a good topic...it is, but this thread is about an Army Captain that feels he's done his duty, and is done with the military. Let's keep it on track. And don't get pissy, 'cause I'm just as guilty here as anyone else.

neutone · 10-26-2004, 05:14 AM

I don't blame the guy, who want to serve in the most fictional war in history.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

You may be willing to say that Europe could never have another war. But war as a virtual impossibility? Didn't they say that after WWI?

I guess "virtual impossibility" is too strong a term. "Extremely unlikely" is probably more accurate.

Either way, US forces were never there to prevent a European war, but to defend against a Soviet invasion. So you're just arguing a moot and irrelevent point. It's laughable that you and Ustwo are now saying US forces should remain in Europe to keep the peace.

But let's get back on topic. Was this officer justified in his actions?

Mr Mephisto

pan6467 · 10-26-2004, 06:25 AM

Well, I think this puts to rest all those nasty draft rumors. THERE WILL BE A DRAFT. What is happening here, is wrong. One minute the administration and military claim that recruitment and retention are 110% over and then you hear stories like this and stories of how they keep people over there after their time is up.

I hate to disagree with some who profess more knowledge, however, once you serve your time, you have served your time. The enlistment papers you sign when joining the military are a legal binding contract same as any other. Officers contracts are basically the same.

(This will not help the officer suing, unless the contracts have changed dramtically.)

When you enlist you sign a contract that states how long you are in for active duty, reserve, and what is called inactive reserve.

Now, it sounds like the officer fulfilled his active, went reserve and fufilled that, and resigned his commission. His right. However if he was under the basic contract that was around in the late 80's and early 90's then he has what is called inactive reserve duty.

What inactive reserve duty is, and believe it or not in 1988, when I went in as Navy Nuke (so it maybe different contracts, cause Nukes are a very prestigious and the Navy wants to keep you in as long as possible), and we were at peace, the recruiter went to great lengths to explain this to me.

What happens is you serve your time. Then during 8 years (for me it was 8 years) if we go to war they can activate you at anytime. However, the longer you are in active/reserve the less that 8 years becomes, (of course).

What those above are saying, that the military owns that man for the rest of his life is not entirely accurate. I am quite sure the inactive reserve clause is still used. I am just surprised a lawyer took this case, and that the military doesn't point to that clause.

On the other hand, perhaps the clause no longer exists, or the military doesn't want to advertise it because it will scare people.

Having done my time, having signed those papers, all I can advise anyone thinking about taking the plunge is this, read the contract thoroughly, ask the recruiter any and all questions you may have regarding what you are signing, but most of all go in there knowing that the contracts are going to be very one sided, favoring the military of course.

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neutone

I don't blame the guy, who want to serve in the most fictional war in history.

Remember the Maine!

Locobot · 10-26-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I think you'll find that the United States has been involved in more wars the past 100 years than Europe (that is, the countries that make up the EU).

Not sure how that calculation works out, there were 20-30 nations involved in both ww1 and ww2, so that's 40-60 involvements from europe right there. Also Norway and Switzerland are not EU members (yet).

Quote:

Having said that, the European Union and economic stability has made a war amongst the major countries a virtual impossibility. So your "concern" is unfounded.

The US troops were in Europe because of teh Cold War, not to act as police or to stop countries squabling.

Not sure I entirely agree here, the last 50 years of relative peace is the longest Europe has seen, ever. Europe owes this solely to peace kept by the U.S. with NATO and the Soviet Union with the Eastern Bloc. Until the EU develops a true multi-national military with autonomous control to police it's own territories, there is a cause for foreign military presence.

Quote:

I also find it amusing that you cite leaving Europe as a "problem" when you have a history on this board of ranting against Europe, complaining that they rely upon the US too much, that America is fed up being the world's policeman etc.

I agree that's hilarious.

On the topic: I just hope the court that tries this case follows the letter of the contract this person signed, if it's in the fine print that he can be called up to active duty then he should go. If there is no legal basis for him being called up than this would be forced conscription. "We will not have an all volunteer army! Wha? We will have an all volunteer army!" --G.W. Bush

neutone · 10-26-2004, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Remember the Maine!

Sorry Ustwo, by now you should know I'm not in the land of the free (to serve the fictional president) and while I know that Maine is a State I don't know to what you are referring.

From Afrika!

Bill O'Rights · 10-26-2004, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neutone

Sorry Ustwo, by now you should know I'm not in the land of the free (to serve the fictional president) and while I know that Maine is a State I don't know to what you are referring.

He's refering to the battleship "Maine" which exploded and was sunk in a Havanah harbor in 1898. William Randolph Hurst eroneously blamed Spain for the sinking, which in turn precipitated the Spanish American War. The battlecry of which was "Remember the Maine and To Hell with Spain"

Either that, or I don't know what the hell he's talking about.

Seaver · 10-26-2004, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Officers contracts are basically the same.

Thank you for your time served Pan, but enlisted and officer contracts are very different.

Under enlisted you re-enlist about every 5 years. If the 5 years ends and you do nothing you are excused from service (extenuating sircumstances non-withstanding aka stop-gap).

Under officer if you do nothing at the end of your first 4 years you are still in. If you DO put in the paperwork to resign you do NOT resign your commission. At anytime until age 60 you can be called back into military service. Unless you are disabled somehow, or already serving in a public office you are liable to be called into active duty. As I said before they do NOT lie about this fact, and drill it into our heads in the Academy, ROTC, and OCS before we get our commission. He knew what could happen now he's suing because it did, so I cant be sympathetic to it.

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neutone

Sorry Ustwo, by now you should know I'm not in the land of the free (to serve the fictional president) and while I know that Maine is a State I don't know to what you are referring.

From Afrika!

Perhaps then my friend, you shouldn't making sweeping comments about the most fictional war in history, unless you are well versed in said history.

Delirious · 10-26-2004, 10:11 AM

The conflict is real, the public reasons behind it aren't.

pan6467 · 10-26-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Thank you for your time served Pan, but enlisted and officer contracts are very different.

Under enlisted you re-enlist about every 5 years. If the 5 years ends and you do nothing you are excused from service (extenuating sircumstances non-withstanding aka stop-gap).

Under officer if you do nothing at the end of your first 4 years you are still in. If you DO put in the paperwork to resign you do NOT resign your commission. At anytime until age 60 you can be called back into military service. Unless you are disabled somehow, or already serving in a public office you are liable to be called into active duty. As I said before they do NOT lie about this fact, and drill it into our heads in the Academy, ROTC, and OCS before we get our commission. He knew what could happen now he's suing because it did, so I cant be sympathetic to it.

That's cool Seaver and thank you for your time in.

No, I was always told that the contracts were pretty much the same,except they would resign their commissions. And another basis for my reasoning was that in 1990 on our ship there were 2 officers that were actually being discharged because they had not moved up in rank in 4 years (1 was a LTJG the other was a LT). Of course in the spring of 1990 they were cutting 70,000 Navy and Marine jobs (under Bush I might add).

However, I do see the point in the military having a longer "inactive reserve" period for the officers because they put far more money into officers trainings.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Not sure how that calculation works out, there were 20-30 nations involved in both ww1 and ww2, so that's 40-60 involvements from europe right there. Also Norway and Switzerland are not EU members (yet).

Well, that's only if you count WW2 and many seperate wars, as opposed to one war. Not really appropriate now, is it?

If we consider "war" on a singular basis and limit ourselves to the past 100 years, we get the following for Europe.

WWI
WWII
Korea (kind of tenous, as only a few countries were involved and it was at the behest of the UN)

European forces were involved in peace-keeping actions, but these don't constitute wars and certainly are not of the kind implied in the original post.

When we consider the US, we get teh following (off the top of my head)

WWI
WWII
Korea (ditto)
Vietnam
- Laos (illegal and unofficial action)
- Cambodia (illegal and unofficial action)
Attempted invasion of Cuba
Invasion of Nicaragua
Invasion of Haiti
Attack on Libya (not really a war)
Somalia (Peace Making mission, so may not be appropriate)
First invasion of Iraq
Second invasion of Iraq

I'm sure I can probably find more.

Now let's see. That's about 3:13. Let's say 3:9 if we ignore some of the more minor actions. That means the US has been directly involved in three times as many wars as "Old Europe" since the beginning of the century.

QED

Quote:

Not sure I entirely agree here, the last 50 years of relative peace is the longest Europe has seen, ever. Europe owes this solely to peace kept by the U.S. with NATO and the Soviet Union with the Eastern Bloc. Until the EU develops a true multi-national military with autonomous control to police it's own territories, there is a cause for foreign military presence.

Well I disagree with you entirely. It was implied, indeed stated, that the only reason the war didn't break out in Europe (ie, amongst European countires) was because US forces were there. That's just complete nonesense. The US forces were there to defend against Soviet/GDR attacks and not to stop France and Germany fighting (for example).

Sheesh...

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 10-26-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

If we consider "war" on a singular basis and limit ourselves to the past 100 years, we get the following for Europe.

WWI
WWII
Korea (kind of tenous, as only a few countries were involved and it was at the behest of the UN)

How quickly they forget.

Vietnam: No French involvement in "French Indochina", was there?
Belgian Congo: No Belgians were involved there, were there?
Algeria: No French troops there, right?
Ethiopia: Nah, never any Italians there, right?
The list goes on and on.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

How quickly they forget.

Vietnam: No French involvement in "French Indochina", was there?
Belgian Congo: No Belgians were involved there, were there?
Algeria: No French troops there, right?
Ethiopia: Nah, never any Italians there, right?
The list goes on and on.

You know you're absolutely right. I forgot the colonial struggles you referred to. I was concentrating on aggressive (ie incursive actions or invasions if you will) and "European wars", as that was what was stated the US Forces were preventing. I didn't stop to consider colonies revolting; the exception being Ethiopia of course.

Not in the slightest way the same thing, but a fair catch nonetheless.

Mr Mephisto

Seaver · 10-26-2004, 04:40 PM

Quote:

And another basis for my reasoning was that in 1990 on our ship there were 2 officers that were actually being discharged because they had not moved up in rank in 4 years (1 was a LTJG the other was a LT).

Yes it is Navy policy, accross the board on military services I believe that you are given so many years to advance in rank. If you dont make the advancement you are discharged. But you never lose your commission until age 60. Every single officer is commissioned by the President, and only he can discharge you of it early (handicaped personnel not included).

Boo · 10-26-2004, 05:50 PM

ETS=Estimated Time in Service

Flyguy · 10-26-2004, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

That's good to know. If the pentagon can initiate the paperwork soon after
November 2nd, they can call up Lt. George W. Bush and send him to Iraq for
18 months. He's 58 now, he'll just fit a twilight tour of duty in before his
60th birthday. A just and fitting ending to a brilliant career........

10-25-2004, 12:18 AM	#3 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	yeah, i mean, he served his term, he resigned....then bam, no he can't and he's assigned to iraq....ummm...i'd call it backdoor conscription, easily.. __________________ Live. Chris

10-25-2004, 01:39 AM	#5 (permalink)
Fred181 Crazy Location: Frigid North	It is interesting to note that Stop loss has existed since the first Gulf War. The problem that we are running into to day is that the size of the military is so much smaller that we can not sustain operations like Iraq and Afghanistan for this long with a bunch of volunteers; i.e. the reason why there are so many guard/reserves currently serving in the middle east. Stop loss and (to a lesser extent) the guard and reserves serve as this nations military shock absorber. When the military needs to flux for an impending conflict or situation they call up the guard and reserves. Most often at the same time they are issuing call-ups they also implement stop loss. All 4 services following 9-11 implemented stop loss because of the uncertain situation ahead. I have no problem with stop loss in this situation. An informed member of the military knows that stop loss is an option, and with an impending war the military can't have everyone jumping ship. I do however have a problem with the Army continuing to issue stop loss orders almost 2 years after the war in Iraq began. Is it a "back door draft" as Kerry calls it? You're damn right. The problem with W Bush, the DOD and Congress is that they have no foresight into the future. They are not concerned with what we are going to do to get us out of this mess. I don't advocate just up and pulling out; we are in way to deep for that now, but we NEED A PLAN of how to get the ~150,000 troops that are currently in the middle east out of there. Our Guardsmen and Reservists can't and won't serve in a environment where thy are are in constant fear of an activation. Recruiting efforts are way down. The active duty troops will not stay in under the threat that they will be deployed for 12 months every other year. Stop loss is a backdoor draft, but if the US Govt does not develop a plan to get us out of this soon we will be faced with more than just a back door draft.... Sorry I digressed, didn't mean to derail the thread F __________________ My heart will be restless until it finds its final rest. Then they can weigh it...

10-25-2004, 08:53 AM	#6 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the previous administration tried to get the military to do more with fewer people. that worked for a while, but then we had to actually fight a war. we spent the 90's closing bases and giving severance pay to soldiers who elect to leave early... and we complain about the current President when we're short on troops. training a division of soldiers isn't like ordering a pizza. it's a major operation that requires millions in equipment and infrastructure on top of the task of finding adequate people to fill those positions. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-25-2004, 07:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	I recommend UCMJ punishment. Make an example of this "Captain". Dishonorable discharge and loss of benefits. If you can't do the time, don't sign the line. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

10-26-2004, 04:42 AM	#20 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Ok...this thread is getting off topic fast. Not that it's not a good topic...it is, but this thread is about an Army Captain that feels he's done his duty, and is done with the military. Let's keep it on track. And don't get pissy, 'cause I'm just as guilty here as anyone else. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

10-24-2004, 11:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
daking Tilted	Conscription in sheeps clothing

10-25-2004, 10:09 AM	#7 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	This man is an officer. I dont know if yall know this, but when you get commissioned it's for your entire able-life. So until about the age of 60~ you're able to be called up at ANY time the gov. needs you. This is explained to ALL of us in the Academies or ROTC, so I cant shed a tear.

10-25-2004, 01:02 PM	#14 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Once you join the army, you're in it until THEY say you are not. He's going to Iraq or prison. "You can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps!"

10-25-2004, 01:07 PM	#15 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	This whole thing is an object lesson in why we shouldn't have streamlined and outsourced the military as much as we did. It used to be that the "undesireables" in the service got shunted off to nasty jobs like KP, et cetera while they served out the rest of their enlistments. In times of crisis, they could still be called on to fight. Now, the jobs people in the military wouldn't want to do have been turned over to civilian contractors, and the "undesireables" separated from the service. We shouldn't have skimped on national defense.

10-26-2004, 05:14 AM	#21 (permalink)
neutone Tilted	I don't blame the guy, who want to serve in the most fictional war in history.

10-26-2004, 06:25 AM	#23 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Well, I think this puts to rest all those nasty draft rumors. THERE WILL BE A DRAFT. What is happening here, is wrong. One minute the administration and military claim that recruitment and retention are 110% over and then you hear stories like this and stories of how they keep people over there after their time is up. I hate to disagree with some who profess more knowledge, however, once you serve your time, you have served your time. The enlistment papers you sign when joining the military are a legal binding contract same as any other. Officers contracts are basically the same. (This will not help the officer suing, unless the contracts have changed dramtically.) When you enlist you sign a contract that states how long you are in for active duty, reserve, and what is called inactive reserve. Now, it sounds like the officer fulfilled his active, went reserve and fufilled that, and resigned his commission. His right. However if he was under the basic contract that was around in the late 80's and early 90's then he has what is called inactive reserve duty. What inactive reserve duty is, and believe it or not in 1988, when I went in as Navy Nuke (so it maybe different contracts, cause Nukes are a very prestigious and the Navy wants to keep you in as long as possible), and we were at peace, the recruiter went to great lengths to explain this to me. What happens is you serve your time. Then during 8 years (for me it was 8 years) if we go to war they can activate you at anytime. However, the longer you are in active/reserve the less that 8 years becomes, (of course). What those above are saying, that the military owns that man for the rest of his life is not entirely accurate. I am quite sure the inactive reserve clause is still used. I am just surprised a lawyer took this case, and that the military doesn't point to that clause. On the other hand, perhaps the clause no longer exists, or the military doesn't want to advertise it because it will scare people. Having done my time, having signed those papers, all I can advise anyone thinking about taking the plunge is this, read the contract thoroughly, ask the recruiter any and all questions you may have regarding what you are signing, but most of all go in there knowing that the contracts are going to be very one sided, favoring the military of course. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-26-2004, 10:11 AM	#30 (permalink)
Delirious Crazy Location: Queens, NY	The conflict is real, the public reasons behind it aren't. Last edited by Delirious; 10-26-2004 at 10:14 AM..

10-26-2004, 05:50 PM	#36 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	ETS=Estimated Time in Service __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.