Soldier Considers Suicide and dersertion after being held beyond discharge

[Adul]

"He feels like it's a slap in the face," said the Chandler woman, who requested anonymity. "He says, 'We're over here fighting for Iraqi freedom. But U.S. soldiers don't have the freedom to say we don't want to be involuntarily extended.' "

link

 

[Schadenfroh]

why do people always "talk suicide" or "attempt suicide" but the bulk never do it?

 

[Jumpem]

They need to quit their whining. Things don't work as they normally do in warrtime. In both of the World Wars and Vietnam soldiers stayed longer than their obligations said they were. It is how it works.

By the way, soldiers back then didn't whine about equipment. they worked past it. In WW2 they welded beach obstacles and steel plate to their tanks to make them more useful. In Vietnam they welded steel plate to unarmored vehicles as well.

Todays military has a bunch of whiners that probably only joined for college money. I respect almost everyone in the military. These soldiers that complain and whine instead of serving with dignity I do not, however.

 

[Rallispec]

this is where you are wrong --- the F'ing liberal media needs to stop reporting on the .o1% of soldiors that show the war in a negative light and start reporting the way things actually are. I seriously bet that a majority of the soldiors that are staying longer than they wanted arne't even thinking about thinking about suicide.

Freaking media trying to dramatize everything. WHat a load of SH!t.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
Todays military has a bunch of whiners that probably only joined for college money. I respect almost everyone in the military. These soldiers that complain and whine instead of serving with dignity I do not, however.

What's wrong with joining for the GI Bill? It's a great incentive for people to join that are not as well off as you or I. Many people think that's a huge problem with the US however. The middle class & rich dont have to join because they have options, so they dont... therefore the poor folks are sent to their deaths instead of trying to help their single mom pay the rent by working a fast food place.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: Jumpem
Todays military has a bunch of whiners that probably only joined for college money. I respect almost everyone in the military. These soldiers that complain and whine instead of serving with dignity I do not, however.

What's wrong with joining for the GI Bill? It's a great incentive for people to join that are not as well off as you or I. Many people think that's a huge problem with the US however. The middle class & rich dont have to join because they have options, so they dont... therefore the poor folks are sent to their deaths instead of trying to help their single mom pay the rent by working a fast food place.

There is no problem with it at all. It's simply soldiers that you see on tv occassionally complaining that they are being sent to fight, when they only signed up for college money.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: Jumpem
Todays military has a bunch of whiners that probably only joined for college money. I respect almost everyone in the military. These soldiers that complain and whine instead of serving with dignity I do not, however.

What's wrong with joining for the GI Bill? It's a great incentive for people to join that are not as well off as you or I. Many people think that's a huge problem with the US however. The middle class & rich dont have to join because they have options, so they dont... therefore the poor folks are sent to their deaths instead of trying to help their single mom pay the rent by working a fast food place.

there's nothing wrong until you try to get out of fulfilling what you signed up for. and don't give me this middle class and rich crap, it's not a class thing so don't try and make it that. if you want to take money from the government you know damn well what you might have to do, which includes going to war. if that's not a risk you're willing to take then don't take the money and try and duck out later. pat tillman wasn't poor and had other options and you didn't see him trying to get out of serving his country and giving the ultimate sacrifice for undeserving people.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Rallispec


this is where you are wrong --- the F'ing liberal media needs to stop reporting on the .o1% of soldiors that show the war in a negative light and start reporting the way things actually are. I seriously bet that a majority of the soldiors that are staying longer than they wanted arne't even thinking about thinking about suicide.

Freaking media trying to dramatize everything. WHat a load of SH!t.

Yup. I work with soldiers, and all of the ones I know are very patriotic and devoted to their country. It's the media that is playing up these stories, trying to make the problem look larger than it is.

 

[allisolm]

"But U.S. soldiers don't have the freedom to say we don't want to be involuntarily extended."

That's right. A soldier's deployment is for the good of the service, not for the good of the soldier. My husband and, because of close association, his wife (me) and our children did 2 tours in Europe. Both times the Army involuntarily extended his tours. Last time both our children were in high school and it caused oh, so many headaches to put them in a US school in October rather than being there in July with plenty of time to work everything out. When he served in Korea (without us), they involuntarily extended his tour. You deal with it. That's life in the military.

 

[Amused]

Folks.

When you join the armed forces, they own you for 8 years. No matter if you signed up for 2, 4, or 6 years of active duty or reserves. For 8 years they have the right to call you back up. For 8 years you are in reserve.

This is EXPLAINED to you when you sign the enlistment papers.

And the amazing thing is, the media is NOT telling you this. Why?

Also, this has been in the enlistment contract ever since I can remember:

c. 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.

Also:

a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial en-listment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

This is what they agreed to when they signed up.

 

[Injury]

This long without someone saying it?


WRONG FORUM.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
They need to quit their whining. Things don't work as they normally do in warrtime. In both of the World Wars and Vietnam soldiers stayed longer than their obligations said they were. It is how it works.

And in WW and Vietname war, they also had drafts too... so when/if the US does it, i guess it's the way things normally work, and we shouldn't hear you whining right?

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
They need to quit their whining. Things don't work as they normally do in warrtime. In both of the World Wars and Vietnam soldiers stayed longer than their obligations said they were. It is how it works.

By the way, soldiers back then didn't whine about equipment. they worked past it. In WW2 they welded beach obstacles and steel plate to their tanks to make them more useful. In Vietnam they welded steel plate to unarmored vehicles as well.

Todays military has a bunch of whiners that probably only joined for college money. I respect almost everyone in the military. These soldiers that complain and whine instead of serving with dignity I do not, however.

Yes Sir Jumpem, dissent or ideas to improve flaws should be looked down upon. Der Fuhrer does not like dissent, as evident by his Minister of Defense a few days ago who came up with the most disrespectful response to soldiers that were about to fight for him. We all know that on his way back to the airport his vehicles were heavily armoured, since armour isn't effective against attack, why didn't he drive to the airport exposed like the troops he was sending off to war???

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: Jumpem
They need to quit their whining. Things don't work as they normally do in warrtime. In both of the World Wars and Vietnam soldiers stayed longer than their obligations said they were. It is how it works.

And in WW and Vietname war, they also had drafts too... so when/if the US does it, i guess it's the way things normally work, and we shouldn't hear you whining right?

Irrelevant. They agreed to this in their enlistment contract.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks.

When you join the armed forces, they own you for 8 years. No matter if you signed up for 2, 4, or 6 years of active duty or reserves. For 8 years they have the right to call you back up. For 8 years you are in reserve.

This is EXPLAINED to you when you sign the enlistment papers.

And the amazing thing is, the media is NOT telling you this. Why?

Also, this has been in the enlistment contract ever since I can remember:

c. 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.

Also:

a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial en-listment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

This is what they agreed to when they signed up.

no. Old Soldiers Called Back To Duty

* A 60 Minutes Special Reporthttp://cbsnewyork.com/rooney/s...s_story_340194230.html

What Mary didn?t realize is that, as an officer, she remained in the Ready Reserve -- even after her eight years were through -- because she hadn?t resigned her commission as an officer.

But she?s not alone. Many officers say they were never made aware of that -- that no mention is made of it in the enlistment agreements they signed. The Army, which declined a request by 60 Minutes for an interview, counters that the requirement is referred to in the agreements ? if ever so obliquely.

"It's a six-digit reference to an Army regulation, that that's put in a remark section in these agreements," says Mark Waple, a lawyer who specializes in defending soldiers. "It borders on being a deceptive recruiting practice. I?m not suggesting it was intended that way."

within letter of law... not the spirit😛 rather less then honest way of doing things all considering. if you don't know you have to "resign" after your years of obligation have gone by, they own you until about 65 i believe. shifty? u bet. and of course this admin wouldn't be honest about such things.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks.

When you join the armed forces, they own you for 8 years. No matter if you signed up for 2, 4, or 6 years of active duty or reserves. For 8 years they have the right to call you back up. For 8 years you are in reserve.

This is EXPLAINED to you when you sign the enlistment papers.

And the amazing thing is, the media is NOT telling you this. Why?

Also, this has been in the enlistment contract ever since I can remember:

c. 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.

Also:

a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial en-listment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

This is what they agreed to when they signed up.

Have we finally actually declared war, then?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks.

When you join the armed forces, they own you for 8 years. No matter if you signed up for 2, 4, or 6 years of active duty or reserves. For 8 years they have the right to call you back up. For 8 years you are in reserve.

This is EXPLAINED to you when you sign the enlistment papers.

And the amazing thing is, the media is NOT telling you this. Why?

Also, this has been in the enlistment contract ever since I can remember:

c. 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.

Also:

a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial en-listment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

This is what they agreed to when they signed up.

no. http://cbsnewyork.com/rooney/s...s_story_340194230.html

What Mary didn?t realize is that, as an officer, she remained in the Ready Reserve -- even after her eight years were through -- because she hadn?t resigned her commission as an officer.

But she?s not alone. Many officers say they were never made aware of that -- that no mention is made of it in the enlistment agreements they signed. The Army, which declined a request by 60 Minutes for an interview, counters that the requirement is referred to in the agreements ? if ever so obliquely.

"It's a six-digit reference to an Army regulation, that that's put in a remark section in these agreements," says Mark Waple, a lawyer who specializes in defending soldiers. "It borders on being a deceptive recruiting practice. I?m not suggesting it was intended that way."

within letter of law... not the spirit😛 rather less then honest way of doing things all considering. if you don't know you have to "resign" after your years of obligation have gone by, they own you until about 65 i believe. shifty? u bet. and of course this admin wouldn't be honest about such things.

That IS the spirit of the law. The whole purpose of that is to have a reserve of experience to draw upon in times of war.

And the story in the OP could just as well be an enlisted man, which means my quotes directly from the enlistment contract stand.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks.

When you join the armed forces, they own you for 8 years. No matter if you signed up for 2, 4, or 6 years of active duty or reserves. For 8 years they have the right to call you back up. For 8 years you are in reserve.

This is EXPLAINED to you when you sign the enlistment papers.

And the amazing thing is, the media is NOT telling you this. Why?

Also, this has been in the enlistment contract ever since I can remember:

c. 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.

Also:

a. FOR ALL ENLISTEES: If this is my initial en-listment, I must serve a total of eight (8) years. Any part of that service not served on active duty must be served in a Reserve Component unless I am sooner discharged.

b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war.

This is what they agreed to when they signed up.

Have we finally actually declared war, then?

It could be a national emergency or simply an extension within the 8 years. Either way, it's IN THE CONTRACT.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Rallispec


this is where you are wrong --- the F'ing liberal media needs to stop reporting on the .o1% of soldiors that show the war in a negative light and start reporting the way things actually are. I seriously bet that a majority of the soldiors that are staying longer than they wanted arne't even thinking about thinking about suicide.

Freaking media trying to dramatize everything. WHat a load of SH!t.

You're absolutely right. I have an uncle serving there, my wife has a cousin there, and my manager is even there right now. One is marines and two are army, all different duties. Fallujah is a bad area, but the rest of Iraq is doing quite well. They have access to Internet/email, they have written to us, and one even called us while he was eating at a chinese restaurant and you could here kids in the back playing around.

 

[0roo0roo]

the point is there should be full disclosure and fairness. its hard to argue that putting a 6 digit reference number on a form is full and fair disclosure.

its like argueing that microsoft has every right to hide some absurd agreement(like them owning any hardware the os is installed on) in a hideously long terms of service agreement while installing its software.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Injury
This long without someone saying it?


WRONG FORUM.

The only correct response so far. :thumbsup:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the point is there should be full disclosure and fairness. its hard to argue that putting a 6 digit reference number on a form is full and fair disclosure.

its like argueing that microsoft has every right to hide some absurd agreement(like them owning any hardware the os is installed on) in a hideously long terms of service agreement while installing its software.

Well, I have little knowledge of officer agreements and contracts, so I'll allow someone else to argue that.

As for the enlisted man, my answer stands. They knew full well what they were signing.

The 8 year obligation and extension under time of war or emergency clauses were pointed out to me and made clear when I enlisted in 1987. I'm sure they still are today.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Amused
Well, I have little knowledge of officer agreements and contracts, so I'll allow someone else to argue that.

As for the enlisted man, my answer stands. They knew full well what they were signing.

The 8 year obligation and extension under time of war or emergency clauses were pointed out to me and made clear when I enlisted in 1987. I'm sure they still are today.

Don't be so sure. Not all recruiters are upfront about everything, especially if their numbers are low.

 

[0roo0roo]

look these are people that have served their terms, the 8 years and all. to pull them back against their will because of flawed dishonest paperwork flies in the face of the idea of a "volunteer" army. essentially exploiting this flaw to further their little backdoor draft is immoral ...all done by this corrupt immoral administration to cover their own asses, not surprising at all.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Injury
This long without someone saying it?


WRONG FORUM.

The only correct response so far. :thumbsup:

I am certain the responses in P&N would be tactful, constructive, and informative. After all, that forum is known for sticking to the issue at hand and not falling prey to the usual partisan antics.