Stoploss. Pretty effed up.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Good for them. Now if only all the troops that are almost done with their tour got to actually decide if they want out, too..
Every soldier who signs up has up to an 8 year reserve commitment. Anyone who has ever talked to a recruiter has heard that.ATG wrote:
Stoploss. Pretty effed up.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Good for them. Now if only all the troops that are almost done with their tour got to actually decide if they want out, too..
Stop with the facts and contracts people sign ffs.Kmarion wrote:
Every soldier who signs up has up to an 8 year reserve commitment. Anyone who has ever talked to a recruiter has heard that.ATG wrote:
Stoploss. Pretty effed up.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Good for them. Now if only all the troops that are almost done with their tour got to actually decide if they want out, too..
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningt … gation.htm
Except stop-loss is a continuation of active duty, not reserves.usmarine2 wrote:
Stop with the facts and contracts people sign ffs.Kmarion wrote:
Every soldier who signs up has up to an 8 year reserve commitment. Anyone who has ever talked to a recruiter has heard that.ATG wrote:
Stoploss. Pretty effed up.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningt … gation.htm
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-07-05 10:11:11)
you would never use your 4 years inactive time unless there was war. This is all laid out and explained to you.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Except stop-loss is a continuation of active duty, not reserves.
You do realize reserves are called up in wartime right?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Except stop-loss is a continuation of active duty, not reserves.usmarine2 wrote:
Stop with the facts and contracts people sign ffs.Kmarion wrote:
Every soldier who signs up has up to an 8 year reserve commitment. Anyone who has ever talked to a recruiter has heard that.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningt … gation.htm
But yeah, you sign a contract allowing for them to keep you. It's still fucked up.
Whatever amount of time is not spent on active duty (which is full-time duty) or spent in the Drilling Guard/Reserves (those who drill one weekend per month, and two weeks per year, and are subject to be called to active duty), is spent in the IRR (Individual Ready Reserves).
Yeah I'm aware.Kmarion wrote:
You do realize reserves are called up in wartime right?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Except stop-loss is a continuation of active duty, not reserves.usmarine2 wrote:
Stop with the facts and contracts people sign ffs.
But yeah, you sign a contract allowing for them to keep you. It's still fucked up.Whatever amount of time is not spent on active duty (which is full-time duty) or spent in the Drilling Guard/Reserves (those who drill one weekend per month, and two weeks per year, and are subject to be called to active duty), is spent in the IRR (Individual Ready Reserves).
It would be interesting if war was actually declared.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah I'm aware.Kmarion wrote:
You do realize reserves are called up in wartime right?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Except stop-loss is a continuation of active duty, not reserves.
But yeah, you sign a contract allowing for them to keep you. It's still fucked up.Whatever amount of time is not spent on active duty (which is full-time duty) or spent in the Drilling Guard/Reserves (those who drill one weekend per month, and two weeks per year, and are subject to be called to active duty), is spent in the IRR (Individual Ready Reserves).
It was. We were technically in a cease fire.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It would be interesting if war was actually declared.
There was no formal declaration of war. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are military engagements both authorized by Congress, just like the Vietnam War.usmarine2 wrote:
It was. We were technically in a cease fire.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It would be interesting if war was actually declared.
We were still in a cease fire from the gulf war. No peace treaty was ever signed. I have a ribbon to prove it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There was no formal declaration of war. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are military engagements both authorized by Congress, just like the Vietnam War.usmarine2 wrote:
It was. We were technically in a cease fire.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It would be interesting if war was actually declared.
ODS wasn't brought about by a formal declaration of war either.usmarine2 wrote:
We were still in a cease fire from the gulf war. No peace treaty was ever signed. I have a ribbon to prove it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There was no formal declaration of war. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are military engagements both authorized by Congress, just like the Vietnam War.usmarine2 wrote:
It was. We were technically in a cease fire.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-07-05 10:35:23)
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-07-05 10:38:24)
Fact: neither statement is disputed, but it is still relevant in a topic that drops to technicality.usmarine2 wrote:
"declaration of war" is pretty much redundant and useless imo.
However, that does not mean we were still not in a cease fire, and no peace treaty was signed. fact.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-07-05 10:41:13)
When I joined the Navy. Wherein do you see the dispute from my original post on this thread or those that follow?usmarine2 wrote:
Have you ever read the contract for the military?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-07-05 10:51:59)
My bro got a defense medal (or maybe it was a ribbon) for being in the Marines during a conflict. He thought it was pretty funny, because he was just out of MCRD San Diego.usmarine2 wrote:
We were still in a cease fire from the gulf war. No peace treaty was ever signed. I have a ribbon to prove it.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There was no formal declaration of war. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are military engagements both authorized by Congress, just like the Vietnam War.usmarine2 wrote:
It was. We were technically in a cease fire.
But it's important to find all things that go boom with your face and a Humvee.Spearhead wrote:
Just because the military technically CAN stoploss you doesn't mean its right.
They're making soldiers and families suffer because they're afraid of looking weak. Its immoral. Fuck the contract, stoploss should only be used in real emergencies. Not for patrolling streets in Baghdad.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-07-05 10:51:26)
I never said it was, just legal.Spearhead wrote:
Just because the military technically CAN stoploss you doesn't mean its right.
They're making soldiers and families suffer because they're afraid of looking weak. Its immoral. Fuck the contract, stoploss should only be used in real emergencies. Not for patrolling streets in Baghdad.
Only a few people here are claiming to be the morally supreme leader of right and wrong. See the difference? One is a fact and one is an opinion. I usually don't debate feelings.10 U.S.C. ยง 12305
Section 1. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Department of the Navy, are hereby designated and empowered to exercise, without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President, the authority vested in the President by section 673c [now 12305] of title 10 of the United States Code (1) to suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces determined to be essential to the national security of the United States, and (2) to determine, for the purposes of said section, that members of the armed forces are essential to the national security of the United States.
Sec. 2. The authority delegated to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security by this order may be redelegated and further subdelegated to subordinates who are appointed to their offices by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Sec. 3. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
Last edited by Kmarion (2008-07-05 11:16:45)