| User | Comment |
|---|
| patarnone | | posted 16-Apr-2005 3:46pm |
Without further research, I don't know how I feel. I saw some court case on tv news about this, and the dude ended up shipping back to his unit. He was due to be totally done in 8 days, but got sent back anyway. I'm sure they covered the possibility when he signed up. It sounds like keeping our troop numbers constant, even if extending some tours. |
Zang  | | posted 16-Apr-2005 4:05pm |
The first link doesn't appear to mention anything about this. I suspect that is due to a regular update to the site. Perhaps the link should have been to a more specific page.
The second link is kind of vague. It talks around the issue, but doesn't really come out and explain what it is.
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalSho...
I think that the above link provides a much clearer explanation. |
| Enheduanna | | posted 16-Apr-2005 4:30pm |
I don't know, since those sites were less than useful for finding actual facts on the topic. My understanding of the policy is that soldiers are being kept in the military for longer than the terms they signed on for, which I think it unfair. It seems like the military, and more importantly, the politicians, are just trying to avoid the unpopular move of instituting a draft, although the troops are overextended. My cousin had his Air Force duty "involuntarily extended" a few years ago, which I think was part of the stop-loss policy. Maybe I don't understand some things about it, but from what I do know, I don't like it. |
Matty   | | posted 16-Apr-2005 6:06pm |
1. every servicemember is aware of the possibility when s/he signs up.
2. The DoD knows it's bad for moral and only uses it in extreme cases
3. I don't see it as much of a problem. |
| Matty | | posted 16-Apr-2005 6:07pm |
you do have to know where to look in those sites to get what you need. |
| Matty | | (reply to Zang) posted 16-Apr-2005 6:08pm |
of course you would |
| Zang | | (reply to Matty) posted 16-Apr-2005 6:23pm |
I'm not saying there isn't a better one, just that the two posted didn't really tell me anything. |
| Matty | | (reply to Zang) posted 16-Apr-2005 6:24pm |
you have to do some digging on the DoD site, but it's there. That's what servicemembers use. |
| Zang | | (reply to Matty) posted 16-Apr-2005 6:27pm |
I don't see much point in posting a link that requires digging through a site. The whole purpose of posting a link is to provide quick and easy access to information, not to send people on a wild goose chase. |
| Matty | | (reply to Zang) posted 16-Apr-2005 6:29pm |
yeah the sc should have found it, that's 100% true. Howver, I did give it to him, so I have to take partial blame. |
| Zang | | (reply to Matty) posted 16-Apr-2005 6:47pm |
Yeah, I know, I looked at the advanced stats to see how it got out of qualification... |
bill   | | posted 16-Apr-2005 11:37pm |
I think it sucks. These are people who put their lives on the line for our country and it's a disgrace for them to be treated in this way. The issues with lack of equipment (e.g. inadequate armor for vehicles) and the sad state of VA hospitals are similar disgraces. |
| Matty | | (reply to bill) posted 17-Apr-2005 12:02am |
Bill, those are side issues, largely blown out of proportion.
I was stop-lossed for a year, and went to the Philippones as part of the effort to hunt the Abu Sayaf. Stop-loss is not something command likes to do; quite the contrary, it's a last resort.
But every soldier is aware of the potential for stop-loss from Basic to your ETS date. Stop Loss is a fact of military life, it just happens to have become salient now. |
Frostbrand  | | posted 17-Apr-2005 1:02am |
Can you say, back door draft? Yeah, I knew you could. |
| Amanda | | posted 17-Apr-2005 3:24am |
I don't know enough about it to form an opinion and I don't care enough about it to do any research on it. |
| autumnlight | | posted 17-Apr-2005 6:19am |
From what I've just read about it, I think it's a bad idea. For those people who have been telling their families they are coming home, then have to tell them that they're not must be really hard. |
| bill | | (reply to Matty) posted 17-Apr-2005 7:45am |
I appreciate that you have a willing and able attitude about it. I know that most service people feel like you, I find that noble. But I still think it's sucks. I think they are taking advantage of your sense of duty.
With proper funding and adequate staffing, the armed services wouldn't have to put that clause in your military contract (or, at least wouldn't have to exercise it). We shouldn't go to war on a shoestring budget. It's just irresponsible financial planning on the part of our government.
When we go to war, the entire country should make the sacrifice and commitment to it. That should include higher taxes to cover the expenses. People (like me) who stay at home and watch TV should bare their share of it (through temporary higher taxes). Trying to do it on the cheap, costs lives. Having to use stop-loss is a terrible way to pay-back those who volunteered to serve. Paying for war by floating big government loans (budget deficits) hides the real cost of war. |
| Dino | | posted 17-Apr-2005 8:51am |
I don't feel like clicking links to find out what Stop-Loss means.
|
| dab | | posted 17-Apr-2005 9:23am |
I am opposed to involuntary servitude by any name. I think any nation which needs to press people into military service clearly does not have the support of the people and deserves to die. |
| Biggles | | posted 17-Apr-2005 12:06pm |
Neither link takes me to relevant information and I'm not faffing around searching. |
| Danger | | posted 17-Apr-2005 3:05pm |
I didn't read the links so I'm uneducated as to what it is. I would click one, but that would require effort that I'm just not ready to give. |
| ROCKMAN | | posted 18-Apr-2005 6:22am |
I think it sucks, but it happens in the military quite a bit in these situations. |
| southernyankee | | posted 18-Apr-2005 12:47pm |
Sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't say enough. I still don't get what they're trying to get at  |
| Updown | | posted 18-Apr-2005 5:37pm |
Part of me thinks those soldiers have already done their duty, but part of me thinks that if they keep experienced units together then they are more likely to survive. I am now wondering whether I understood the point of Stop/Loss at all. |
| Matty | | (reply to bill) posted 18-Apr-2005 6:53pm |
I have to say that's not very practical. If we waited until there was approval for and eventual collection of a tax to properly fund a war, Mexico could whoop our ass.
Sometimes, you just have to do what you have to do. I'm not advocating a stop-loss, quite the contrary, I know better than most how much it sucks. I could weave a tale of woe about stop-loss that would have my mother crying...and often does.
My only point here, is that it is not really scandalous, so much as it is a rotten necessity. |
| bill | | (reply to Matty) posted 18-Apr-2005 9:10pm |
bullcrap... War spending is approved by congress, often very quickly (days). Congress can move very fast if they want to (note the recent Schiavo thing). They could pass a new tax to pay for war spending just as fast. If they can't get support for the new tax, then maybe we shouldn't go to war. It took us months to build up for our invasion of Iraq. There was plenty of time.
I guess the real problem was a gross underestimate of the costs based on the assumption that it would all be over after we "won". It's all just irresponsible government and I don't think we should just accept it as necessary.
You kinda come off as an advocate. I'm sure it must seem un-American to complain about it. But, that just lets them get away with it. I hate situations in which capable hard working people get taken advantage of, and they don't complain because of their sense of duty.
I know I'm ranting... sorry for that. |
| tweedle | | posted 19-Apr-2005 1:55am |
it is unfair. I would rather see a mandatory two year enlistment for all Americans upon high school graduation then to see stop loss used on those who choose to serve our country. They sign up to serve, not be servants. |
| Matty | | (reply to bill) posted 19-Apr-2005 6:59am |
I frankly don't know how I seem like an advocate for stop-loss, but if that's your perception, there's not much I can do about it other than to say, no one really likes a stop-loss, especially not the commanders who put up with resulting low morale
As far as funding, emergency funds can be sent very quickly; it's budgeted. However, to say a new tax could br made, apporved, and collected very qickly, in time for war even, is to not know how the Feederal government works. A new tax can be created for a long-term sustained effort like WWII, but not something like this. These conflicts are best budgeted from existing funding. |
| jettles | | posted 19-Apr-2005 8:40am |
i don't think they should be able to keep anyone in service longer than the time they signed up for. i mean with out any loop holes etc...... |
| Wolfgang | | (reply to patarnone) posted 19-Apr-2005 4:04pm |
Without an adequate sized cafeteria, nothing is possible! |
| Maarten | | posted 28-Apr-2005 10:41am |
A contract is a contract, so at the end of it you should let someone go and not keeping him "hostage". |
| RGirl | | posted 12-Feb-2006 12:54am |
I don't understand. |
