Originally posted by Shaker
Just a quick clarification, in the US military you sign up for 8 years regardless on your initial contract. However many years active and the remainder inactive reserve. Just semantics I suppose...

Now for my 2 cents...

The way I see it, the contract is just a legal agreement between the individual and the military... you agree to follow lawful orders of those above you in rank in return for certain benefits.

What most people don't do, is read the fine print of the contract. They tend to listen to the sugar coated stories the recruiters tell them and stare at the dollar signs waved in front of them...

Now on the first part above, is that you agree to follow lawful orders of those above you.... well as shown in many threads here on ATS, the legality of the Iraq war is in serious doubt. The conduct of some members of our military over there has been reprehensible. There are accusations of war crimes floating around. It's even been questioned if we're even "defending" America at all... You can find these topics with a quick search of ATS...

With that said she can make a case that the US government itself is breaking terms of the contract... I don't think the case would go very far... but still...

-it's not up to an individual soldier to determine whether they support the foreign policy of their government, or like a particular war. So long as in conducting that war, they are doing so in a lawful manner(in accordance with the Law of Land Warfare/Geneva & Hague conventions), it is their duty to go where they're told to.

-I can't believe you're using examples of individuals within an organization, that have behave reprehensibly as an example of typical behavior of that organization. That would be akin to saying all blacks, jews, asians, arabs, women, gays, etc... do/think/are/can't..........(fill in the blank).

-how is the Government breaking the terms of the contract, which the soldier agrees to obey the orders of the President and Officers above them?

Still further along you take an oath of enlistment... where you swear to protect and defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic... It can be argued that even then she (and technically all US military) has been forced to break the oath, which then causes the government itself to be an enemy....


Now.... this is assuming that both wars are wrong and illegal... however if the conspiracies are completely wrong then all this can be disregarded.

I sleep now. possibly edit tomorrow for content.

By what standard would you deem the war illegal(you're certainly entitled to your opinion about whether or not they're wrong)? The USA is a sovereign nation right? This means that it doesn't require permission from other governments or organizations, before something is allowed or legal.
The President is the Commander in Chief of the US military, and is legally allowed to use the military. The US Congress hasn't deemed either war illegal. Military lawyers haven't deemed the war illegal. If the soldier still feels the war is morally wrong, and can't participate in good conscience, then they have to understand that there are consequences. They need to have the integrity to face those consequences, as no one forced them to volunteer. A military cannot function if every member can decide when they're going to fulfill their commitments. That's why there are consequences for deriliction of duty, desertion, etc...

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Originally posted by dawa
All I can say on this is:

Imagine the uproar if they decided that you can no longer quit your job

" Sorry, you signed a contract with us here at McDonalds - so you'll be staying until you die! "

I can't imagine that going down well..

This is why McDonald's employees aren't asked to sign a contract. No one would do it. In the military, people are asked to sign contracts and they do. All contracts need to be taken very seriously including marriage and borrowing money.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

Someone please help me figure this out, because situationally this doesn't make sense. Let me see if I understand the details right:

1.) Person was ordered to go to a warzone.
2.) Person flees to another country to avoid going to warzone.
3.) Other country returns person to be court marshalled and go to prison...which is not a warzone.

Have I gotten this right so far? Isn't prison much safer than a warzone? Overall, I think she's getting the better end of the deal than someone actually doing as they're told and going to the warzone. Maybe someone at the warzone would like to trade her places...that way the soldier on the front could have a few years break to rest, recover, write a book, etc. while the undisciplined one serves for the obedient soldier.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
And Canada is too busy trying to suck up to the US now by kicking her out, they never even did this with single healthy males during the Vietnam war.

I guess the cost of NAFTA to Canada includes human dignity too.

1) Canada is sucking up to no one, we are simply abiding by the law and the treaties between our two countries.

2) Vietnam was a whole different ball game - there was something called the draft in that war.

Personally I think it is pathetic that women demand to be included in all these things and as soon as the going get's tough they run for the hills.

This gal represents the text reason why so many men didn't want women in the army.

JK

Originally posted by leo123
"When the Navy repair ship U.S.S. Vulcan set sail on a six-month Mediterranean cruise some weeks ago, it had to leave ten crew members behind in Norfolk. Reason: they were pregnant."

This is the usual dodge to avoid the tough going.

They're making future soldiers. Seriously though, after their leave, they'll be re-deployed. You think mothers want to leave infants behind and go to war? Interesting points from the article:

Indeed, the pregnant soldier or sailor is becoming as common as the beer-bellied sergeant.

Under panel review also is sergeants' beer rights.

Any kind of overprotectiveness irritates many of the women. Says Kathleen Carpenter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity: "Your male NCOS aren't comfortable talking about female physiology. The effect is to err on the side of being extremely cautious and remove them from danger. It's the women who fight to stay on duty."

I agree this would be awkward. Perhaps there can be a protocol established if one isn't already.

Some, like Marine Second Lieutenant Laurie Glenn Jacobson, manage to have their babies without missing much work.

Hoo-rah

Another military mother, Captain Diane Cook, 30, of Dover Air Force Base, Del, worked twelve-hour shifts until a week before her daughter was born. "I had morning sickness," she said, "but I arranged to have it at night."

Twelve hour shifts while pregnant? Now there's a tough soldier.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by Shaker
**quote snipped for length**

-it's not up to an individual soldier to determine whether they support the foreign policy of their government, or like a particular war. So long as in conducting that war, they are doing so in a lawful manner(in accordance with the Law of Land Warfare/Geneva & Hague conventions), it is their duty to go where they're told to.

-I can't believe you're using examples of individuals within an organization, that have behave reprehensibly as an example of typical behavior of that organization. That would be akin to saying all blacks, jews, asians, arabs, women, gays, etc... do/think/are/can't..........(fill in the blank).

-how is the Government breaking the terms of the contract, which the soldier agrees to obey the orders of the President and Officers above them?

**snipped for length**

By what standard would you deem the war illegal(you're certainly entitled to your opinion about whether or not they're wrong)? The USA is a sovereign nation right? This means that it doesn't require permission from other governments or organizations, before something is allowed or legal.
The President is the Commander in Chief of the US military, and is legally allowed to use the military. The US Congress hasn't deemed either war illegal. Military lawyers haven't deemed the war illegal. If the soldier still feels the war is morally wrong, and can't participate in good conscience, then they have to understand that there are consequences. They need to have the integrity to face those consequences, as no one forced them to volunteer. A military cannot function if every member can decide when they're going to fulfill their commitments. That's why there are consequences for deriliction of duty, desertion, etc...

1. I was simply showing that not all soldiers follow geneva conventions or morals.

2. I not once said that the entire military behaves like those few soldiers. Also inferring that I'm racist is quite low. However I will overlook that so no pissing contests get started.

3. The government breaks the contract by not issuing "lawful" orders. What I said before about allegations of the Iraq War being illegal, if it is proven that the war is illegal, then yes, our government defaulted on the contract by not providing "lawful" orders.

4. The standard I deem the conflict illegal is by how we went into Iraq in the first place. The questions raised on the merit of the intelligence presented as a case to go to war has been questioned and not resolved to the satisfaction of many. I merely presented an opinion stating that the legality of this war is in question. The US military was never meant to be used as a tool of aggression, which, based on plenty of info available, it has.

5. The President, Congress, and their lawyers say the war is legal. They started the war, so why would they say anything else about the legality of the war? It's very hard for the government to admit it did wrong.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by leo123
"When the Navy repair ship U.S.S. Vulcan set sail on a six-month Mediterranean cruise some weeks ago, it had to leave ten crew members behind in Norfolk. Reason: they were pregnant."

This is the usual dodge to avoid the tough going.

They're making future soldiers. Seriously though, after their leave, they'll be re-deployed. You think mothers want to leave infants behind and go to war? Interesting points from the article:

Indeed, the pregnant soldier or sailor is becoming as common as the beer-bellied sergeant.

Under panel review also is sergeants' beer rights.

Any kind of overprotectiveness irritates many of the women. Says Kathleen Carpenter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity: "Your male NCOS aren't comfortable talking about female physiology. The effect is to err on the side of being extremely cautious and remove them from danger. It's the women who fight to stay on duty."

I agree this would be awkward. Perhaps there can be a protocol established if one isn't already.

Some, like Marine Second Lieutenant Laurie Glenn Jacobson, manage to have their babies without missing much work.

Hoo-rah

Another military mother, Captain Diane Cook, 30, of Dover Air Force Base, Del, worked twelve-hour shifts until a week before her daughter was born. "I had morning sickness," she said, "but I arranged to have it at night."

Twelve hour shifts while pregnant? Now there's a tough soldier.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by saint4God]

Good post, this is why the gal in question here is not an insult to men or the army, she is an insult to all the hard working gals in the army who are doing a bag up job.

JK

Originally posted by Shaker

1. I was simply showing that not all soldiers follow geneva conventions or morals.

And there are plenty of examples of these soldiers getting punished

2. I not once said that the entire military behaves like those few soldiers. Also inferring that I'm racist is quite low. However I will overlook that so no pissing contests get started.

I wasn't implying that you're a racist. I was implying that you were stereotyping.

3. The government breaks the contract by not issuing "lawful" orders. What I said before about allegations of the Iraq War being illegal, if it is proven that the war is illegal, then yes, our government defaulted on the contract by not providing "lawful" orders.

I already adressed this. The US government doesn't need to get your approval(or any other government/organization) for something to be illegal. The President has the legal authority to use the US military. Congress and the Supreme Court haven't found him to have illegally used the military, nor have the military lawyers who know the fine points of legality with regard to warfare. In otherwords, If you're not ordered to commit a criminal act, then it is a lawful order, whether you agree with it or not.

4. The standard I deem the conflict illegal is by how we went into Iraq in the first place. The questions raised on the merit of the intelligence presented as a case to go to war has been questioned and not resolved to the satisfaction of many. I merely presented an opinion stating that the legality of this war is in question. The US military was never meant to be used as a tool of aggression, which, based on plenty of info available, it has.

So poor intel=illegal? Can you cite a source that defines how aggressive the US Military should be?

5. The President, Congress, and their lawyers say the war is legal. They started the war, so why would they say anything else about the legality of the war? It's very hard for the government to admit it did wrong.

And who is the higher legal authority that they answer to? The USA is a sovereign nation.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by BlueRaja]

Folks,
This is absolutely the stupidiest thing I have ever seen debated/discussed here.

She signed a contract, she failed to fulfill her contract and now she should be punished. You cannot defend that, regardless of hers (or yours) feeling about the war. That does not factor into the decision to punish her.

There are plenty of options for single parents in the military, and all single parents in the military must have someone standing by to take care of their kids if they have to deploy. The fact that she is using the whole motherhood angle is a cop-out, nothing more.

Someone please explain to me (without dragging the war or her motherhood into it) why she shouldn't be punished.

Originally posted by leo123
Good post, this is why the gal in question here is not an insult to men or the army, she is an insult to all the hard working gals in the army who are doing a bag up job.

I agree, it's hard to make progress in a society when there is that one individual that exemplifies the initial doubt.

Originally posted by sadchild01

says who ? you, soldier of the american fourth Reich

Do you post anything other than one liners? I mean, any posts of a "meat and potato" variety?

And if this was the American Fourth Reich, we'd have way snappier uniforms that what I'm rocking today.