PheroTruth.com - Pheromone Reviews, Information and Advice

Full Version: So much for Freedom of Speech!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
People who serve in the military do give up a lot of rights (to include a fair amount of free speech rights) and assume a WHOLE lot more responsibility. While business and sports like to use military terms I wonder how many people would work at Lowes if it literally was in "cut throat" competition with Home Depot. Not to mention dodging small arms fire or IEDs on the way to work.

At the same time - I listened to the song. Some of the lyrics go as follows:

“[Expletive] you colonels, captains, E-7 and above
You think you so much bigger than I am? ...
I'm gonna round them up all eventually, easily, walk right up peacefully
And surprise them all, yes, yes, y'all, up against the wall, turn around
I got a [expletive] magazine with 30 rounds, on a three-round burst, ready to fire down
Still against the wall, I grab my M-4, spray and watch all the bodies hit the floor
I bet you never stop-loss nobody no more.”

If I were in that soldiers chain-of-command I might feel threatened. Especially since no one in his chain of command is responsible for or can change the "Stop-Loss" Policy. One person who could end it is President Barack Obama. But it was intistituted this summer with his blessings I am sure as you do not do something of that magnitude without Presidential approval. Can't expand the war in Afghanistan even while drawing down Iraq if you are letting people out of the military.

So it seems that the first part of the sad joke is that he is furious with the wrong people. But would he lay the blame there? (Now do NOT misunderstand - I am not advocating violence or threats of violence against ANYONE - I am merely stating that the people he is obviously furious with - his immediate chain-of-command are not the decision-makers for that policy).

The second part of this sad joke is that when the last administration instituted "Stop Loss" the media met it with a certain indignation on behalf of our service-members. They did not seem to be so indignant this past summer. I wonder why ... ?

(01-19-2010 4:00 PM)Bosshank Wrote: [ -> ]... The second part of this sad joke is that when the last administration instituted "Stop Loss" the media met it with a certain indignation on behalf of our service-members. They did not seem to be so indignant this past summer. I wonder why ... ?

 

Probably "indignation fatigue"

Yeah, I agree the lyrics were pretty damning and personally I think the first amendment is taken a little to liberally, what with rap crap rap songs talking (cause it sure as hell ain't singing) about killing cops and raping ho's.
I am glad you brought this up, Mark.

And I'm glad, Boss, that you pointed out what our service men and women (and other non-civilian servants of this country) give up in order to serve what they believe to be a greater cause.

They give up a lot of rights and yet there they are serving to fight for and uphold our civilian rights, because they believe in them.

It is sad, but this gentleman is obviously misguided and confused in his role. He doesn't seem to understand that a military man takes on a new identity and role with his oaths of service. He obviously feels that he still has all those rights he traded for a uniform and for the honor of upholding the rights of the citizens of his country.

And because of that he is actually serving something else with his songs, and with his anger, and he has failed as a military man, and no longer serves this country in the way he was intended to do.

And it is hard to be in the military in a time of war. It is hard on the spouses and children left at home, too. And not everyone is cut out to do this job well. It is unfortunate, but I think true, that this gentleman would have been better off not joining the miliary, and I think his country would have been better off as well.

Diane
Diane I agree with what you are saying, with the exception of this paragraph:
Diane999 Wrote:It is sad, but this gentleman is obviously misguided and confused in his role. He doesn't seem to understand that a military man takes on a new identity and role with his oaths of service. He obviously feels that he still has all those rights he traded for a uniform and for the honor of upholding the rights of the citizens of his country.

And my reason for disagreeing is that according to the article he did fulfill his enlistment contract and what he committed to, but the Army chose to involuntarilly extend that conntract.

Now if there was an inactive reserve status clause that had not been fulfilled and the Army was excersizing the right to recall him back to active duty, that would be a different story, but my understanding is that the military is extending the actual enlistment periods.

It's been many years, but I don't recall a clause in the enlistment contract I signed that stated the term that I was enlisting really didn't mean anything and that they could involuntarilly extend my contract at will. And, if it had I would never have enlisted.

(01-19-2010 8:04 PM)mark-in-dallas Wrote: [ -> ]And my reason for disagreeing is that according to the article he did fulfill his enlistment contract and what he committed to, but the Army chose to involuntarilly extend that contract. Now if there was an inactive reserve status clause that had not been fulfilled and the Army was excersizing the right to recall him back to active duty, that would be a different story, but my understanding is that the military is extending the actual enlistment periods. It's been many years, but I don't recall a clause in the enlistment contract I signed that stated the term that I was enlisting really didn't mean anything and that they could involuntarilly extend my contract at will. And, if it had I would never have enlisted.


No - you understand correctly Mark. His enlistment was over but "Stop Loss" is the process by which the military unilaterally extends that enlistment until such time as the military decides they no longer require his services. And it is legal. Ethical may be questionable, but the government says it is legal, so it must be, right?

This has happened several times since 9/11 and happened during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Abraham Lincoln did the same thing during the War of Northern Aggression.

Military officers can be recalled to full service active duty at any time for any reason. This includes all retired officers, non-commissioned officers, and warrant officers. I think they call it a "mobilization." During the period of the recall, those recalled are not eligible for voluntary release from active duty unless they have served a total of 30 years' active service or have reached 55 years of age. After 30 years' active service or after they age of 55, the US government can ask them to return, but they can not compel it.

In this case, officers are released from active duty to their retirements -- they are not discharged from active duty.

I don't know if this has any bearing on enlisted men's contracts with the US government or not. But my thought is that as long as they have not been formally discharged from military service, their "enlistment" period can be extended the same as for an officer... 30 years' service or until their 55th birthday.

If my thinking on this is incorrect, and someone has the facts, please share.

Diane

_______________

I just answered my own question. The military enlisted have an obligation called an MSO. This their Military Service Obligation. If their enlistment time is less than this, they are released from Active Duty, but not discharged. For the remainder of their MSO they are on reserve status and can be called up at any time, or required to extend their Active Duty period until their MSO is met. An enlisted person's MSO is eight years, not the 30 years that is required of an officer.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/publicati...130425.htm
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corre...30425p.pdf
Yes except that the MSO for an officer is the same eight years. In other words, an officer can be completely discharged from the military also after eight years if they so choose to be. The 30 years service/60 years of age only pertains if they retire. "Mandatory" retirement age is 55 or 30 years of service but can be extended based on the needs of the service.

(01-19-2010 10:09 PM)Bosshank Wrote: [ -> ]Yes except that the MSO for an officer is the same eight years. In other words, an officer can be completely discharged from the military also after eight years if they so choose to be. The 30 years service/60 years of age only pertains if they retire. "Mandatory" retirement age is 55 or 30 years of service but can be extended based on the needs of the service.

 

Thank you for clarifying the difference between the MSO and retirement.  I took the 30 year figure from a mobilization orders letter that was issued two years ago to a gentleman who was not on current active duty but was inactive and a former military officer.

Diane

 

Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's