mnealtx 0
QuoteDid you read anything I typed about pubs or dems? They'll all crooks if you ask me. I'm a middle of the road kinda sitting on the fence watching kinda guy
I think they're all crooks - although I *do* take perverse pleasure in showing that the Left is no different than the right.
I also get a kick out of being labeled a "right-winger" when I'm an almost classic libertarian.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 1,625
QuoteQuoteDid you read anything I typed about pubs or dems? They'll all crooks if you ask me. I'm a middle of the road kinda sitting on the fence watching kinda guy
I think they're all crooks - although I *do* take perverse pleasure in showing that the Left is no different than the right.
I also get a kick out of being labeled a "right-winger" when I'm an almost classic libertarian.
Me too, but I'm labeled "liberal". Funny, isn't it?
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
AFFI 0
QuoteI know the fine print says he could be called back within 8 years, but this man more than served his country and earned his army benefits. It's terrible that the mismanagement of this war has become his problem yet again.
I will say that in my 6+ years of recuitment and sales that no one has ever asked about discharge status in relationship to a job. It has come up on federal loan applications for education, but nothing in the employment realm. I pulled out the application forms to 7 companies this morning and looked at the military section and they only asked time served, branch, specialization, final rank and awards/commendations received. I don't think he would ever have a problem getting a job.....I think that is mostly bark and very little bite. The only thing that may work against him is that his story as front page news in Chicago. But bottom line there is that in the civilian world most just don't care about gov't red tape like that.
Third time's the harm
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/189171,CST-NWS-SOLDIER28.article)
December 28, 2006
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter
Steven Henderson served his country during two tours of duty as an Army sergeant in Afghanistan -- repeatedly coming under enemy fire and seeing fellow soldiers maimed and U.S. helicopters gunned down.
The Chicago native is back home now after being honorably discharged 20 months ago. He's married and working toward a college degree -- but the Army has called upon him again.
A letter he received two weeks before Christmas orders him to report to Fort Benning, Ga., by Jan. 14. Under the order, he is required to fight in Iraq for a period "not to exceed 545 days."
But this time, Henderson says he will not serve his country.
"It would take a miracle for me to put on a uniform again and to carry a weapon in Iraq,'' he said. "I have no intentions of going to Iraq.''
Henderson, 34, mailed off an appeal to the military Wednesday in hopes he can get out of the obligation. He already completed four years of active duty, including 17 months in operations all over Afghanistan. He received several commendations and even appears in Not a Good Day to Die, a book about Operation Anaconda, a U.S.-led assault in eastern Afghanistan in 2002. The book recounts an operation where Henderson and another soldier survived heavy enemy fire. "That was the longest 18 hours of my life,'' he recalled.
Henderson married a woman from Ecuador, and she is awaiting a visa to come to the United States with a child from a previous relationship.
He's also currently studying business at Northern Illinois University and hopes to eventually go to law school.
"I find it appalling that two days prior to my final exams, two years after any formal training, and with two tours of combat duty served, the U.S. military would even consider reactivating myself or any soldier,'' he said. "To ask that of any veteran is crazy."
Could lose benefits
But it's allowed under the contract all enlistees sign. Soldiers can be called into active duty anytime within eight years of signing up, said Bryan Hilferty, an Army personnel spokesman at the Pentagon.
Since the involuntary mobilizations started in the summer of 2004, about 11,000 soldiers have been called back into duty, more than in any previous war, Hilferty said. But 4,600 have been granted delays or hardship exemptions, and only 6,000 have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Hilferty said only 200 veterans haven't reported. Although penalties can include jail time, typically soldiers lose their honorable discharge status, which could threaten their Army benefits and have implications for future employment.
At her Olympia Fields home Wednesday, Henderson's mother, Kathleen White, teared up when thinking that her only son could end up back in harm's way.
His stepfather, Herbert White, who relies on his stepson for help around the house as he awaits a liver transplant, said he was worried about his son going abroad for potentially the third time. "How many chances does he have before something really bad happens? I'm afraid this will be the third strike.
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
And what would you say to the troops who do not agree with your take on things?
Vietnam was the first war where people took out their political gripes on soldiers in a major way. That unfortunate turn of events is repeating itself - except now the troops (and families) who are being denigrated are the ones _against_ the war.
rushmc 18
Quote>Thank you to those that follow orders of a real president.
And what would you say to the troops who do not agree with your take on things?
Vietnam was the first war where people took out their political gripes on soldiers in a major way. That unfortunate turn of events is repeating itself - except now the troops (and families) who are being denigrated are the ones _against_ the war.
No it is not repeating. I know this is you hope and dream so the left and its media can become important again but that does not make it so.
As for the solders that disagre? That is a right protected by the very missions they perform.
My point was however more along the lines that your media likes to cherry pick from the extreem minority to make your posts point.
That doesn't work anymore.........
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,123
QuoteThat may all be true, but the law is clear that 18 year olds are capable of entering into legally binding contracts.
They can enter into most contracts, but they can't enter into all contracts.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteThat may all be true, but the law is clear that 18 year olds are capable of entering into legally binding contracts.
They can enter into most contracts, but they can't enter into all contracts.
I can't think of any, off the top of my head...care to elaborate?
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
SkyDekker 1,123
QuoteI can't think of any, off the top of my head...care to elaborate?
Any purchase of an item or service is a legally binding contract. An 18 year old cannot legally purchase alcohol nor can he/she legally buy gambling services. Hence, those are purchase and sale aqreements/contracts they cannot legally enter into.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteI can't think of any, off the top of my head...care to elaborate?
Any purchase of an item or service is a legally binding contract. An 18 year old cannot legally purchase alcohol nor can he/she legally buy gambling services. Hence, those are purchase and sale aqreements/contracts they cannot legally enter into.
That's rather a LARGE quibble, wouldn't you say? In the reverse, you could say that a 5 year old can enter into a "legally binding contract" by purchasing a soda at the local convenience store.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
SkyDekker 1,123
QuoteIn the reverse, you could say that a 5 year old can enter into a "legally binding contract" by purchasing a soda at the local convenience store.
No you can't. Technically that is not a legally binding contract.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteIn the reverse, you could say that a 5 year old can enter into a "legally binding contract" by purchasing a soda at the local convenience store.
No you can't. Technically that is not a legally binding contract.
Equally as binding a buying a bottle of booze at the liquor store, or throwing a 20 down on a roulette wheel.
My take - if you're not signing your name to it, with terms spelled out and agreed on, it's *NOT* a legally binding contract.
Prove me wrong.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
SkyDekker 1,123
QuoteMy take - if you're not signing your name to it, with terms spelled out and agreed on, it's *NOT* a legally binding contract.
Prove me wrong.
Almost all legally binding contracts can be done verbally, no signing required whatsoever. I know that in Canada the only exception to that is contracts regarding real estate, they have to be in writing to be binding.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteMy take - if you're not signing your name to it, with terms spelled out and agreed on, it's *NOT* a legally binding contract.
Prove me wrong.
Almost all legally binding contracts can be done verbally, no signing required whatsoever. I know that in Canada the only exception to that is contracts regarding real estate, they have to be in writing to be binding.
Ok - but you're still not showing how buying a bottle of booze or making a bet is a contract, where a child buying a pack of gum isn't.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
>cherry pick from the extreem minority to make your posts point.
I know you can't stand this, but this is now the majority. 67% of americans oppose the war.
Personally, I support all the soldiers over there. The war was (and continues to be) a monumental blunder, but that's not their fault. I appreciate the work they've done, and I applaud the soldiers with the guts to stand up to what they think is wrong. I hope they will be able to come home soon.
Even for soldiers who enlisted after 9/11, there is an unwritten expectation of what "might" be required of them.
I say might because a friend of mine was required to repay an obligation. He served 2 1/2 years of a 4 year obligation and was able to get honorably discharged early. Outside of basic training, he never served outside of Florida.
What is being required of this sergeant is IMO unreasonable and an abuse of authority.
Makes you wonder huh ? (well maybe not you Bill, but others)
Matt
So, start being safe, first!!!
mnealtx 0
QuoteSidestepping the legal technicalities of this story, it seems like this soldier is being required to serve well beyond what most people would consider reasonable. The military is abusing it's legal right to require enlistee's to serve additional tours.
Even for soldiers who enlisted after 9/11, there is an unwritten expectation of what "might" be required of them.
I say might because a friend of mine was required to repay an obligation. He served 2 1/2 years of a 4 year obligation and was able to get honorably discharged early. Outside of basic training, he never served outside of Florida.
What is being required of this sergeant is IMO unreasonable and an abuse of authority.
Incorrect - when they sign the contract they are signing up for *8* years. If they re-enlist for another 4, then they have completed their commitment after that term. Otherwise, they are still liable for callup until the total of 8 years are completed, and as part of the IRR after that - just like any other veteran.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 18
Quote>My point was however more along the lines that your media likes to
>cherry pick from the extreem minority to make your posts point.
I know you can't stand this, but this is now the majority. 67% of americans oppose the war.
Personally, I support all the soldiers over there. The war was (and continues to be) a monumental blunder, but that's not their fault. I appreciate the work they've done, and I applaud the soldiers with the guts to stand up to what they think is wrong. I hope they will be able to come home soon.
Now you want to change who the original post was about but I can follow.
It is not to surprising to me that the stat you list is what it is. If the American public got the same info the troops have, instead of the lets go back to the vietnam days mentality I believe the view would be much different. Instend we get the same old tired, one sided drum beat from a outdated media that is trying to make itself relavant once again.
Today they do it with poortly researched stories that support thier own views and use polls to try and move public opinion (not show public opinion)
Not too hard to comprehend when the reasons are understood.
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
I don't see how you would consider this to be true, when you join the military you join to go wherever they send you, if the military really qanted they have very right to keep you in combat for your entire enlistment, there is nothing stating legal limits to being in combat. and this guy did agree to be part of the IRR when he enlisted, everyone who signs up does, there's an entire page in the contract just covering this part. There is no "abuse" of legal rights anywhere, they either have the right or they don't, and right now we are engaged in a conflict and they have every right to make people serve multiple tours or call them back so long as they are within their window.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
QuoteQuoteSidestepping the legal technicalities of this story, it seems like this soldier is being required to serve well beyond what most people would consider reasonable. The military is abusing it's legal right to require enlistee's to serve additional tours.
Even for soldiers who enlisted after 9/11, there is an unwritten expectation of what "might" be required of them.
I say might because a friend of mine was required to repay an obligation. He served 2 1/2 years of a 4 year obligation and was able to get honorably discharged early. Outside of basic training, he never served outside of Florida.
What is being required of this sergeant is IMO unreasonable and an abuse of authority.
Incorrect - when they sign the contract they are signing up for *8* years. If they re-enlist for another 4, then they have completed their commitment after that term. Otherwise, they are still liable for callup until the total of 8 years are completed, and as part of the IRR after that - just like any other veteran.
My point is that he served two tours and was honorably discharged. Now the Army is saying none of that matters. Get you ass back RIGHT NOW!
billvon 2,400
>of the lets go back to the vietnam days mentality I believe the view
>would be much different.
As another poster notes above, our soldiers have a similar opinion. So you may have to revise your belief.
>Instend we get the same old tired, one sided drum beat from
>a outdated media . . .
We got that for years. No one questioned the WMD information; everyone just reported on the horrible threat we were facing. The media did a lousy job of uncovering the news, because they didn't want to be seen as unpatriotic.
Finally the winds are shifting. Are they reporting the unvarnished truth now? Nope, they never have. They are instead reporting what people want to see, because that's what sells airtime. But at least we're not getting the gung-ho "the war will be awesome" crap any more.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteSidestepping the legal technicalities of this story, it seems like this soldier is being required to serve well beyond what most people would consider reasonable. The military is abusing it's legal right to require enlistee's to serve additional tours.
Even for soldiers who enlisted after 9/11, there is an unwritten expectation of what "might" be required of them.
I say might because a friend of mine was required to repay an obligation. He served 2 1/2 years of a 4 year obligation and was able to get honorably discharged early. Outside of basic training, he never served outside of Florida.
What is being required of this sergeant is IMO unreasonable and an abuse of authority.
Incorrect - when they sign the contract they are signing up for *8* years. If they re-enlist for another 4, then they have completed their commitment after that term. Otherwise, they are still liable for callup until the total of 8 years are completed, and as part of the IRR after that - just like any other veteran.
My point is that he served two tours and was honorably discharged. Now the Army is saying none of that matters. Get you ass back RIGHT NOW!
Two combat tours != two terms of enlistment. Find me something in his enlistment contract that says "if we have to send you to combat, it will be for 2 tours of duty or less" and I'll admit you MAY have a point.
I served 4 years and was discharged honorably - I was still on IRR until I fulfilled my 8 YEAR MILITARY COMMITMENT PER THE CONTRACT I SIGNED.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I understand that ALL the multinationals have connections - but it only seems to be a bad thing when it's a Republican administration when the contracts are let - what part of that didn't YOU understand?
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.