Mentally ill troops forced into combat

Huntster said:
What is it about military duty that people don't understand?

Thankfully, those in service today are behaving like soldiers. And thankfully, the Pentagon knows that it doesn't want to go back to the draft days.
Click to expand...

Wow Hunster, I have to completely disagree with you. I served in the military and I was shocked at how much of a pathetic joke it was compared to the pictures painted by movies, recruitment ads on TV, and first-hand accounts by current members.

Our current military, precisely because it is voluntary, is an embarassment.
 
drkitten said:
Unless, of course, you happen to be in the US Armed Forces and female, since "combat jobs" are restricted to males only.
Click to expand...
Mostly true, though there are/have been exceptions.

Good ol sexual discrimination :rolleyes:


More to the point, the US Army -- in fact, every service -- also recognizes 1-A-0 conscientious objectors, members of the military who are specifically not eligible for combat for reasons of conscience.
Click to expand...
They recognize them "officially," but anyone who thinks they can get out of fighting by basically going "I don't wanna" is in for a rude awakening....
 
thaiboxerken said:
I have a better description. You didn't sign up for a job, you signed on as a slave.
Click to expand...

Ken is 100% correct. I know because I signed on for a job and ended up fighting for my freedom -- not against the enemy but against my own country's military.

Pro-military people often don't realize exactly what is going on here. We are NOT talking about a person fullfilling duty, or fighting for freedom, or any of those things. They are all abstract and often don't factor into the equation at all. The military is about a single concept -- doing what you are told by those above you.
 
bigred said:
Not altogether false, actually, but if you're trolling, it's seriously lame and dull.

If you're serious, you are exaggerating just a bit.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but what precisely are the differences between enlisting in the military, and indentured servitude?
 
thaiboxerken said:
The granting of objector designation is something that the military may give to people, if they feel like it. The military has the option of not granting ANY objector designations.
Click to expand...

They do not. They are required to grant well-founded objector designations. (DoD reg 1300.6), and the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld that requirement, although I don't have the case citation to hand.

They could also send you to the brig for farting.
Click to expand...

No, this would also violate the UCMJ , specifically article 93:

Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Click to expand...

The official explanatory text notes that : "The cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment, although not necessarily physical, must be measured by an objective standard. Assault, improper punishment, and sexual harassment may constitute this offense."
 
bigred said:
They recognize them "officially," but anyone who thinks they can get out of fighting by basically going "I don't wanna" is in for a rude awakening....
Click to expand...

Oh, there's a lot more than simply saying "I don't wanna."

In practical terms, the procedure seems to be
1) tell your CO that you are a conscientious objector
2) tell your CO that DoD regulation 1300.6 exists and you intend to hold him to it
3) ask for the order he just gave you to be put in writing, because you intend to use it as court-martial evidence against him
4) refuse to carry out the (illegal) order you have just been given
5) get thrown in the brig on an article 85 or 92 (desertion or insubordination) charge
6) lose at your court-martial
7) file a writ of habeas corpus and appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
8) hopefully, win at the appelate level
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Probably not. It's a standard ad homimem. It's a common tactic when a civilian makes a criticism of the military. It's unfortunate, because it debases both parties.
Click to expand...
? I'd say it's a fairly reasonable response to the "you are property you are a slave" routine. It seems pretty likely that thai is not military material and it's true that others have "fought for him" (ie protected his country/freedoms/etc). So?
 
rocketdodger said:
Ken is 100% correct. I know because I signed on for a job and ended up fighting for my freedom -- not against the enemy but against my own country's military.
Click to expand...
If you were ignorant of the freedoms you give up when you join, that's your fault. Shoulda researched better before signing the dotted line.


Pro-military people often don't realize exactly what is going on here. We are NOT talking about a person fullfilling duty, or fighting for freedom, or any of those things. They are all abstract and often don't factor into the equation at all. The military is about a single concept -- doing what you are told by those above you.
Click to expand...
It's both. And even the military does not have absolute power over you; you have rights and there are procedures to challenge things considered "wrong."
 
rocketdodger said:
Wow Hunster, I have to completely disagree with you. I served in the military and I was shocked at how much of a pathetic joke it was compared to the pictures painted by movies, recruitment ads on TV, and first-hand accounts by current members..
Click to expand...
:boggled: Good grief. If you believe what you see in movies/commecials is real or accurate, you also get what you deserve. Can't speak to your first-hand accounts specifically (and they have to be realized as "anecdotal") but my impression is they tend to be pretty accurate...

Our current military, precisely because it is voluntary, is an embarassment.
Click to expand...
?? How so?
 
drkitten said:
Oh, there's a lot more than simply saying "I don't wanna."
Click to expand...
This is greatly exaggerated,

I actually know someone who filed for CO status a couple years after joining up, due to a major change in his religious beliefs. The procedure was nowhere near as bad as you described.

It consisted of filing a statement of application for CO status, attending a couple of hearings, filling out a lot of the repetitious paperwork that the military is inordinately fond of, and a whole lot of waiting as the bureaucratic gears ground very slowly toward a conclusion, during which he simply waited in a sort of limbo state. Applicants were not required to attent to their regular duties; but were generally temporarily transferred to a low-level clerical position for the duration of processing.
 
bigred said:
If you were ignorant of the freedoms you give up when you join, that's your fault. Shoulda researched better before signing the dotted line.
Click to expand...

I did the research, my friend. That is the only reason I was able to "win" and get what I wanted in the end. My point is that the enlistment contract is absurdly vague and could be interpreted in any number of ways. I finally got out by successfully arguing (more like whining) that my interpretation was just as valid as theirs yet was completely contradictory to the current functioning of the military.

bigred said:
It's both. And even the military does not have absolute power over you; you have rights and there are procedures to challenge things considered "wrong."
Click to expand...

This is true. But the problem is that you don't get to simply challenge a wrong and then suspend your activity until it is resolved -- you are forced to continue with whatever your job is and possibly be exposed to that wrong over and over. In other words, they consider YOU guilty until proven innocent.
 
rocketdodger said:
My point is that the enlistment contract is absurdly vague and could be interpreted in any number of ways. I finally got out by successfully arguing (more like whining) that my interpretation was just as valid as theirs yet was completely contradictory to the current functioning of the military.
Click to expand...
Too bad you didn't think of doing all that BEFORE you signed. :rolleyes:

;)
 
bigred said:
? I'd say it's a fairly reasonable response to the "you are property you are a slave" routine. It seems pretty likely that thai is not military material and it's true that others have "fought for him" (ie protected his country/freedoms/etc). So?
Click to expand...

It's an ad hominem. You're dismissing the argument entirely because you don't think the person is military material. It's a classic logical fallacy. It contributes nothing to the conversation.
 
I don't know ID. My argument related to the thread topic far more than his argument did.
 
bigred said:
Too bad you didn't think of doing all that BEFORE you signed. :rolleyes:

;)
Click to expand...

Yeah well the problem is that I couldn't get a straight answer about what THEIR interpretation was before I enlisted. So, being the naive young man I was, I figured what the hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom