US troops sue army

im not sure if this has been posted yet, since the story is at least 12 hours old, but i searched and nothing came up.

Eight US soldiers have begun legal action in an effort to stop the US army extending their tours of duty in Iraq.

the US army uses a 'stop loss' policy, which can keep troops committed to their units for 18 months beyond their discharge date.

BBC- US troops sue over tours in Iraq

From The Guardian website

From the ABC news site

do you think that this will start off more soldiers sueing the army?

Well keeping such troops in action would actually be worse than just allowing them to go home, tired and fed up troops are hardly what is needed to maintain security in Iraq, it will just lead to more casulties and mistakes.
However seeing as the US has already commited portions of National Guard units this would suggest that they're army is already at straining point. With this in mind I believe the Govenment will prolong regular army units tour of duty's as long as possible and fight to keep it that way.

that is depressing that they want out that badly. Especially when we need new troops and have to enact a draft because people didn't read the fine print when they signed up.

Of course it is upsetting they are being asked to stay longer, but we shouldn't forget that they not only volunteered but knew it could happen.

The worst part is the respect all of our troops are going to loose after a few fight to get out- and new people are forced to get in. The same people being pushed to fight now are going to be hated when they get home despite what they have given up for us.

here is some more on the stop loss policy

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.military.com...

from military.com:

"The stop-loss is having a tremendous impact on morale," said Charles Moskos, a sociology professor at Northwestern University who specializes in the military.

that is never good for any army.

it is seen as a 'back-door draft'

Originally posted by blanketgirl
that is depressing that they want out that badly. Especially when we need new troops and have to enact a draft because people didn't read the fine print when they signed up.

Of course it is upsetting they are being asked to stay longer, but we shouldn't forget that they not only volunteered but knew it could happen.

The worst part is the respect all of our troops are going to loose after a few fight to get out- and new people are forced to get in. The same people being pushed to fight now are going to be hated when they get home despite what they have given up for us.

I Doubt anybody is going to hate those folks when they come home, ALot of people might hate the war, or even the adminstration, but i can't think of anybody i know that would hold it against the soilders , even the ones that want to get out. Most people have somekinda loved one over there whether it be family , friend or spouse. It's good that these guys are trying to get out. they have a right to sue, and they have a right to want to go home, whether or not that happens is a different story.

The reason I think they could see a problem would be if we have to have an actual draft because of it.

Don't you think that would tick off enough people to cause some hatred toward those who signed up and backed out when they found out they actually had to stay?

Originally posted by bordnlazy
I Doubt anybody is going to hate those folks when they come home, ALot of people might hate the war, or even the adminstration, but i can't think of anybody i know that would hold it against the soilders , even the ones that want to get out. Most people have somekinda loved one over there whether it be family , friend or spouse. It's good that these guys are trying to get out. they have a right to sue, and they have a right to want to go home, whether or not that happens is a different story.

I'm not really sure how this is supposed to work. They have a contract with teh government to serve in the military for X amount of time, and then be released and be liable for call up for some other amount of time, "Y". Are they saying that the should only serve X? Or are they saying that the served X, now Y has passed, and they are being illegally re-activated? Or has the Army changed the terms of the contract itself to extend either X or Y?

bordnlazy
but i can't think of anybody i know that would hold it against the soilders , even the ones that want to get out. Most people have somekinda loved one over there

You mean like in Viet Nam, when there was a draft, and returning soldiers were abused by draft dodgers and protestors?

Well even if there is a draft , i doubt People will hold against people who volunteered for it, we are a little bit smarter than we were 30yrs ago, if we are to throw and hurt people in protest it would be towards members of our government that "had" the draft and Felt We needed the war.

i dunno what the opinion on the war is over in the US, but from my little hole in essex, i get the opinion that we (in the UK) arent too keen on the war, but will 'back our boys' (as the sun put it) through out it. if not, thats my opinion anyway. therefore, if they are seemingly being 'conned' by the army by a tricky policy, i wouldnt object to soldiers complaining about it.

[edit on 7-12-2004 by EvilSpallacus]

"]Originally posted by blanketgirl
The reason I think they could see a problem would be if we have to have an actual draft because of it.

Don't you think that would tick off enough people to cause some hatred toward those who signed up and backed out when they found out they actually had to stay?"


Awww i see what you mean, it would cause problems. i could definetly see people resenting these soilders if there was a draft.sorry for the misunderstanding.

Of course whether We force people to fight (draft) , or keep people from getting out(back door draft), isn't it essentially the same thing?



[edit on 7-12-2004 by bordnlazy]

Bad news - As a civilization and a society we are not smarter than we were 30 years ago, we just have better technology.

The ARMY's use of a back-door draft and the refusal to discuss an actual draft until after Bush is sworn in for another term is creating an accelerating feeling of resentment in troops that are already stressed to the breaking point by a local society that is intolerant toward the occupiers.
This friction and resentment can and most probably will lead to the modern equivalent of Me Lai, a massacre of a local population in entirety as the troops express their anger and frustration on the closest target.

Add the frustrations of Courts Martial of troops for firing on enemy combatants who feign injury or surrender only to commit 'suicide by soldier' for a nonexistant god created by a proven sociopath and the mix becomes a possible retaliatory sociopathological dynamic that would be forced to run it's course until the soldiers attain a feeling of release.

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
Bad news - As a civilization and a society we are not smarter than we were 30 years ago, we just have better technology.

The ARMY's use of a back-door draft and the refusal to discuss an actual draft until after Bush is sworn in

Thats funny, before november, they were supposed to be waiting for the election to be over. Now its for the formality of being sworn in? How would a draft prevent that anyway?
No one is going to create a draft unless the nation itself is under direct and constant attack/threat of invasion. A draft is senseless for the Terror Wars, as senseless as large armies marching in formation against long range rifles fired by irregular troops under cover. As senseless as infantry units rushing fortified machine gun formations. As senseless as light cavalry charging artillerly that has the high ground. The US army is fully capable of fielding against and defeating any nation its likely to fight against in the near future. A draft would be pointless, and only guarentee that, next election, who ever let it occur is out of office. Thats why the democrats and rangell pushed for a draft, becuase they wanted people to freak out, protest, stop the war, and vote in a democrat for president, not because they wanted a draft.

Sort of all the nations of the middle east uniting, modernizing by about a hundred years, fielding a combined arms military, and plausibly having the ability to launch troop transports, aircraft carriers, and defensive screens of fighter jets and SDI nuke protection to launch an invasion on US soil, there won't be a need for a draft.

The only other plausible scenario in which a draft occurs is where everything goes to merd at once, and the military can't afford to move any of its troops out of where they are, or out of vital strategic points, like in vietnam with eastern europe and japan.

The nation has never been under threat of invasion. This war is all about profit for the oil companies and political influence in the middle east.

Let's get this straight. Americans are being asked to lose their lives for dollars. There never were any WMD or a genuine reason for this war. It has nothing to do with patriotism or saving America.

Many Americans think this war is a great idea, as long as they do not have to go over there themselves. Those troops are doing their job well, and should be allowed to return home when their tour of duty is completed. Allowed to return with dignity and honor.

This is absolutely destroying the morale in the military, and conscription is no answer. This particular war was a very big mistake.

If America really was under a real threat, the volunteers would be breaking down the doors trying to get into the recruiting centres. The whole damned thing is wrong, and more people are beginning to realise that.

by bordnlazy
I Doubt anybody is going to hate those folks when they come home, ALot of people might hate the war, or even the adminstration, but i can't think of anybody i know that would hold it against the soilders , even the ones that want to get out

I think this is an excellent point. The troops are only doing what the command tells them. The fact that they want out is a clear indication that they are not happy with what they are being forced to do. When your time is up, you should get to go home.

by Warpspeed
This is absolutely destroying the morale in the military, and conscription is no answer. This particular war was a very big mistake.

Amen!

[WARNING HEAVY SARCASM]

On behalf of all the Soldiers of the Coalition that have hereunto this point been deservedly and unreservedly receiving our support and the unconditional status of national and FAB international heroes of the entire galaxy including the Moon, These Soldiers in particular would like to express their thanks at not immediately being labeled commie pinkos by their countrymen. They are also exceptionally glad of to hear of the bipartisan support they can rely on from their fellow citizens. They would like to thank the traditional supporters of the military for destroying this prejudice and allowing them to return home in one piece and minus death threats.

They sorely regret the circumstance leading to this unfortunate event but state that when you�ve finally grown a brain and got fed up with the bull#, there is, unfortunately, no going back.

I could just imagen the chaos if the Us gov. tried to re-initiate a draft...

People didnt like it in Veitnam, and the people have grown much more intolerant to such thinking since then.

Hilarious, no, wait! I'm crying... No, wait, i'm laughing again...
Dude! Where's my antidepressiva?!

-No further comment to the issue.:

From the source article:
Although the "stop loss" policy is affecting thousands of troops, the Pentagon says it is a normal procedure in wartime, is part of the terms of enlistment and was also used during the 1991 Gulf War.

This policy is nothing new. Long, long ago when I was bound under a similar contract and my term of service was about to end, I was concerned about this very same thing happening to me.

But I knew it could happen, and if it did, that is what I had agreed to when I signed up and I would have had to accept it.

I appreciate how these guys must feel, but they are wrong, and they are particularly wrong to sue over this.

The time to talk to a lawyer is before signing a contract, not afterwards. Also, it is a good idea to read a contract before signing it, like I did before signing mine.

Based on the quotes attributed to them, none of the plaintiffs appears to have done so.

I wonder if there actually was a draft how many people would willingly go allow with it. Seeing as im Australian and not American I do not know exactly how your people would react.

Although I suppose they can always just go along with it, enlist, and do the good old trick of raising your weapon a few extra degrees when ordered to fire on a target, I dont think many people would have a problem shooting the clouds.

Originally posted by Warpspeed
The nation has never been under threat of invasion.

I didn't say it was. In fact I said it wasn't, and that its practically inconceivable that it will be any time in the near future, and that a draft will only come into effect if that does.

If America really was under a real threat, the volunteers would be breaking down the doors trying to get into the recruiting centres.

Complete tripe. I'm sorry but it is. The US was under a real threat in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor, and there was no mass push on the military recruitment centers. People said that the war was a european thing, not america's business, and that the monied powers on both sides were just going to profit off it, and that it would be better to just leave it along and not get invovled in the whole mess. Then the Japanese nearly wiped out the entire pacific fleet of the United States and almost broke its back in one single -day-.

psychoses
When your time is up, you should get to go home.

When you sign up for the military you agree to an immedate tour of a certain duration and a certain period of time in which you can be called up again for an undefined length of time. Has it or has it not been established if there soldiers in particular have completely fufilled the obligations of their recruitment contract?