And it begins...

[KustmAce]

Originally Posted by aloharocky

He needs to re-read that contract, the part that states that he may be called back according to the needs of the Army. All's they really promise is that you will do more time, if you're needed. The only thing that changes is the level of authority that is used to call a soldier back. They can bring back a general to peel potatoes if they want to. The reason you don't hear of it more often is that most people do their duty without having to be told, just asked.

Originally Posted by taranaki

Is the military that short of people that they really have to take people back against their will? Surely with the number of people who voted to continue with the present administration's agenda, there would be a queue of people volunteering to enlist?

Perhaps if those who are spoiling for a fight backed it up by doing their service, those who have more useful goals could be allowed to persue them in peace.

Couldnt have said it better naki.

[aloharocky]

Spoiling for a fight? Just who are you referring to, Al Queda?

And you're dreaming if you think that your "persuing more useful goals" would be possible without our soldiers doing what they do. But then, no-one is banging on your door to serve, are they?

[TRD2000]

and i thought you blind bastards said the draft wasn't happenning?

;-)

[Tehvisseeus]

not a draft if its in a contractual agreement which the person signed

[tenguzero]

Well, it would seem that he has a valid case here. I'm not sure about the rules and regulations and fine print, but to me, an "Honorable Discharge" means you've served your term, done your duty, and then been released back to civilian life. Hence, you could only be called back under a draft, or if you re-enlisted or something like that. But he's completed his contractual obligation. If there's shit in the fine print that declares you the army's permanent bitch until you're too old to serve, giving them the right to turn around and call you back even if they've released you with your walking papers, I have a feeling there will be a good deal more pissed off people experiencing this in the coming months.

Spoiling for a fight? Just who are you referring to, Al Queda?

No, he's referring to those Americans who are gung-ho for the war with Iraq, whether putting it as their primary concern in re-electing the current administration to a second term, slapping pro-war bumper stickers on their cars, speaking highly of our aims abroad, and talking smack to and about those who don't support the war, and yet when asked why they aren't enlisting if they support the whole thing so much, they always seem to have some sort of excuse.

[TRD2000]

ouch.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by aloharocky

Spoiling for a fight? Just who are you referring to, Al Queda?

And you're dreaming if you think that your "persuing more useful goals" would be possible without our soldiers doing what they do. But then, no-one is banging on your door to serve, are they?

Why am I dreaming? Seems that in pretty much every other western country in the world, people can pursue their goals without their respective armies getting regularly involved in armed conflict in other peoples' countries.

As for the throwaway line on the bottom,I have served.Quite what the relevance is I'm not sure, but I am sure that if you persist in turning every argument into a personal shitfight, you will be removed.

[KustmAce]

Originally Posted by aloharocky

And you're dreaming if you think that your "persuing more useful goals" would be possible without our soldiers doing what they do. But then, no-one is banging on your door to serve, are they?

Right, because those Iraqis were totally preventing Americans from pursuing more useful goals.