Force them to go even after they have already served for quite some time.
2007-02-05 09:59:11 · 27 answers · asked by bassryder59 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If someone has volunteered to serve in the military, they knew what they were getting into. If they were willing to cash their paycheck during peacetime based on the fact that they promised to go when called it is only right that they can be forced to fulfill their commitment. The people of the United States of America have expended alot of money, time and resources to prepare that individual based on the fact that they made a commitment. If the individual were willing to reimburse the government for all pay, allowances and training costs, I might say he should be able to get out of it. However that would not be fair to the poorer people in the service. The costs would likely be close to a million dollars if he has served for a long time. So the answer is yes, it is right. Making any kind of commitment should not be taken lightly. This is just one of those choices an individual makes that has consequences.
2007-02-05 10:08:45 · answer #1 · answered by Michael 3 · 8⤊ 0⤋
I'm assuming you are referring to the court martial of the lieutenant that refused to go to war with his unit. ABSOLUTELY. This is coming from someone who has gone twice, and hasn't necessarily wanted to go either time. The Army pays me a check, it is my JOB to go to war. I knew this when I signed my contract. When you sign a contract in the military, you are obligated 8 years of service. Most people sign up for 4 years active, then go on 4 years IRR (individual ready reserve i think is what it stands for). At any time the military can call you back during those 4 years if they need you. You know this when you sign your contract. Also, if one person was able to refuse to go, and not have anything happen, what do you think the other soldiers in his unit would do? What do you think the soldiers that stupid lieutenant had under him would think if their leader was able to get away with it? There would be complete chaos and complete lack of any cohesion in the Army, and we would not have a very good military. Given the chance, most soldiers I know would not go.
2007-02-05 10:16:54 · answer #2 · answered by Kurtayn 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would not want someone by my husbands/wifes side that did not want to be there and would not do whatever was necessary to keep his/her unit safe.
On the other hand I think if someone that is in on active duty and refuses to go to war should be discharged. From the time you hit basic training you know it does not matter what your job will be after training you are there to be trained for war and you should have known that before you enlist.
Not really a good example but if one was hired to be a receptionist but refused to answer the phone I'm sure they would be fired.
2007-02-05 10:15:31 · answer #3 · answered by ambernpeach 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't sound like you have ever served in your military to me. When you Enlist or accept a commission Uncle Same ownes your butt. He tells you when to go, where to go and what to do when you get there. That is how the military has worked and MUST continue to work. This is an all volunteer Military and you just don't get to pick and choose what missions you will or will not support--period.
2007-02-05 11:43:53 · answer #4 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're talking about that little whiny coward who enjoyed the benefits of being in the military but doesn't want to serve in Iraq, I think that he should be charged with desertion.
It's an all-volunteer military. No one forces you to sign that line, but if you do, act like a decent human being and uphold your end of the bargain.
Hell, if it was up to me, the gov't would sue that idiot for all the money they've paid him and the benefits he's received. After all, the gov't upheld *their* end of the bargain. Oh, and after they let him out of prision, I think he should serve community service with wounded Iraqi veterans so he can explain why he thinks he's too good to do his duty.
2007-02-05 10:27:44 · answer #5 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes... BUT... The government should not be allowed to say they are fighting for one reason one week and then lie and come up with another reason the next week to maintain the support of the country. The servicement and women deserve the truth. Yes, there are terrorists, yes we need to maintain security over there... BUT, when a lot of these guys signed on the reason they signed on bc was invalid and therefore should be reason enough to let them get out if they want to. It only makes sense according to OUR CONSTITUTION.
2007-02-05 10:40:21 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
when you enlist into the military you are saying you will go to war when told. So, yes its right to send soldiers even if you dont agree with the war. No one forced them to raise their right hand.
2007-02-05 11:15:30 · answer #7 · answered by big stan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you join the military and when you get out you are told how long you are still on the inactive reserve list and could be called back in that time frame.
If you, as a soldier, dont like it, then dont join in the first place.
2007-02-05 10:45:23 · answer #8 · answered by Taba 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you volunteer for the forces, then you can gladly pack your gear with a smile and do your duty.
What has time to do with anything?
If your in, your in for the long haul, and that includes conflict.
Best to get out now and let the fighting MEN do the work for you.
Get off the playstation, its obsolete!!!!
2007-02-05 10:30:10 · answer #9 · answered by dtedad-50 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nobody is forced unless the draft is in action, which it isn't in any country, I believe. And unless they signed a contract, I suggest people think before signing their lives away to government.
2007-02-05 10:31:06 · answer #10 · answered by D.O... 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋