Should the troops be forced by the government’s "stop-loss" order to serve beyond thier enlistment terms?
612736
i am a victim of this stop loss system, and it was like a slap in the face for me because i had plans on finishing college. even though i went to iraq from 2003-2004, the army made me go back to iraq again from 2004-2005. the stop loss did me wrong!
170746
If the order was lawful it could range from NJP to Courts Marshal, (and theoretically execution although I don't think that's happened for a long time).\n\nBut what you are describing doesn't really seem to be a lawful order. And disobeying a unlawful order isn't punishiable...theoretically. But after what happend to the lower enlisted at Abu Ghraib...\n\nPersonally, I would refuse the order. Remember we are supposed to be the good guys.\n\nFind a copy of the UCMJ
1149996
I think it's a terrible idea in the long run.\n\nStop loss was created in the case of a national emergency to prevent our armed forces from becoming depleted before a draft could be implemented and new soldiers put in the field. The current use of this tool will drive away reenlistments and discourage new ones.
929461
no but i think compulsory service might solve some of our social issues...\n\nconscription is only useful when we are in a full scale war ie. vietnam
378227
Yes they should get out as they should not be there in the first place... I feel sorry for the families of the dead soldiers... It might have been a bit conforting if they were fighting for a just cause but they are not, so whats the point? \n\nLondon, England
733351
the only moves the military pays for are  pcs  permanent change  of  station. and they will move you back to your hometown after   you finish your time. they dont pay when you decide to leave the service member. thats on you to foot the bill not them. the service member isnt moving so they dont care
509800
YES ABSOLUTELY. I beleive that the USA should build a wall across the US/MECICAN boarder and patrol that boarder with the US MILITARY. I also belive that compusery military service should be inacted. Everybody, male and female, should serve at least 3 years in a branch of the military, either in the reserves or active by the age of 25 as a condition of US Citizenship. Then, with the additional manpower, patrol both boarders using the military. This can be done using a combination of manpower and drones.
500516
If you're in delayed enlistment and have already taken the Oath of Enlistment you are technically obligated to 8 years of service (typically 4 years active duty and 4 years active or inactive reserve) and could be forced to report for active duty on the date on your contract.  \n\nAs a practical matter, if you go to the recruiter and tell them you want to back out you'll normally be allowed to do so.  That's not to say that they'll be happy or not give you a ration of sh*t but they'd rather let you go than get dinged for having recruited someone who "failed to adapt."  Please note that this is NOT a guaranteed outcome!\n\nIf you simply failed to report, you'd be AWOL and would be subject to arrest and return to military control.\n\nAn old NCO (me!) once said, "I can't MAKE you do anything, son, but I can DAMN sure make you wish you HAD!"
969463
Maybe, but perhaps it should be like some other countries, where everyone who meets the physical requirements should serve in at least some fashion. If not the military, then some other form of public service. If they attend college, then that service would be delayed until after college.\n\n  I served in the Army National Guard, the Air Force, and the Air National Guard, and don't regret it one bit. I left for medical reasons, but served a total of about 6 years, with 4 of them active. Those who don't serve have no idea of the mindset of a soldier. We are the last to wish a conflict, as we know that we will be doing the fighting. On the other hand, we know that without us, our country would be defenseless.\n\n  A single tour is really enough, and we would have plenty of troops to fulfill our missions. It would be a great educational opportunity for everyone, and they certainly would better appreciate this land we live in, just as you mentioned.
770354
That depends on what has occured.  Has the animal bitten someone?  Is this a repeated offense?  Has the service member been charged with animal cruelty?  Trying to run a shelter?  Trying to establish a breeding business on base?\n\nThe commander can order the service member to do anything that is for the "good of the command".  So, if the commander has determined that the soldier is violating laws/regulations, in danger of violating laws/regulations, creating a health hazard, or has dangerous animals, then the answer is "YES".
416311
In some countries, men and women are required to serve in the military.  Forcing people to do so won't guarantee that they will become better citizens, gain maturity or wisdom or even that they will get into better shape physically.  \n\nThe military in this country is a fine option for some, but it definitely isn't for everybody.  Maybe a better option would be calling for one year of military or humanitarian service which would open up more options while still giving the US a specific period of service from each person.  \n\nPersonally, I think forcing anyone into military service is a poor choice.  I wouldn't want to be alongside someone who it there by force and not giving their all.  I don't want the person who holds the cure for cancer or AIDS or the next Shakespeare to be held back by a year or two of mandatory service.  \n\nMandatory service could be far more detrimental to this country than beneficial.
1020914
No, you don't have to die to serve your country. If you are in the US Army it does not matter if you on the front lines or in some supporting effort, as long as you making an effort to do a good job, you are serving your country.
750678
The answer is no. The military is not a democracy. Its job is to kill people and break their stuff. Period. Their opinion on the orders they receive is irrelevant.
720700
No. They don't need it. They just keep the reserves on active duty for the rest of their lives.
12630
Lawful orders?\nAre you military?\n\nThe UCMJ is quite clear on this.  Lawful orders MUST be carried out.
208077
no. the US should not pull all of the troops out of IRAQ right away. it should be a slow process while the iraqi govt learns how to handle the present situation on its own. by doing so, they will no longer need the US there and they will become a fully funtioning country that is able to defend its self.\nand im in the USMC
184479
It takes congress to officially declare war, but that doesn't seem to stop many presidents.  They send troops to an undeclared war whenever they feel like it.  My own feeling is that we should, as a government, stay out of foreign wars.  If individual American citizens feel strongly about a foreign war and want to go volunteer for service in a foreign army, they should have the right (assuming no war has been declared and they are on the other side).  But our own army should be purely defensive, and purely to defend our own country.  We have allies with whom we have made defense agreements, but I think that is ill-considered.  We should offer our allies material and technical help, and volunteers only.