9,000 US soldiers killed so far in Iraq?

[jGilder]

I was commenting on what Simon said -- it was relevant to that.

I think you were just throwing in a random attack on Bush because you like to do that sort of thing.

Fine by me if you feel better about yourself by doing that, but nepotism isn't comparable to lawyers assisting with legal contracts. And hence, I fail to see the relevance of a forced comparison of the two.

This is the comment I was responding to:

However, if all recruits to the army had lawyers and the power to negotiate terms, their conditions would be a whole lot different.

I think that the irony about Bush's military record is relevant since we wouldn't be involved with this war in Iraq had it not been for him and his junta. A man who used fraud and had the rules bent in his favor is now responsible for young people being sent in harm's way -- based on his lies. The relevance is dead on.

[NicoMoreno]

The problem with this, is that I am sure there was more written into that contract than you think. Something along the lines of "We reserve the right to cancel this agreement and send you to war if we need to."

Maybe I am cynical, but I can't see how you can enlist in an Army and expect to never fight.

It's in the stop-loss legislation. If the offer was hollow and the army knew it, then they had no business signing a false contract in the first place.

It's not like unexpected developments made stop-loss suddenly essential: although the former soldier didn't know it at the time he signed, the provisions were already in force. He got his orders to report for indefinite deployment in Iraq before he'd even reported for duty anywhere; those were his first oders as a soldier again.

So while it could be argued that the soldier *should* have known that the contract he was agreeing to might not be honoured, the fact is that the recruiter signing on behalf of the government DID know that he just sold a bill of goods.

In any other field of contract law, that would be fraud.

Hmm, interesting. I actually don't really know anything about the stop-loss legislation, which is a point for you. But, I should. Or, I should say, an American should. That they don't is not directly the Army's fault. Rather, it's the fault of poor education. Because everybody should know the laws that affect them.

Now, if a recruitee had asked "Are there any laws, or clauses, or whatever that would allow the Army to nullify this contract?" or something to that effect, and the recruiter had then said "No", then I would wholeheartedly agree with you that he had lied and should be punished. Provided that this was verifiably true.

As for this guy, if what he says is true, than I understand the problem, and mostly I agree. But, it is his word that he was lied to. Who can verify that? How do we know that he isn't lying?

I'm off for the night, and it'll be awhile before I check back, but thanks for the discussion Simon.

[jGilder]

Maybe I am cynical, but I can't see how you can enlist in an Army and expect to never fight.

Obviously our president thought that.

So should he have been allowed to just quit if he had been given orders to fight somewhere?

He wasn't lied to, he knew exactly what he was getting. It was his lineage that bought him a safe and free ride without seeing combat but still being able to claim he served.

[NicoMoreno]

So should he have been allowed to just quit if he had been given orders to fight somewhere?

Well, wasn't he? He got orders to report for a drug test and never showed up again.

I wouldn't know, I wasn't there. From I gather, Gilder is saying that everybody should be allowed to quit whenever they want to. (Or whenever they think they were treated unfairly.) Yet, I gather he is also reprimanding Bush for doing this same thing. So that would be a double standard.

So: Should enlistees be allowed to quit everytime they receive an order they weren't expecting?

[jGilder]

From I gather, Gilder is saying that everybody should be allowed to quit whenever they want to.

Oh for God's sake, you're joking... right?

continued... (Or whenever they think they were treated unfairly.) Yet, I gather he is also reprimanding Bush for doing this same thing. So that would be a double standard.

No, what I'm saying is that recruiters shouldn't be allowed to behave fraudulently and use deceptive tactics to secure recruits. If they do use these tactics -- then the applications should be declared null and void like they would according to civilian law, as Simon has pointed out.

[s1m0n]

As for this guy, if what he says is true, than I understand the problem, and mostly I agree. But, it is his word that he was lied to. Who can verify that? How do we know that he isn't lying?

I know about this because I heard an interview with his lawyer on As it Happens. This was about a month ago, but what had happened then was that the soldier had refused to report and was taking the army to court.

The "try one" program exists; for all I know you can still sign up for it, although it won't be honoured and the army knows it. It's a sheer sucker-play.

We don't have to take the soldier's word that he was lied to: the promise the army made is down in black and white on the agreement he signed.

He was signing on for a one-year trial hitch. He didn't know it, but the army had no intention of ever fulfilling the terms of this deal, even though they are laid out in the agreement.

The army's position is "tough luck. You signed, now we own you. Go to Iraq or go to jail."

[s1m0n]

Here's a quote I just dug up from from the tennessee national guard FAQ page:

http://www.tnmilitary.org/MainPages/FAQ.htm

For how long do I have to join?

[snip]

Veterans who have served in any branch of the military have additional options available to them including a " Try One" program which allows a veteran to serve for only one year on a trial basis before committing to a full enlistment.

Under stop-loss, this is a 100% false offer. The terms of this program will not be fulfilled.

And here's another account of a guy who was also fooled by "try one"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military ... _2-24.html

An unclear Army contract?

SPC. DAVID QUALLS: What this boils down to, in my opinion, is a question of fairness.

LEE HOCHBERG: On a recent leave from Taji, Iraq, near Baghdad, 35-year-old Spec. David Qualls said he enlisted with the Arkansas Guard in 2003. It was supposed to be a one-year trial through a program called Try One. The Guard promotes Try One one on its web site.

ADVERTISEMENT ON WEB SITE: Veterans who have served in any branch of the military have additional options available to them, including a try one program. This allows a veteran to serve for only one year on a trial basis before committing to a full enlistment.

JIM KLIMASKI: That's what the contract says, real clear. Try it for one year, see if you like the Reserves or the National Guard, it fits with your schedule. And if you don't like at the end of one year, you are gone. However, all of those people who signed up under that program discovered that it was a fraud.

SPC. DAVID QUALLS: I tried my one, and you know, I completed and served that one year. Actually I've served five months past my one-year obligation, and I feel that it's time to let me go back to my life.

LEE HOCHBERG: The Army says at the time of Qualls' enlistment, it didn't know his unit was going to be extended, but it concedes the name Try One may be misleading.

Note that last part--the army concedes that the "try one" offer might be misleading, and says that it wasn't fraud because they didn't know at the time that they'd be using stop-loss. However, they know that now, and the program continues, as the cite from the tennessee FAQ proves. The article quotes the arkansas national guard FAQ page, as well, and it contains the identical promise, proving that the wording comes from Washington, not any individual state.

[Doug_Tipple]

Thanks, Simon, for reporting the truth. Oh, how I wish I could hear something like this in the press or on national TV.

[Lambchop]

He was LIED to. Is that what you mean by the "going gets tough"? I'm sorry missy, but you can't convince me that just because someone is a high school dropout and can't hold a job it's ok to fool him into putting his life on the line. I don't think you'd be justifying it this way if you were in his shoes and had been lied to only to find yourself dodging car bombs and rocket grenades in a country far far away.

No, he wasn't lied to. The military is extremely clear about the nature of its work. It is no secret what it does and it has NEVER been a secret that anyone in the military has no control over what they do while in the military. It's the nature of the job. If you're in the military, then you're in a dangerous job.

Nobody ever gets into the military and remains in any kind of doubt that they could end up in unpleasant situations doing what the military does best, which is blowing things up and killing people. You might be "guaranteed" a particular job, but it is only guaranteed as far as the continued needs of the military are concerned AND only happens if you fulfill your end of the bargain. Flunk out of the training that leads to it and you'll find yourself doing something else entirely.

He signed papers by way of indicating his understanding that nothing in his contract was guaranteed. I know he did, because I've signed them myself. The oath he took made it clear, as well. Didn't he listen to what he was saying?

This guy dropped out of high school, got married too soon, then went through 8 jobs in 2 years. That's one job every 3 months. Do you realize how bad you have to be to be unable to stay on a job longer than 3 months??? He's a loser. It's harsh to say that, but that's what he is. He's not making it on the outside and he's not making it in the military, and now he's in Canada couch-surfing and hoping somebody will let him be a political refugee. He's got the brain-power of shrubbery and he's a lot less stable!

The fact that he says this and that happened to him does not mean that it ever happened. He's going to misconstrue things and hear what he wants to hear, and then change his story later to justify his unstable, ill-advised decisions.

Somebody up at the top of this thread mentioned psychosis. That's exactly what I was thinking the whole time I was reading the transcript of his interview. This person is disturbed. He's so bizarre, in fact, that if he turned himself in today he'd probably get boarded out on a psychiatric disability.

And if he's not mentally ill, then he's just plain without honor.

I'm just sorry he's in Canada making us look bad. I hope they don't think he's representative of the rest of us.

[rasp]

when one signs up for the military, they inlist for a set period of time, but they are also obligated for a total period. active + inactive = obligated.
this means that when ever the military wants, they can increase the active, up to the obligated time. stop/loss keeps one in longer than the obligated. that is the way it is and has been. i believe, at present the us obligation is 8 years.

[Lambchop]

when one signs up for the military, they inlist for a set period of time, but they are also obligated for a total period. active + inactive = obligated.
this means that when ever the military wants, they can increase the active, up to the obligated time. stop/loss keeps one in longer than the obligated. that is the way it is and has been. i believe, at present the us obligation is 8 years.

Yup, and everybody enlisting knows it. They KNOW in advance that should the US become involved in a conflict that stop-loss will go into effect and you can't get out. If you enter during a period of stop-loss, then it should be no surprise to you.

The fact that recruitment is done with a "try one" offer is irrelevant. Nothing with the military is ever certain. If that thought bothers you, you should enlist to begin with.

And, really, the "try one" program is designed to attract former military. Who are supposed to know about the uncertain nature of military service.

[jGilder]

No, he wasn't lied to. The military is extremely clear about the nature of its work. It is no secret what it does and it has NEVER been a secret that anyone in the military has no control over what they do while in the military. It's the nature of the job. If you're in the military, then you're in a dangerous job.

Nobody ever gets into the military and remains in any kind of doubt that they could end up in unpleasant situations doing what the military does best, which is blowing things up and killing people. You might be "guaranteed" a particular job, but it is only guaranteed as far as the continued needs of the military are concerned AND only happens if you fulfill your end of the bargain. Flunk out of the training that leads to it and you'll find yourself doing something else entirely.

He signed papers by way of indicating his understanding that nothing in his contract was guaranteed. I know he did, because I've signed them myself. The oath he took made it clear, as well. Didn't he listen to what he was saying?

So maybe they need to put a banner above the recruiting booth that says, "Disregard anything we promise you to get you to enlist, because if you do -- you're f**ked!"

This guy dropped out of high school, got married too soon, then went through 8 jobs in 2 years. That's one job every 3 months. Do you realize how bad you have to be to be unable to stay on a job longer than 3 months??? He's a loser. It's harsh to say that, but that's what he is. He's not making it on the outside and he's not making it in the military, and now he's in Canada couch-surfing and hoping somebody will let him be a political refugee. He's got the brain-power of shrubbery and he's a lot less stable!

So maybe they need to add to the banner above the recruiting booth, "If you're a loser -- you're double f**cked because no one will care if you were lied to."

I'm just sorry he's in Canada making us look bad. I hope they don't think he's representative of the rest of us.

Better he's up there representing us than dishonest military recruiters. The convoluted logic that has transpired on this thread to justify the recruiter’s deceptive tactics explains how the president can lie to the American people and Congress, get us into an illegal, immoral war based on those lies, and still have people supporting him. Evidently the entire war apparatus in the US is relying on dishonesty for it's existance.

[rasp]

if one is in the market, there will always be someone out there that will tell you what you want to hear. tis a known fact. the world is full of dishonest people, so read the contract before you sign.

by the way, if you spill hot coffee on your lap, it is your oun fault.

[missy]

rasp and lambchop - give it up. Our personal experience doesn't mean squat - it's what is written up somewhere that is gospel, don't you know that?
It's too bad I don't have a copy of Nate's papers to reproduce here that spell out all of this. It's too bad I don't have all the conversations with the recruiters on tape.
As to having a parent with him - I only went in three times - once on his first visit to Army, once on his first visit to Army Guard, and to sign the papers (since he was 17) when he chose the Navy. Nate did all the "legwork" himself. And Nate is a very shy kid (I mean painfully shy, to the point that it's effected his life in numerous ways). But he went about this because it was what he wanted, and he knew it was time to "grow up". If Nate can get these answers - believe me - ANYONE can get these answers.
IF the recruiter lied, of course he should be brought up on charges. But - look at this kids "record". I would need a whole lot more proof than his word to believe he was "lied" to. Until proven otherwise, this kid was just looking for another easy out (which he's evidently done for at least the last three or four years of his life) which he decided to jump when the going got rough. Sorry - no sympathy from me.

[rasp]

rasp and lambchop - give it up. Our personal experience doesn't mean squat - it's what is written up somewhere that is gospel, don't you know that?
It's too bad I don't have a copy of Nate's papers to reproduce here that spell out all of this. It's too bad I don't have all the conversations with the recruiters on tape.
As to having a parent with him - I only went in three times - once on his first visit to Army, once on his first visit to Army Guard, and to sign the papers (since he was 17) when he chose the Navy. Nate did all the "legwork" himself. And Nate is a very shy kid (I mean painfully shy, to the point that it's effected his life in numerous ways). But he went about this because it was what he wanted, and he knew it was time to "grow up". If Nate can get these answers - believe me - ANYONE can get these answers.
IF the recruiter lied, of course he should be brought up on charges. But - look at this kids "record". I would need a whole lot more proof than his word to believe he was "lied" to. Until proven otherwise, this kid was just looking for another easy out (which he's evidently done for at least the last three or four years of his life) which he decided to jump when the going got rough. Sorry - no sympathy from me.

that is what i was saying exactly.