PDA

View Full Version : Soldier To Sue Military After 5th Army Deployment



-Cp
07-09-2007, 02:50 PM
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- A Florida soldier who enlisted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks plans to sue the military, fighting his fifth order to combat, according to a Local 6 report.

Twenty-six-year-old Erik Botta, who is a Port St. Lucie reservist, signed up for the service days after the Sept. 11 attacks. He did a tour in Afghanistan and three in Iraq, but he said enough is enough.

Botta plans to file suit this week, asking for an exemption or delay so that he can complete his engineering studies.

He'll also ask the court to prevent the Army from requiring him to report for duty until the legal questions are settled, according to WJXT-TV in Jacksonville.

An Army spokeswoman said the service evaluates "each request independently to determine if the mobilization will cause undue hardship for the soldier or the family."

http://www.local6.com/news/13642869/detail.html

Hagbard Celine
07-09-2007, 03:15 PM
Good for him. There will be those who think that he's supposed to soldier up because it's his "duty" or his "job" or "he knew what he was getting into when he signed up," but five tours in warzones is too much for anybody. If he has them, he probably doesn't even know his wife and kids anymore after all that.

nevadamedic
07-09-2007, 03:18 PM
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- A Florida soldier who enlisted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks plans to sue the military, fighting his fifth order to combat, according to a Local 6 report.

Twenty-six-year-old Erik Botta, who is a Port St. Lucie reservist, signed up for the service days after the Sept. 11 attacks. He did a tour in Afghanistan and three in Iraq, but he said enough is enough.

Botta plans to file suit this week, asking for an exemption or delay so that he can complete his engineering studies.

He'll also ask the court to prevent the Army from requiring him to report for duty until the legal questions are settled, according to WJXT-TV in Jacksonville.

An Army spokeswoman said the service evaluates "each request independently to determine if the mobilization will cause undue hardship for the soldier or the family."

http://www.local6.com/news/13642869/detail.html

What an asshole. He knew what he was getting into when he signed up. We were in the middle of a major war on terrorism and that it wouldn't end overnight.

Hagbard Celine
07-09-2007, 03:37 PM
What an asshole. He knew what he was getting into when he signed up. We were in the middle of a major war on terrorism and that it wouldn't end overnight.

I guess if you sign up for the military you're not entitled to any sort of quality of life?

And at the time, the Bush administration was saying we'd be done in Iraq within six weeks.

-Cp
07-09-2007, 03:43 PM
And at the time, the Bush administration was saying we'd be done in Iraq within six weeks.



:link::link::link::link:

nevadamedic
07-09-2007, 03:49 PM
I guess if you sign up for the military you're not entitled to any sort of quality of life?

And at the time, the Bush administration was saying we'd be done in Iraq within six weeks.

:link::link::link::link::link::link:

Hagbard Celine
07-09-2007, 03:55 PM
:link::link::link::link:

You honestly don't remember that? Alright, fine:


Quick campaign

Mr Rumsfeld is in Europe to try to gain backing for possible military action against Iraq.

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm

nevadamedic
07-09-2007, 04:06 PM
You honestly don't remember that? Alright, fine:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm

That was Rumsfield not Bush. Rumsfield screwed this war up IMO and that's the reason he is gone.

Hagbard Celine
07-09-2007, 04:11 PM
That was Rumsfield not Bush. Rumsfield screwed this war up IMO and that's the reason he is gone.

I said the "Bush administration." Pay attention there sport. ;)

Monkeybone
07-09-2007, 04:12 PM
hate to say it, but it is his duty. i could understand if he had signed up before all of this happened but...yah....you sign up after an attack and ppl saying that we are gonna strike back at who did this and then complain when you get deployed? but that does suck going back for a 5th time. too bad the army is 'short-staffed'

nevadamedic
07-09-2007, 04:42 PM
hate to say it, but it is his duty. i could understand if he had signed up before all of this happened but...yah....you sign up after an attack and ppl saying that we are gonna strike back at who did this and then complain when you get deployed? but that does suck going back for a 5th time. too bad the army is 'short-staffed'

They wouldn't be short staffed if the damn Democrat's quit threatning to pull funding.

jimnyc
07-09-2007, 05:37 PM
Would he feel better if he were shipped off to Club Med for a few months?

I hope this gets tossed quickly. I'd really hate to see copycats running off to court because they don't like their deployment orders.

nevadamedic
07-09-2007, 06:00 PM
Would he feel better if he were shipped off to Club Med for a few months?

I hope this gets tossed quickly. I'd really hate to see copycats running off to court because they don't like their deployment orders.

If he wins that is excatly what will happen. He should get a dishonorable discharge as well.

82Marine89
07-09-2007, 07:18 PM
I guess if you sign up for the military you're not entitled to any sort of quality of life?

And at the time, the Bush administration was saying we'd be done in Iraq within six weeks.

No, you're not. You sign away certain freedoms when you join the military. You are essentially property of the United States government. Six seconds, six minutes, six hours, six days, six weeks, six months, six years, or six decades, it doesn't matter. He is obligated to do what he is told. :salute:

nevadamedic
07-09-2007, 07:44 PM
No, you're not. You sign away certain freedoms when you join the military. You are essentially property of the United States government. Six seconds, six minutes, six hours, six days, six weeks, six months, six years, or six decades, it doesn't matter. He is obligated to do what he is told. :salute:

Exactly! :salute:

Gaffer
07-10-2007, 10:14 PM
If he joined in 2001 then he has served at least six years. That tells me he has re-enlisted at least once. His MOS could be a factor in how often he is deployed. It's not mentioned as to what he does. He's a GI, that means government issue. He's the property of the military. If he doesn't want to be deployed again I think he needs to see about getting out. He'll have to repay his enlistment bonus though.

A family friend is just waiting to go back. He's scheduled for December. He volunteered to go earlier but they said he had to wait because he hasn't been back a year yet. My nephew, who's making a career of the army, has been three times. He took part in the invasion as a member of the 3rd ID. Then did two more tours. He has a wife and 6 kids. He hates being deployed but he deals with it. It's part of the job.

Gunny
07-10-2007, 10:30 PM
If he wins that is excatly what will happen. He should get a dishonorable discharge as well.

No he shouldn't. The type discharge is based on character of service, not a lawsuit.

While it IS his duty to go, he IS a reservist. I'm exactly sure what rules cover reservists, but an active duty person would have had the opportunity to get out prior to doing 5 deployments.

Has this guy had that opportunity?

And the big question is, does he expect the Army Reserve to continue financing his education if he gets out?

The way I'm reading it, he wants to stay in, just get out of deployment and continue his education the Army's dime. If that's the case, tough shit, is my opinion. You stay in , you play the game.

Gunny
07-10-2007, 10:32 PM
If he joined in 2001 then he has served at least six years. That tells me he has re-enlisted at least once. His MOS could be a factor in how often he is deployed. It's not mentioned as to what he does. He's a GI, that means government issue. He's the property of the military. If he doesn't want to be deployed again I think he needs to see about getting out. He'll have to repay his enlistment bonus though.

A family friend is just waiting to go back. He's scheduled for December. He volunteered to go earlier but they said he had to wait because he hasn't been back a year yet. My nephew, who's making a career of the army, has been three times. He took part in the invasion as a member of the 3rd ID. Then did two more tours. He has a wife and 6 kids. He hates being deployed but he deals with it. It's part of the job.

That just about sums it up. I can't say I remember a deployment I enjoyed at the time.

nevadamedic
07-10-2007, 10:45 PM
No he shouldn't. The type discharge is based on character of service, not a lawsuit.

While it IS his duty to go, he IS a reservist. I'm exactly sure what rules cover reservists, but an active duty person would have had the opportunity to get out prior to doing 5 deployments.

Has this guy had that opportunity?

And the big question is, does he expect the Army Reserve to continue financing his education if he gets out?

The way I'm reading it, he wants to stay in, just get out of deployment and continue his education the Army's dime. If that's the case, tough shit, is my opinion. You stay in , you play the game.

But isn't that almost a slap in the face to the Army? I mean something about it just seems like it's not right, but I can't say for sure since I was never in the military. It just seems like he is bring disgrace on himself, the army, his unit and our country. Our enemies over seas love reading all about this.

Gaffer
07-17-2007, 06:36 PM
I did some more reading on this. It seems the guy had some interesting deployments.

In 2002 he went to Afghanistan for 7 months.

In 2003 he went to iraq for 1 month

In 2004 he went back to iraq for 3 months

And finally in 2004 he went back to iraq for 15 days.

These were his four deployments. Add them all together and they still are less than a year.

Any sympathy I had for this guy went out the window.

Yurt
07-17-2007, 10:24 PM
No he shouldn't. The type discharge is based on character of service, not a lawsuit.

While it IS his duty to go, he IS a reservist. I'm exactly sure what rules cover reservists, but an active duty person would have had the opportunity to get out prior to doing 5 deployments.

Has this guy had that opportunity?

And the big question is, does he expect the Army Reserve to continue financing his education if he gets out?

The way I'm reading it, he wants to stay in, just get out of deployment and continue his education the Army's dime. If that's the case, tough shit, is my opinion. You stay in , you play the game.


These were my near exact questions. So, was he in fact "forced" back in?

I can't see the court's taking this though, it is a non-justiciable issue. Unless this guy is claiming involuntary servitude under the 13th. Which I HIGHLY doubt.

nevadamedic
07-18-2007, 03:42 AM
I did some more reading on this. It seems the guy had some interesting deployments.

In 2002 he went to Afghanistan for 7 months.

In 2003 he went to iraq for 1 month

In 2004 he went back to iraq for 3 months

And finally in 2004 he went back to iraq for 15 days.

These were his four deployments. Add them all together and they still are less than a year.

Any sympathy I had for this guy went out the window.

He probably had a really tough job in the military like a cook or something too. :laugh2: Probably got a Purple Heart for dish pan hands! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Pale Rider
07-31-2007, 01:05 AM
Our troops are stretched too thin. The National Guards purpose was never to fight an overseas battle. That's what our active duty and reserve troops are for. The Guards purpose is "national," not "international."

While I agree we need to keep fighting terror and terrorists, the fact of the matter is, our military is stretched far too thin, and our troops are over worked. We either need a draft, or a different strategy to keep up this pace of war.

I can't say as though I totally blame the Guard troop. All these deployments are probably a far cry from what he was told he signed up for.


Pentagon Ends Active Duty Limits on Guard, Reserve Troops
Friday, January 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters the change in reserve policy would have been made anyway because active-duty troops already were getting too little time between their combat tours.

The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. No cost estimate was provided, but officials said it would be at least several billion dollars.

Until now, the Pentagon's policy on the Guard or Reserve was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months, Pace said.

In other words, a citizen-soldier could be mobilized for a 24-month stretch in Iraq or Afghanistan, then demobilized and allowed to return to civilian life, only to be mobilized a second time for as much as an additional 24 months. In practice, Pace said, the Pentagon intends to limit all future mobilizations to 12 months.

Members of the Guard combat brigades that have served in Iraq in recent years spent 18 months on active duty — about six months in pre-deployment training in the United States, followed by about 12 months in Iraq. Under the old policy, they could not be sent back to Iraq because their cumulative time on active duty would exceed 24 months. Now that cumulative limit has been lifted, giving the Pentagon more flexibility.
The new approach, Pace said, is to squeeze the training, deployment and demobilization into a maximum of 12 months. He called that a "significant planning factor" for Guard and Reserve members and their families.

More (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243259,00.html)

Gunny
08-01-2007, 06:32 AM
I did some more reading on this. It seems the guy had some interesting deployments.

In 2002 he went to Afghanistan for 7 months.

In 2003 he went to iraq for 1 month

In 2004 he went back to iraq for 3 months

And finally in 2004 he went back to iraq for 15 days.

These were his four deployments. Add them all together and they still are less than a year.

Any sympathy I had for this guy went out the window.

Agreed. The Corps goes by accumulated deployed time, not # of deployments. This guy's a whiner. I've had more deployed time in 18 months thn this guy has total.

actsnoblemartin
08-01-2007, 10:05 AM
You are right on, I cant believe what a f-ing wanker this guy is. Its not like he was deployed 12 months 3 times, and doesnt wanna go back a 4th.

What is the longest amount or time, or deployments ever given, anyone know?


Agreed. The Corps goes by accumulated deployed time, not # of deployments. This guy's a whiner. I've had more deployed time in 18 months thn this guy has total.

Gunny
08-01-2007, 09:51 PM
You are right on, I cant believe what a f-ing wanker this guy is. Its not like he was deployed 12 months 3 times, and doesnt wanna go back a 4th.

What is the longest amount or time, or deployments ever given, anyone know?

How much accumulated deployed time do YOU have?

Psychoblues
08-02-2007, 06:12 AM
I've got a shitload of deployed time and I can agree with the man's argument. What WERE you? Some kind of supply sergeant or something?

bluestatesrule
08-02-2007, 11:39 AM
I do not know the particulars of this story....but I do know this: I have never served in the military....and I have the ultimate respect for anyone that is in the military....particularly those who serve on the front lines. I may have my opinion....I may even disagree with his politcal views (which I am free to express!)....but I have no place to question his motives in regards to the battlefield......BECAUSE I HAVE NOT BEEN THERE!!!!

red states rule
08-02-2007, 08:58 PM
I do not know the particulars of this story....but I do know this: I have never served in the military....and I have the ultimate respect for anyone that is in the military....particularly those who serve on the front lines. I may have my opinion....I may even disagree with his politcal views (which I am free to express!)....but I have no place to question his motives in regards to the battlefield......BECAUSE I HAVE NOT BEEN THERE!!!!

So when you emlist you can dictate when you will deploy and when you will not?

Psychoblues
08-06-2007, 11:50 PM
Plainly, no argument here. The man is correct in his litigation. Enough is enough.

Psychoblues
08-09-2007, 02:29 AM
Well, that was easy enough. The chickenhawks lose big time on this issue!!!!!!!!!

red states rule
08-09-2007, 05:34 AM
Plainly, no argument here. The man is correct in his litigation. Enough is enough.

So you can tell your bosss when you will report for work?

red states rule
08-09-2007, 05:35 AM
Well, that was easy enough. The chickenhawks lose big time on this issue!!!!!!!!!

The surge is working

The US is winning and the left (and the terrorists) are losing

Gunny
08-09-2007, 07:16 AM
Plainly, no argument here. The man is correct in his litigation. Enough is enough.

GO back up and read the thread. His accumulated deployed time is nothing. He's trying to count each and ever workup or TDY.

By his standards, I could multiply my total number of deployments by four.

emmett
08-10-2007, 01:07 AM
He probably had a really tough job in the military like a cook or something too. :laugh2: Probably got a Purple Heart for dish pan hands! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Since we really don't know what the hell he did, we just don't know do we?

Did I read that you said you were never in the military? I notice you are quick to insult without real knowledge. Your usually sharper than that, I'm suprised!

Maybe the guy was gung-ho at one time and has changed his mind, you know, like Hillary or John Kerry.

Oh, by the way. One of the hardest damn jobs in the military is a cook, just so you know. When I was on the Ranger in 1976 we had a cook who could cook every special order egg for the breakfast line. He was a hoot to watch. The dude cooked 2,000 eggs in a couple of hours. He could fill the entire 6 ft grill with omelettes, over mediums, easy's and other specials and get every single one perfect, every morning, every time. On top of that he memorized what each crewman ate each morning, you need say nothing. Amazing. Ask some of these military cats on here who is their favorite or was their favorite person in the military and I would think the cook would rate out well.

JohnDoe
08-10-2007, 02:55 PM
Agreed. The Corps goes by accumulated deployed time, not # of deployments. This guy's a whiner. I've had more deployed time in 18 months thn this guy has total.Were you a reservist or enlisted full time?

Is there a difference, when it comes to time spent, in a war zone for them verses a full timer, enlisted man? Or do they have to spend the same amount of time overseas in a war zone as someone who was enlisted, full time, not in the Reserves?

I honestly do not know, and admittantly don't truely understand how it all works?

jd

Gaffer
08-10-2007, 02:55 PM
Since we really don't know what the hell he did, we just don't know do we?

Did I read that you said you were never in the military? I notice you are quick to insult without real knowledge. Your usually sharper than that, I'm suprised!

Maybe the guy was gung-ho at one time and has changed his mind, you know, like Hillary or John Kerry.

Oh, by the way. One of the hardest damn jobs in the military is a cook, just so you know. When I was on the Ranger in 1976 we had a cook who could cook every special order egg for the breakfast line. He was a hoot to watch. The dude cooked 2,000 eggs in a couple of hours. He could fill the entire 6 ft grill with omelettes, over mediums, easy's and other specials and get every single one perfect, every morning, every time. On top of that he memorized what each crewman ate each morning, you need say nothing. Amazing. Ask some of these military cats on here who is their favorite or was their favorite person in the military and I would think the cook would rate out well.

There maybe something to say for the Navy cooks. Of course the guys we appreciated the most were the medics and the chopper pilots. The cooks were not so appreciated in the army. Although their status improved somewhat when we were attached to the Marines for a while. The Navy provided the chow which was incredibly good. Much better than what we usually got when we came out of the field. But for the most part we lived on c-rats.

I believe most bases and posts now use civilian contractors, so military cooks are not as common any more except in the Navy aboard ship.

In my unit the cook was just a guy who volunteered for the job to get out of the field.

Gunny
08-10-2007, 09:12 PM
Were you a reservist or enlisted full time?

Is there a difference, when it comes to time spent, in a war zone for them verses a full timer, enlisted man? Or do they have to spend the same amount of time overseas in a war zone as someone who was enlisted, full time, not in the Reserves?

I honestly do not know, and admittantly don't truely understand how it all works?

jd

Deployed time is deployed time. One day for one day. War zone or not. Reservist or regular.

If you call me a reservist, we WILL have angry words. I an a 20 year, retired active duty Marine:drillsarge:

Psychoblues
08-26-2007, 11:34 PM
So,,,,,,,,,you get pissed about being called a reservist?



Deployed time is deployed time. One day for one day. War zone or not. Reservist or regular.

If you call me a reservist, we WILL have angry words. I an a 20 year, retired active duty Marine:drillsarge:

As you already know I have done both from the Viet Nam war (purely active duty) to the Grenada, Panama and Persion Gulf I thing, all National Guard.

The piss ant self appointed 6 star general in the White House did time in the Texas ANG, could not complete his assignments and opted out early despite contrary need of his country and respect of his peers.

The Reservists and Guardspeople of today deserve far more than that one ever earned.

You got angry words for Reservists and Guardsmen of today? Spit them out, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!!! But I do understand completely your disdain for the others!!!!!!!!

nevadamedic
08-26-2007, 11:45 PM
So,,,,,,,,,you get pissed about being called a reservist?




As you already know I have done both from the Viet Nam war (purely active duty) to the Grenada, Panama and Persion Gulf I thing, all National Guard.

The piss ant self appointed 6 star general in the White House did time in the Texas ANG, could not complete his assignments and opted out early despite contrary need of his country and respect of his peers.

The Reservists and Guardspeople of today deserve far more than that one ever earned.

You got angry words for Reservists and Guardsmen of today? Spit them out, cowgirl!!!!!!!!!!!! But I do understand completely your disdain for the others!!!!!!!!

According to you youo have done everything............

Psychoblues
08-27-2007, 12:49 AM
I have never claimed that I had done everything but that is not important here.




According to you youo have done everything............

I have certainly done, am doing and am determined to do far more for my country and countrymen than you could possibly imagine. Keep on posting your nonsense, nm. I'm not the only one that has noticed your idiocies.

Radbrad
08-28-2007, 02:24 PM
Democrats

David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, etc
Jimmy Carter: Lt. Commander in the Navy 1946-53
Wesley Clark: Army 1966-2000, Vietnam, Silver star, purple heart
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver/Bronze stars, Vietnam
Bill Clinton: Did not serve
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze star
Michael Dukakis: Army 1955-57
John Edwards: Did not serve
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs; Air Medal w/18 Clusters
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam as journalist
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74
Howell Heflin: Silver star
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze star
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver/Bronze stars, purple hearts
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII
Jim McDermott: Navy 1968-70
George McGovern: Silver star & DFC during WWII
Zell Miller: Marine Corps, 1953-56
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-53
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver star, etc
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze star, Korea
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-79; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91
Chuck Robb: U.S. Marine Corps, 1961-70, Vietnam
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart
Republicans

Spencer Abraham: Did not serve
Eliot Abrams: Did not serve
Richard Armitage: Navy, three tours in Vietnam
John Ashcroft: Did not serve
Roy Blunt: Did not serve
Michael Bloomberg: Did not serve
George H.W. Bush: Youngest Navy pilot in WW II; awarded DFC
George W. Bush: Texas Air Nat. Guard; didn't take physical; suspended from flying
Jeb Bush: Did not serve
Saxby Chambliss: Did not serve. Attacked Cleland's patriotism
Dick Cheney: Did not serve
Christopher Cox: Did not serve
Tom DeLay: Did not serve
Bob Dole: Army in WWII, Bronze star, two purple hearts
Bob Dornan: Enlisted after fighting was over in Korea
John Engler: Did not serve
Douglas Feith: Did not serve
Gerald Ford: Lt. Commander, Navy in WWII
Bill Frist: Did not serve
Newt Gingrich: Did not serve
Rudy Giuliani: Did not serve
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer
Phil Gramm: Did not serve
Chuck Hagel: Served in Vietnam, two Bronze stars and purple heart
Dennis Hastert: Did not serve
Tim Hutchison: Did not serve
Jack Kemp: Did not serve. "Knee problem," continued in NFL for 8 years
Jon Kyl: Did not serve
Trent Lott: Did not serve
Richard Lugar: Intelligence officer in Navy 1957-60
John McCain: POW in Vietnam, Legion of Merit, Silver star, DFC, many more
Mitch McConnell: Did not serve
John McHugh: Did not serve
George Pataki: Did not serve
Richard Perle: Did not serve
Colin Powell: 35 years in Army, 4-star general
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard
Ronald Reagan: Served in WWII making movies
Tom Ridge: Army in Vietnam, Bronze star
Dana Rohrabacher: Did not serve
Karl Rove: Did not serve
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor
Rick Santorum: Did not serve
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base
Richard Shelby: Did not serve
JC Watts: Did not serve
Vin Weber: Did not serve
Paul Wolfowitz: Did not serve
Pundits, Preachers, and Judges

Bill Bennett: Did not serve
Wolf Blitzer: Did not serve
Pat Buchanan: Did not serve
William Buckley: Army in WWII
Charlie Daniels: Did not serve
Lou Dobbs: Did not serve
Paul Gigot: Did not serve
Sean Hannity: Did not serve
Bill Kristol: Did not serve
Jim Lehrer: U.S. Marine Corps
Rush Limbaugh: Did not serve
Chris Matthews: Did not serve
Michael Medved: Did not serve
Ted Nugent: Did not serve
Bill O'Reilly: Did not serve
Dan Rather: Army Reserve
Ralph Reed: Did not serve
Michael Savage: Did not serve
Antonin Scalia: Did not serve
Kenneth Starr: Did not serve
Clarence Thomas: Did not serve
John Wayne: Did not serve
George Will: Did not serve

hjmick
08-28-2007, 02:27 PM
George Will: Did not serve

Do you plan on making the same post in every thread?

Monkeybone
08-28-2007, 03:08 PM
nice repost Radbrad, specially since it really doesn't have anything to do about this guy complaining that he is getting shipped out again.

i think that there are more military and war on terror threads that you can put that list in just so you know

Psychoblues
08-30-2007, 09:33 PM
Either these cats just can't read or they choose to ignore the facts. Either way, I don't think they understand at all!!!!!!!!



Democrats

David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, etc
Jimmy Carter: Lt. Commander in the Navy 1946-53
Wesley Clark: Army 1966-2000, Vietnam, Silver star, purple heart
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver/Bronze stars, Vietnam
Bill Clinton: Did not serve
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze star
Michael Dukakis: Army 1955-57
John Edwards: Did not serve
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs; Air Medal w/18 Clusters
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam as journalist
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74
Howell Heflin: Silver star
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze star
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver/Bronze stars, purple hearts
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII
Jim McDermott: Navy 1968-70
George McGovern: Silver star & DFC during WWII
Zell Miller: Marine Corps, 1953-56
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-53
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver star, etc
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze star, Korea
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-79; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91
Chuck Robb: U.S. Marine Corps, 1961-70, Vietnam
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart
Republicans

Spencer Abraham: Did not serve
Eliot Abrams: Did not serve
Richard Armitage: Navy, three tours in Vietnam
John Ashcroft: Did not serve
Roy Blunt: Did not serve
Michael Bloomberg: Did not serve
George H.W. Bush: Youngest Navy pilot in WW II; awarded DFC
George W. Bush: Texas Air Nat. Guard; didn't take physical; suspended from flying
Jeb Bush: Did not serve
Saxby Chambliss: Did not serve. Attacked Cleland's patriotism
Dick Cheney: Did not serve
Christopher Cox: Did not serve
Tom DeLay: Did not serve
Bob Dole: Army in WWII, Bronze star, two purple hearts
Bob Dornan: Enlisted after fighting was over in Korea
John Engler: Did not serve
Douglas Feith: Did not serve
Gerald Ford: Lt. Commander, Navy in WWII
Bill Frist: Did not serve
Newt Gingrich: Did not serve
Rudy Giuliani: Did not serve
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer
Phil Gramm: Did not serve
Chuck Hagel: Served in Vietnam, two Bronze stars and purple heart
Dennis Hastert: Did not serve
Tim Hutchison: Did not serve
Jack Kemp: Did not serve. "Knee problem," continued in NFL for 8 years
Jon Kyl: Did not serve
Trent Lott: Did not serve
Richard Lugar: Intelligence officer in Navy 1957-60
John McCain: POW in Vietnam, Legion of Merit, Silver star, DFC, many more
Mitch McConnell: Did not serve
John McHugh: Did not serve
George Pataki: Did not serve
Richard Perle: Did not serve
Colin Powell: 35 years in Army, 4-star general
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard
Ronald Reagan: Served in WWII making movies
Tom Ridge: Army in Vietnam, Bronze star
Dana Rohrabacher: Did not serve
Karl Rove: Did not serve
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor
Rick Santorum: Did not serve
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base
Richard Shelby: Did not serve
JC Watts: Did not serve
Vin Weber: Did not serve
Paul Wolfowitz: Did not serve
Pundits, Preachers, and Judges

Bill Bennett: Did not serve
Wolf Blitzer: Did not serve
Pat Buchanan: Did not serve
William Buckley: Army in WWII
Charlie Daniels: Did not serve
Lou Dobbs: Did not serve
Paul Gigot: Did not serve
Sean Hannity: Did not serve
Bill Kristol: Did not serve
Jim Lehrer: U.S. Marine Corps
Rush Limbaugh: Did not serve
Chris Matthews: Did not serve
Michael Medved: Did not serve
Ted Nugent: Did not serve
Bill O'Reilly: Did not serve
Dan Rather: Army Reserve
Ralph Reed: Did not serve
Michael Savage: Did not serve
Antonin Scalia: Did not serve
Kenneth Starr: Did not serve
Clarence Thomas: Did not serve
John Wayne: Did not serve
George Will: Did not serve

I never met a warrior that was a chickenshit. I've met plenty of warhawks that were. Wonder how that circumstance holds up in the chickenshit department?

waterrescuedude2000
09-01-2007, 11:45 AM
hate to say it, but it is his duty. i could understand if he had signed up before all of this happened but...yah....you sign up after an attack and ppl saying that we are gonna strike back at who did this and then complain when you get deployed? but that does suck going back for a 5th time. too bad the army is 'short-staffed'

WOULD QUIT TRYING OUR SOLDIERS FOR KILLING "CIVILIANS" civilians have died in every war in the history of man period. These soldiers are over there doing their jobs. And then have to go to court to defend their actions. Then end up in jail or whatever the hell happens. Its a bunch of horse shit that our government isn't backing our troops. Well my best friend was Marine Corps Force Recon and he had 7 combat tours. Had a bronze star, Purle Heart and a lot of other medals as well. And you know what because he was a patriot he kept volunteering to go back into combat. He'd rotate home spend a month then request a transfer to a unit going into combat. Because he wanted to see our land free of terrorsts. He is now out of the military after serving 10 years and 7 combat tours. He is also 52% disabled.

I say that he took an oath an oath I also took and knew that I might have to give my life defending this nation that I love. When you are in the military you follow orders you can't say I don't want to go again. If you dont you are considered awol and many other charges can come as well. When you defend the country you lose alot of the freedoms that cake eating civilians still enjoy and take for granted. Soldiers dont really have freedom of speach while still in the military. You have laws both military and civilian that wether or not you agree with them you have to follow. Now for him to sue the government thats just the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.

He needs some NJP and a reduction in rank and some pay docked.

waterrescuedude2000
09-01-2007, 12:00 PM
Since we really don't know what the hell he did, we just don't know do we?

Did I read that you said you were never in the military? I notice you are quick to insult without real knowledge. Your usually sharper than that, I'm suprised!

Maybe the guy was gung-ho at one time and has changed his mind, you know, like Hillary or John Kerry.

Oh, by the way. One of the hardest damn jobs in the military is a cook, just so you know. When I was on the Ranger in 1976 we had a cook who could cook every special order egg for the breakfast line. He was a hoot to watch. The dude cooked 2,000 eggs in a couple of hours. He could fill the entire 6 ft grill with omelettes, over mediums, easy's and other specials and get every single one perfect, every morning, every time. On top of that he memorized what each crewman ate each morning, you need say nothing. Amazing. Ask some of these military cats on here who is their favorite or was their favorite person in the military and I would think the cook would rate out well.

Also I think they have the worst hours also as they have to get up earlier than everyone else to make sure that everything is set and ready for breakfast and meals. I know the 90 days I had to be a "crank" for anyone who doesnt know anyone E-1 to E-3 has to work on the mess decks. We had to get up with the cooks at 0530 to get up and make sure breakfast was all set up. As a crank you do the worse jobs. You get to clean all the dishes and make sure the salad bar. Well for breakfast its not a sald bar its got donuts and pastries and stuff like that out. But you make sure all the ketchup bottles are full and stuff like that. I know the ship I was on was the smallest ship that went on deployments. It was the USS Jarrett (FFG-33) We were 453 feet long and 43 feet wide. With a crew ow about 250 with airwing attached. Thats Officers,Chiefs, and Enlisted all in those numbers. I only spent 2 years on ship then decided I wanted off of it. But I did still stay in the Millitary. Although I am completely out now.

Psychoblues
09-06-2007, 10:01 PM
Sadly, some Americans think the killing of civilians is acceptable in the case of WAR. There were well over 3,000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC in NYC. We are now supposedly avenging that circumstance although there were NO Iragi people involved in that attack.

You simply can't have it both ways. Think about it.

Gunny
09-06-2007, 10:33 PM
Sadly, some Americans think the killing of civilians is acceptable in the case of WAR. There were well over 3,000 civilians killed in the attack on the WTC in NYC. We are now supposedly avenging that circumstance although there were NO Iragi people involved in that attack.

You simply can't have it both ways. Think about it.

Some Americans think shooting heroin and robbing banks is okay too.

Americans capable of rational thought understand the difference between civiliand being killed as a result of war, and TARGETTING civilians.

Monkeybone
09-06-2007, 10:37 PM
not that it is acceptable but that it happens. when a fire fight is going on in the street and you walk out into the middle of it you are taking the risk of that one bullet into your own hands. but since i said acceptable that means i am endorsing it right? absoluetly to you Blue
:lame2:

manu1959
09-06-2007, 10:53 PM
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- A Florida soldier who enlisted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks plans to sue the military, fighting his fifth order to combat, according to a Local 6 report.

Twenty-six-year-old Erik Botta, who is a Port St. Lucie reservist, signed up for the service days after the Sept. 11 attacks. He did a tour in Afghanistan and three in Iraq, but he said enough is enough.

Botta plans to file suit this week, asking for an exemption or delay so that he can complete his engineering studies.

He'll also ask the court to prevent the Army from requiring him to report for duty until the legal questions are settled, according to WJXT-TV in Jacksonville.

An Army spokeswoman said the service evaluates "each request independently to determine if the mobilization will cause undue hardship for the soldier or the family."

http://www.local6.com/news/13642869/detail.html

correct me if i am wrong but when one fought in wwii didn't one fight till you: 1. died.... 2. were wounded such that you couldn't fight anymore.....3. the war was over....

Psychoblues
09-06-2007, 10:59 PM
You are such a silly goose, mb.



not that it is acceptable but that it happens. when a fire fight is going on in the street and you walk out into the middle of it you are taking the risk of that one bullet into your own hands. but since i said acceptable that means i am endorsing it right? absoluetly to you Blue
:lame2:

Put that shoe on the other foot and tell me how it fits. Who said anything about stepping into a firefight on the street? You are obviously not a war veteran and you obviously know nothing about warfare.

:lame2:

Monkeybone
09-06-2007, 11:11 PM
no i am not a veteran. but the people over there walk about and go on their normal business when fights are going on. ever heard any of the soldiers talk about Falejah(however you spell it)? they were in the middle of exchanging fire with insurgents, bullets and rpgs flying about and people just started walking around doing their thing be there a lull in the shooting or not. it's not like soldiers are going out of their way to kill civilians or setting off bombs in the middle of market places. civilian casualities happen. and it sucks, i hate it, but to the point again....it happens. you can't have a perfect war, special one where the enemy follows no rules and hides among the populace.

i ain't some retard that was saying someone walked into the middle of the street picking their nose.

JohnDoe
09-07-2007, 05:55 AM
Some Americans think shooting heroin and robbing banks is okay too.

Americans capable of rational thought understand the difference between civiliand being killed as a result of war, and TARGETTING civilians.

what is the difference in civilians targeted and killed and civilians being killed in an UNJUSTIFIED war?

they are both innocent and they are both dead, at the hands of others?

the difference to me is that the soldier was ordered to fight in the unjustifiable war ....his INTENT was not to kill innocent people, or even guilty people....

the leaders that ordered the unjustifiable warring would be the culprits, IF someone was to ''blame''.....imho

Gunny
09-07-2007, 08:27 AM
what is the difference in civilians targeted and killed and civilians being killed in an UNJUSTIFIED war?

they are both innocent and they are both dead, at the hands of others?

the difference to me is that the soldier was ordered to fight in the unjustifiable war ....his INTENT was not to kill innocent people, or even guilty people....

the leaders that ordered the unjustifiable warring would be the culprits, IF someone was to ''blame''.....imho

The fallacy to your argument is that the war is unjustified. There was PLENTY of justification to take Saddam out.

Your relativist argument attempts to remove intent; which, is KEY. People die in wars. Noncombatants die in wars not fought strictly on battlefields by two or more armies.

The intent of the terrorists is to purposefully hide out among civilians and maximize noncombatant deaths to be used as propaganda which folks such as yourself jump right on top of. Then there is the fact that they also target noncombatants who are not part of their particular faction(s).

The US military's goal is to target enemy combatants, understanding there are going to be noncombatant losses.

JohnDoe
09-07-2007, 08:37 AM
The fallacy to your argument is that the war is unjustified. There was PLENTY of justification to take Saddam out.

Your relativist argument attempts to remove intent; which, is KEY. People die in wars. Noncombatants die in wars not fought strictly on battlefields by two or more armies.

The intent of the terrorists is to purposefully hide out among civilians and maximize noncombatant deaths to be used as propaganda which folks such as yourself jump right on top of. Then there is the fact that they also target noncombatants who are not part of their particular faction(s).

The US military's goal is to target enemy combatants, understanding there are going to be noncombatant losses.

yes, i do not in any way, believe in, the new Bush Doctrine, of preemptive war....starting a war against someone that is not attacking you or an imminent threat of attacking you.... that, to me....is UNJUST, and should never be accepted as a reason to send our soldiers off to die....or be mamed for life....

jd

Gunny
09-07-2007, 08:57 AM
yes, i do not in any way, believe in, the new Bush Doctrine, of preemptive war....starting a war against someone that is not attacking you or an imminent threat of attacking you.... that, to me....is UNJUST, and should never be accepted as a reason to send our soldiers off to die....or be mamed for life....

jd

And your way of thinking is wrong. The best defense is a better offense.

Where's your compassion? Better to let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die on a thug's whim than to let our troops take him out who at least know what they're dying for?

You rmentality is the exact same mentality that always allows our enemies to build up to great strength and spend the first half of every war kicking our asses while we play catchup for pretending they didn't exist or weren't up to no good.

THAT costs more lives than anything else.

TheStripey1
09-07-2007, 01:10 PM
correct me if i am wrong but when one fought in wwii didn't one fight till you: 1. died.... 2. were wounded such that you couldn't fight anymore.....3. the war was over....

whereas that is certainly true in regards to WWII, you failed to include this caveat...

4. Every able bodied man enlisted in the armed services to take down those that attacked us and our allies.

When will all of those brave supporters of bush's wars rush down to do their patriotic duty by enlisting?

JohnDoe
09-08-2007, 05:34 AM
And your way of thinking is wrong. The best defense is a better offense.

Where's your compassion? Better to let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die on a thug's whim than to let our troops take him out who at least know what they're dying for?

You rmentality is the exact same mentality that always allows our enemies to build up to great strength and spend the first half of every war kicking our asses while we play catchup for pretending they didn't exist or weren't up to no good.

THAT costs more lives than anything else.

YOurs and Bush's way of thinking is IMMORAL Gunny, and has ALWAYS been immoral.

And you and your conservative party let the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis DIE on that thugs whims while YOU and your party twiddled their thumbs.....and showed "the love" to the enemy of your enemy.....

THAT WAS IMMORAL.

Immoral also because you have killed thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children.... YOU and those like you are killers and murderers of the innocent because you had NO LEGITIMATE REASON to attack and go to war with the Iraqis....

NOT ONE IRAQI HARMED YOU.....but YOU agreed to war, where YOU would kill them and their families and their kids.....

That's pretty sick and ungodly to me.

THAT'S how I feel about the subject....you chose to kill innocent people when you chose to start a war against a country that has NEVER, EVER HARMED YOU... an UNJUST WAR against the Iraqi people.

jd

Gunny
09-08-2007, 09:30 AM
YOurs and Bush's way of thinking is IMMORAL Gunny, and has ALWAYS been immoral.

A liberal preaching to ME about morality? GMAFB. My way of thinking is hardly immoral. It's just not suicidal like yours.

I hardly think the same as Bush. Lame assumption.

And you and your conservative party let the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis DIE on that thugs whims while YOU and your party twiddled their thumbs.....and showed "the love" to the enemy of your enemy.....

THAT WAS IMMORAL.

First off, I don't have a party. Second, there is NOT a conservative party. Third, I didn't let Saddam do a damned thing.

Immoral also because you have killed thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children.... YOU and those like you are killers and murderers of the innocent because you had NO LEGITIMATE REASON to attack and go to war with the Iraqis....

NOT ONE IRAQI HARMED YOU.....but YOU agreed to war, where YOU would kill them and their families and their kids.....

That's pretty sick and ungodly to me.

THAT'S how I feel about the subject....you chose to kill innocent people when you chose to start a war against a country that has NEVER, EVER HARMED YOU... an UNJUST WAR against the Iraqi people.

jd

Your entire post sounds like the ranting of a drunk. Your opinion of war makes you nothing but a victim waiting to be subjugated or killed, and your opinion of me based on nothing but assumption.

People like you should have been DRAGGED bodily into Kuwait City in 91 so could see what Saddam "never did to us or one of our allies." THAT was sickening. But you'll excuse THAT just to stick your head in the sand and try and pretend there are no bad guys in the world.

That's bad enough, but THEN you presume to judge ME? Go to Hell. If you don't have the balls to do what's right, and back it up with force if necessary, you're just another f-ing sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

How nice it must be to have the luxury to sit on your ass at home and judge me while I, and those like me ensure you have one to sit on your overly-sanctimonious and judgemental ass in.

trobinett
09-08-2007, 08:51 PM
Your entire post sounds like the ranting of a drunk. Your opinion of war makes you nothing but a victim waiting to be subjugated or killed, and your opinion of me based on nothing but assumption.

People like you should have been DRAGGED bodily into Kuwait City in 91 so could see what Saddam "never did to us or one of our allies." THAT was sickening. But you'll excuse THAT just to stick your head in the sand and try and pretend there are no bad guys in the world.

That's bad enough, but THEN you presume to judge ME? Go to Hell. If you don't have the balls to do what's right, and back it up with force if necessary, you're just another f-ing sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

How nice it must be to have the luxury to sit on your ass at home and judge me while I, and those like me ensure you have one to sit on your overly-sanctimonious and judgemental ass in.

Pretty much says it ALL...........:clap: