Soldier To Sue Military After 5th Army Deployment

[waterrescuedude2000]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[manu1959]

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]

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

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.

[Monkeybone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.