[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456[7]8910 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:01:07 07/11/05 Mon
Author: Chuck in ND
Subject: Here is an Email I received today
In reply to: Debbie 's message, "Agreeing with Eppy and adding..." on 19:49:17 06/29/05 Wed

dealing with this very issue. I'll try to clean it up a bit. Actually this touches on two issues--one deals with soldiers being forced to discharge before they've received adequate medical care for their injuries. The second issue in email refers to is the stop-loss policy and the pressure put on soldiers to re-enlist.


Dear Cindy, Lisa

Lisa, I read the Tacoma News Tribune story and while it's not 'new' to me, it is nonetheless horrifying. I am surprised to see it in the Tacoma newspaper, and thank you for pointing it out and the link.

Responding to the emails and Cindy's question below, Yes, I have been trying since January 05 to get the word out regarding my own 2 loved ones and the soldiers in their division. Both served in Iraq, and their division, 1st Armored, was the first to be 'extended' so they served 15 months in Iraq, April 03 - July 04. They came back to their bases in August 04. * A mere 5 months later*, Jan 05, their division was told they were under orders to *redeployto Iraq and Stop Lossed *and would redeploy in Fall 05. And I have been trying to call attention to
the '*Retention' *practices ever since.

March 05, it was time for both to make decision to re-enlist. As already under orders to redeploy; as already under Stop Loss; their choices = 1) don't re-enlist but you will wind up in Iraq anyway under Stop Loss or 2) re-enlist and while you'll still wind up in Iraq under Stop Loss, at least you'll have the attractive bonus being offered.

The point is that the* 'Retention'* rate that is being touted as demonstrative of soldier's fervor and good faith in the war is *another deception being foisted on the media and public.* *Closer to the truth of the situation is that one they are in, they cannot get out and it is entrappment *from the front end with deceptive recruitment practices, again at re-enlistment time with the threat of deployment to Iraq under Stop Loss, again when contract ends and they are kept in and deployed via Stop Loss. What continues to be called an 'all voluntary military' has become an 'involuntary' military through the use strategies of
deception and legal maneuvering for which there seems to be no remedy in the Stop Loss.

The** Stop Loss; I learned from the Santiago v Rumsfeld trial is a mechanism that the President can employ at his discretion in times of National Emergency. He can simply re-new it annually due to ongoing National Emergency and the effects of Stop Loss serve to keep soldiers deployed and in service involuntarily, apparantly indefinitely.

There is a mechanism in place with a 3-month window just before re-enlistment time and just at completion of original enlistment time. At both times, simply applying the Stop Loss to a soldier ensures he will re-enlist or serve beyond his contract, and serve in deployment to Iraq.

In Lisa's situation, her son-in-law was kept beyond his contract due to Stop Loss. In my situation, both my 2 were kept through the re-enlistment process with Stop Loss applied limiting their choices as I described above. Magnify this across the spectrum of the troops, and you get a snapshot of how the military is managing to keep 'an all volunteer' military involuntarily.

Use as you see fit, Cindy, as it has been the theme of my speaking activities since January 05 and I feel like a tiny voice shouting in a windstorm, it goes relatively unheard amongst so much other noise. At this time, for example, it seems folks don't know or realize the 1st Armored division is and has been under Stop Loss and orders to redeploy to Iraq since January 05. When they actually do redeploy, around Aug, Sept or Oct, then is when .... maybe .... we will hear about it in media. But it's not a secret, there has been the report from DOD, and a mention in European Stars and Stripes. And of course, the troops and their families know about it and have since Jan 05.

let your light so shine...


*Lietta Ruger*, member family MFSO
military family of 2 Iraq veterans; second deployments
PO Box 335
Bay Center, WA 98527
phone; 360-942-9169
email; rugerla@techline.com

website; Military Families Speak Out, Pacific Northwest

blog; Dying to Preserve the Lies
topic writer; Military Families; Impact with Loved Ones Deployed
to Iraq

"Do you not sense within the need for citizens of our country to ask the challenging questions and expect reasonable explanations as to why it is necessary to send troops into combat?"

SCINDY121@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Friends,
> Casey was told that he would get $20,000 when he enlisted. When he
> finished training, he got $4500.00 and was told the rest would go
> towards his education. His recruiter also told him he would NEVER see
> combat, even if there was a war. Casey was KIA 5 days after he got to
> Sadr City IN COMBAT!!
> Do any of you have similar stories? Have you heard anything like this
> that Lisa's son-in-law is going through?
> I really believe that Lisa is right. The American public needs to know
> how our government "supports" the troops. Then the rest of America
> will see that the only way we can support our kids is to bring them
> home from the nightmare.
> Love and peace soon,
> Cindy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Subject:
> Fw: From TheNewsTribune.com: The battle after the battle
> From: "Lisa Gill"
> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:40:19 -0700
> To:"Robb Iyall" , "Stacy Bannerman" , "Lietta & Arthur Ruger" , "Military Families Speak Out" , "Susan Ripley"
> This story is getting to be more and more common. This just sickens
> me to see how horribly our returning vets are being treated. My son
> in law in Iraq said they are being pressured round the clock to
> re-enlist or face stop loss. They are being offering $30,000 signing
> bonus, tax free and told if they don't re-enlist, they are going to be
> stop lossed and get zero dollars. They are pushing the troops round
> the clock and Mark only got 3 hours sleep in 48 hours and when they
> get back, they are faced yet again with re-enlisting. Mark said many
> guys are scared and signing up and their families at home are very
> upset. (with good reason) We really need to push our media and
> congressmen to expose the horrible way our troops are being treated.
> Lisa Gill
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The battle after the battle

The day before his 22nd birthday, a bomb hanging from a tree along a road near Fallujah exploded above Rory Dunn's Humvee.


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.