PDA

View Full Version : If you are Marine on vacation...well...the vacation's over.


RVD
Aug 22nd, 2006, 08:58 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14468245/
Marines to issue involuntary call-ups
Corps faces shortage of volunteers for deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060822/060822_marines_vmed_1p.widec.jpg
http://media.msnbc.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/sourceAP.gif
Updated: 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years as the military battles the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.

This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war.

Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, estimated that there is a current shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming unit deployments.

The call-up affects Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve, a segment of the reserves that consists mainly of those who left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligation.

Generally, Marines enlist for four years, then serve the other four years either in the regular Reserves, where they are paid and train periodically, or they may elect to go into the IRR. Marines in the IRR are only obligated to report one day a year but can be involuntarily recalled to active duty.

According to Stratton, there are about 59,000 Marines in the IRR, but the Corps has decided to exempt from the call-up those who are either in their first year or last year of the reserve status. As a result, the pool of available Marines is about 35,000.

Up to two years on duty
The deployments can last up to two years, but on average would be 12 to 18 months, Stratton said. And each Marine who is being recalled will get five months to prepare before having to report for duty.

President Bush authorized the recall on July 26. It is the first such recall since early 2003, when about 2,000 Marines were involuntarily activated for the initial ground war in Iraq.

“Since this is going to be a long war,” said Stratton, “we thought it was judicious and prudent at this time to be able to use a relatively small portion of those Marines to help us augment our units.”

He said the Marines may continue to tap into the IRR for as long as the war on terror continues. Some of the military needs, he said, include engineers, intelligence, military police, and communications.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

samsung101
Aug 22nd, 2006, 09:58 PM
It's an 8 year contract.
No surprises.
Nothing hidden in the documents
a Marine voluntarily signs.
You are eligible to be recalled
or assigned at any time, fact of life.

It's a volunteer miliary.

I know that is hard to understand.

Get benefits, housing, health care, etc.,
and it comes w/ a tag, you're still
enlisted, until your time is done. Even
when you're not on the base or in the
field.




If you're still enlisted, still a Marine,but,
on inactive duty periodically, it's always,
always a possibility.

They did this at the start of the war,
they did this during the Clinton years
periodically, Gulf War, etc.

It's sad it happens.
I wish all our guys were home, and their
work done. Their families want them home.
But, their families know what it means to
be U.S. Marine 24/7 duty, until you
are formally discharged.

But, we have never had a lot of Marines, it's
the toughest unit to even get into and finish
boot camp for. They know what they sign
up for.

As brutal and mean as it may seem, the fact
is this is our volunteer military, and they are
not released from duty or responsibilty even
when put on inactive duty, if still signed up
for time to complete their tours.


If our pals at the UN would do what they always
say they will do - get serious about fighting terrorists
and terrorist nations and groups - instead of
backstabbing each other and the USA- our guys would
be home already. Instead of having to do what
other nations won't do, until it's too late.

Rocketta
Aug 22nd, 2006, 10:04 PM
samsung, have you ever heard the phrase, "Less is More"? :help:

meyerpl
Aug 22nd, 2006, 10:12 PM
samsung, have you ever heard the phrase, "Less is More"? :help:
:haha: :haha: :haha:
A post eloquent in it's brevity.

Lee-Waters' Boy
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:24 PM
samsung, have you ever heard the phrase, "Less is More"? :help:
:worship:

Pheobo
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:35 PM
samsung, have you ever heard the phrase, "Less is More"? :help:


The fact that all his posts look like poem prose is even worse...

tennisbum79
Aug 23rd, 2006, 01:02 AM
It is time for the neo-cons to start volunteering their sons and daughters to fight for their beliefs. The working class and working poor are tired of volunteering their children - including the sons and daughters of so called "illgal immigrants" the republicans are railing against.

According to their(the neo-cons that is) manifesto there are few more countries left on the list - Syria, Iran, Norh Korea have yet to be invaded, and the pool of volunteers from the traditonal source is drying up.
This is no longer and a volunteer force, but a coerced force of fighting men and women whose parents are having a second thought about the war.

tennisbum79
Aug 23rd, 2006, 01:09 AM
It's an 8 year contract.
No surprises.
Nothing hidden in the documents
a Marine voluntarily signs.
You are eligible to be recalled
or assigned at any time, fact of life.

It's a volunteer miliary.

I know that is hard to understand.

Get benefits, housing, health care, etc.,
and it comes w/ a tag, you're still
enlisted, until your time is done. Even
when you're not on the base or in the
field.




If you're still enlisted, still a Marine,but,
on inactive duty periodically, it's always,
always a possibility.

They did this at the start of the war,
they did this during the Clinton years
periodically, Gulf War, etc.

It's sad it happens.
I wish all our guys were home, and their
work done. Their families want them home.
But, their families know what it means to
be U.S. Marine 24/7 duty, until you
are formally discharged.

But, we have never had a lot of Marines, it's
the toughest unit to even get into and finish
boot camp for. They know what they sign
up for.

As brutal and mean as it may seem, the fact
is this is our volunteer military, and they are
not released from duty or responsibilty even
when put on inactive duty, if still signed up
for time to complete their tours.


If our pals at the UN would do what they always
say they will do - get serious about fighting terrorists
and terrorist nations and groups - instead of
backstabbing each other and the USA- our guys would
be home already. Instead of having to do what
other nations won't do, until it's too late.

They are human and they can be tired from fighting.
There must a threshold beyong which, the human body, even that of trained marines, ceased to perform at an optimum level.
I am afraid, given the psychological envrionment in Irak and Afghanistan, the lenght of the war, many marines have reached that threshold, if not already crossed

meyerpl
Aug 23rd, 2006, 04:29 AM
It is time for the neo-cons to start volunteering their sons and daughters to fight for their beliefs. The working class and working poor are tired of volunteering their children - including the sons and daughters of so called "illgal immigrants" the republicans are railing against.

According to their(the neo-cons that is) manifesto there are few more countries left on the list - Syria, Iran, Norh Korea have yet to be invaded, and the pool of volunteers from the traditonal source is drying up.
This is no longer and a volunteer force, but a coerced force of fighting men and women whose parents are having a second thought about the war.
This is the best damn post I've read in a long time. I'd give the tennisbum 10,000 good reps if I could. Show me a picture Jenna and Barbara being deployed to Iraq and I'll believe the President is....wait a minute, forget it, they're just following in their father's footsteps; as far away from the front-line as possible.

Scotso
Aug 23rd, 2006, 04:40 AM
samsung, have you ever heard the phrase, "Less is More"? :help:

:lol: :yeah:

Scotso
Aug 23rd, 2006, 04:49 AM
It is time for the neo-cons to start volunteering their sons and daughters to fight for their beliefs. The working class and working poor are tired of volunteering their children - including the sons and daughters of so called "illgal immigrants" the republicans are railing against.

According to their(the neo-cons that is) manifesto there are few more countries left on the list - Syria, Iran, Norh Korea have yet to be invaded, and the pool of volunteers from the traditonal source is drying up.
This is no longer and a volunteer force, but a coerced force of fighting men and women whose parents are having a second thought about the war.

I'm sorry, but your post is entirely wrong. I'm an extremely liberal person and have no love for this war or neo-cons, but you can't sit here and speak for the working class and the working poor. It *is* a volunteer military, and the fact that the working class and working poor volunteer is their decision. Of course, they don't have as many options or the financial freedom of the majority of the neo-cons, but the decision to join the military is their's.

These people signed up for the military. If they didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have done that. Some of them are crying foul now... and why? Did they sign up years ago thinking there wouldn't be another war? That they could have a cozy job and make some easy dough? But now that there's a risk involved, they want out? Sorry, but that isn't how it works.

But that's still the majority. I'm sure even most of these people "involuntarily" called up are, while unhappy to return to war, still proud to serve their country. I have to agree with "samsung" here, these people signed a binding contract and the government is merely holding them to it.

tennisbum79
Aug 23rd, 2006, 06:31 AM
I'm sorry, but your post is entirely wrong. I'm an extremely liberal person and have no love for this war or neo-cons, but you can't sit here and speak for the working class and the working poor. It *is* a volunteer military, and the fact that the working class and working poor volunteer is their decision. Of course, they don't have as many options or the financial freedom of the majority of the neo-cons, but the decision to join the military is their's.

These people signed up for the military. If they didn't want to fight, they shouldn't have done that. Some of them are crying foul now... and why? Did they sign up years ago thinking there wouldn't be another war? That they could have a cozy job and make some easy dough? But now that there's a risk involved, they want out? Sorry, but that isn't how it works.

But that's still the majority. I'm sure even most of these people "involuntarily" called up are, while unhappy to return to war, still proud to serve their country. I have to agree with "samsung" here, these people signed a binding contract and the government is merely holding them to it.

You know what, that line "it is a voluntary force ” is getting tiresome.

I have seen many talking heads on business shows (FOX and CNBC) who support the war from a distance use it to justify why people in their immediate circle are not in Irak. Meanwhile they are jovially debating why the war is good for Wall Street.

It is so insidiously immoral.


If this were truly a voluntary force, there would be proportional representation in the in military of all background in the society, or at least proportional representation of those who support the war.

I can also detect a disinctly disdain in your tone for these people you think should have known what they are signing.
Again, they see this as an oppurtunity and most are not reading all the fine prints.
And franky, I doubt, the recruiters, with all the difficutlies they are having filing their quotas, would spell out or point out all these clauses in the contracts.

Wigglytuff
Aug 23rd, 2006, 08:00 AM
samsung, have you ever heard the phrase, "Less is More"? :help:
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

wta_zuperfann
Aug 23rd, 2006, 01:34 PM
If Bush's war was so just there should be an endless line of volunteers to fight it. But nobody is volunteering because his imperialistic war is totally unjust.

roarke
Aug 23rd, 2006, 01:59 PM
samsung, have you ever heard the phrase, "Less is More"? :help:


You go girl! S/He is just as tiresome as these wars!

Scotso
Aug 23rd, 2006, 06:13 PM
If this were truly a voluntary force, there would be proportional representation in the in military of all background in the society, or at least proportional representation of those who support the war.

Proportional representation could only exist if it wasn't a voluntary force. People don't volunteer in proportion. You know this.

Again, they see this as an oppurtunity and most are not reading all the fine prints.
And franky, I doubt, the recruiters, with all the difficutlies they are having filing their quotas, would spell out or point out all these clauses in the contracts.

When you sign a contract, do they point out all the fine print to you? Of course not, it's your job to know what you're signing.

tennisbum79
Aug 23rd, 2006, 06:38 PM
Proportional representation could only exist if it wasn't a voluntary force. People don't volunteer in proportion. You know this..
This should not be if people who believe in the war see that there are not enough people "volunteering". Should not they decide to fight what they believe in?

See, this is no longer a volunteer force. As I said before,the young who join see this just as another opportunity. Since the young men from upper middle class have other alertnative theyr do not join. Instead, they voice their support from the comfort of their campus in various Young Republicans groups



When you sign a contract, do they point out all the fine print to you? Of course not, it's your job to know what you're signing.
Except that we are talking about 17-18 year olds teens, mostly from unsophisticated background

Scotso
Aug 23rd, 2006, 06:57 PM
There is no moral dilemma with civilians expressing support for a war. Not all those who support the war must fight in it. I agree that there is hypocrisy in many of those groups not fighting, but why should we force them to do so? They don't force people who don't believe in it to fight it.

17 year olds probably wouldn't be signing contracts because contracts are not legally binding for minors. As for 18 year olds, they are adults and should be responsible for what they are signing. Ignorance is not an excuse.

meyerpl
Aug 23rd, 2006, 07:03 PM
This should not be if people who believe in the war see that there are not enough people "volunteering". Should not they decide to fight what they believe in?

See, this is no longer a volunteer force. As I said before,the young who join see this just as another opportunity. Since the young men from upper middle class have other alertnative theyr do not join. Instead, they voice their support from the comfort of their campus in various Young Republicans groups




Except that we are talking about 17-18 year olds teens, mostly from unsophisticated background
Not only that, they're teens who are romanced by professional recruiters who are notorious for making all sorts of false promises....off the record. They're also really good at sniffing-out vulnerable teens who tend to be gullible and easily swayed. Saying that these teens should be sophisticated enough to "read the fine print" and get what they deserve is like saying the elderly should know better than to be taken in by predatory home-improvement scam artists and sharks who know how to get them to hand over their life savings. Hey, they're adults, they should know better.

tennisbum79
Aug 23rd, 2006, 07:22 PM
There is no moral dilemma with civilians expressing support for a war. Not all those who support the war must fight in it. I agree that there is hypocrisy in many of those groups not fighting, but why should we force them to do so? They don't force people who don't believe in it to fight it..
Yes there would not be a moral dilemma if the people exressing the support
were not treating those doing the fighting as unreliable, traitor, once the fighters can no longer keep fighting due to psychological and physical constraints bourght about the demand of the war.

Some of the supporters who have no family members in the military, tend to see
the soldiers as workers, who should just go back to fighting at a momentt notice, regardless of familty situation or what they were told by their commanding superiors when they came home.

SelesFan70
Aug 23rd, 2006, 07:36 PM
You know what, that line "it is a voluntary force ” is getting tiresome.

I have seen many talking heads on business shows (FOX and CNBC) who support the war from a distance use it to justify why people in their immediate circle are not in Irak. Meanwhile they are jovially debating why the war is good for Wall Street.

It is so insidiously immoral.


If this were truly a voluntary force, there would be proportional representation in the in military of all background in the society, or at least proportional representation of those who support the war.

I can also detect a disinctly disdain in your tone for these people you think should have known what they are signing.
Again, they see this as an oppurtunity and most are not reading all the fine prints.
And franky, I doubt, the recruiters, with all the difficutlies they are having filing their quotas, would spell out or point out all these clauses in the contracts.

You obviously know nothing about the U.S. military.

SelesFan70
Aug 23rd, 2006, 07:38 PM
Except that we are talking about 17-18 year olds teens, mostly from unsophisticated background

And you're more "sophisticated" because.... :confused:

Are you dizzy on that moral high horse?

SelesFan70
Aug 23rd, 2006, 07:40 PM
Yes there would not be a moral dilemma if the people exressing the support
were not treating those doing the fighting as unreliable, traitor, once the fighters can no longer keep fighting due to psychological and physical constraints bourght about the demand of the war.

Some of the supporters who have no family members in the military, tend to see
the soldiers as workers, who should just go back to fighting at a momentt notice, regardless of familty situation or what they were told by their commanding superiors when they came home.

If the Pentagon brass would allow the U.S. military to use its full force, none of these Marines would need to be called up again. :wavey: Of course, then you'd bitch about all the innocent civilians... :rolleyes:

tennisbum79
Aug 23rd, 2006, 07:44 PM
You obviously know nothing about the U.S. military.

What am I missing here?

Are you saying the US military refuses to take the sons and daughters of the upper class families that why they are not represented in the fighting force?

Please clarify what I do not know about the US military.
It is well documented what when the burden is shared. the politician thinks twice about getting involved in wars.

Why? Because the people who have access to them and support them monetarily have sons and daughters in the militatry

SelesFan70
Aug 23rd, 2006, 07:51 PM
What am I missing here?

Are you saying the US military refuses to take the sons and daughters of the upper class families that why they are not represented in the fighting force?

Please clarify what I do not know about the US military.
It is well documented what when the burden is shared. the politician thinks twice about getting involved in wars.

Why? Because the people who have access to them and support them monetarily have sons anddaughters in the militatry

"We found that recruits tend to come from mid*dle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income dis*tribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

:wavey:

tennisbum79
Aug 23rd, 2006, 07:57 PM
"We found that recruits tend to come from mid*dle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas. Overall, the income dis*tribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

:wavey:

I am sorry the Heritage Foundation is veyr biased toward this war.
In fact, many of its researchers were also major contributors to the American Century, that blue print of the neo-cons to conquer the middle east and spread democracy.

samsung101
Aug 23rd, 2006, 08:02 PM
If it's an all volunteer military, and
you are duty (active or inactive)
until your time is fully done, and you
are discharged...how is it involuntary
for you to be called to duty? It isn't
really.

Rare as it may be, it is what happens
with the military, at any level, at any
time.

It's an all volunteer military.

Sorry, the cute twisting of words to compare
it to a draft or such is just too typica of our
media, and naysayers.

Our patience is running out, it should be.
We'd like our men and women home, and we'd
like Iran to move faster than it is, and be
more grateful. Be our pal. Sort of like France.
OK, bad example. Even if US troops died on
foreign soil in two world wars to save France's
behind.


But, that isn't an excuse to mix up facts and
reality in the news, as it so often does. It's
a volunteer military, and the rules of duty
service are varied and complex, and until
you are offiicially out of the military, you can
be called out to serve, anywhere.


What Congressman introduced the bill
to end the draft President Johnson used
so much of? Let me see, that was, well,
Donald Rumsfeld. What president signed
that bill? Let me see, that was Nixon.

Rumsfeld has been for a leaner, all volunteer
military for nearly 40 years.