Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

My friend Bolstad joined knowing full well what was in store for him. He never complains in his letters about having to go to Iraq. Vietnam was a true meat grinder. 55,000 soldiers were killed during our peak involvement from 1965-71.

Hell Yeah! They signed up to serve their country, to protect it and their families from harm. NOT to further a bunch of asshole idiots fucked up idea of what they think the world should look like and line the pockets of a few choesen corperations.

***”Do those citizens who volunteered for military duty have a right to complain about the service they may be called to perform or should they just do the job they volunteered to do and keep quite about it?”***

Well, this is America and of course they can voice complains. They however, DO have a set of rules that they agree to play bye.
Most non-military (ie civilians) have a MUCH higher threshold to reach before anything is done to them.

The higher ranking officer ALMOST never complains until after retirement.
Sometime they complain and are retired.
That is the rules they play with.
Enlisted personnel can complain BUT again they have to follow guidelines (not as strict).

***”What does our government and military owe these guys? Anything?”***

EVERYTHING THAT WAS PROMISED TO THEM.
plus something else, I’ll let you figure what that is.

I was in the military for 6 yrs. If I had been in during Rumsfelds’ tenure I would have complained–alot– and gotten the Hell out as soon as I could.

I knew what I was getting into. Unfortunately our government got in the way…

A “complainer” since 1999. Support our troops $uck the politicians who don’t.

that person spells worse than me!

It seems that one’s “right” to complain (of course everyone has one, but in the context of this post, what we deem reasonable and fair) should be in part determined by when they volunteered.

Volunteering prior to Iraq would likely entail a different concept of what it meant to protect and defend. When that preconception turned out to be very different in reality, and when facts were skewed to put us in the situation we are now, complaining seems at the very least justified. Those that volunteered after Iraq would come with the knowledge of the current situation, so the right to complain seems like it should be smaller.

Either way, the government owes all of them all of the benefits they were promised at the outset, and given the longer tours, a little more.

Many of the troops over there are National Guard rather than Army. National Guardsmen signed up imagining helping out in floods and tornadoes, never imagining over seas duty but rather State duty. During Viet Nam, guys who flew in National Guard (when they actually showed up)knew their chances of going overseas were slim to none. It was a safe way to serve without putting your neck on the line… worst case scenario you do riot squad on some hippies.

Of course, “in a post 9-11 world”, those who signed up for state duty had no qualms about serving overseas. They might see things differently as the hunt for Osama appears derailed.

I agree with BB. The National Guard has historically ‘guarded the nation’, and helped with catastrophes at a state level. To send them overseas stinks of bait and switch, and I would like to now how many would have chosen to join if they knew what was in store. I’m surprised that governors didn’t complain when W and his ilk took their men and women for overseas duty, especially with such lame excuses for going to Iraq in the first place.

The fundamental argument comes down to responsibility. The soldier who signs up, agrees to fight to defend his or her country. His professional role (as a soldier/sailor) is to do what is told and respect the chain of command (as well as the rules of war, etc). His personal responsibility, as a citizen in this country, is to speak his opinion and question the government.

It’s the responsibility of our leaders to ensure that our soldiers are only put in harm’s way only when it is absolutely necessary.

To question the validity of a leader’s decision is your duty as a citizen, irregardless of whether you are serving or not (although you might have to be quieter about it if you are serving).

This is why I never understood accusation that those of us who are against the war do not “support our troops” . Questioning the motivation for a war, means I’m not supporting the leaders who made the decision. I still support the soldiers and am saddened by every death, and happy every time one of them comes home. In fact, that probably means I’m supporting troops even more, since I only want them put into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and am willing to stand up and question our leaders.

You are absolutely right Cuban, except in that ‘irregardless’ is not a word.