TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Reservist Tries To Block Deployment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reservist Tries To Block Deployment

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Army Reserve Sgt. Erik Botta has been sent to Iraq three times and to Afghanistan once. He thinks that's enough.
Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071301491.html

Who in the hell does he think he is? He's spent a grand total of 10 months overseas on those deployments. To even call those deployments is, at best, laughable. I have absolutely no sympathy for this person. He signed the contract, he does what he's ordered to do. I find it a joke that he thinks he's "done his time". Please, spare me the stupidity of that comment. How about the men and women who are on their third and possibly fourth deployments that last for anywhere from 12-15 months at a time?
post #2 of 29
Calling him a piece of trash is pretty harsh. He has stated that he will deploy if the courts won't hear his argument for exemption.

While I don't totally agree with his reasoning, he's going through the proper channels to challenge the deployment orders. Others have just gone awol.
post #3 of 29
I know two people who had the absolute best of intentions, signed up for full-time military, and ended up going AWOL from boot camp. They've both since cut deals and served their time in jail/probation.

I do not for a second think that makes them, or this guy, a 'piece of trash'. I know I would not be able to-- even if the war was one I felt we should be fighting-- sign up and go overseas and risk my life. I am not brave enough.

The man you are judging so harshly is a reservist. He has been in combat, and doesn't think he should have to go back again. I think he is right. Heck, what were the ads for that: two weekends a month, two weeks a year? Yes, he knew he would be called if needed, and he was, and he went.

Reservists are and were never meant to be full-time military, and the national guard was never meant to get sent overseas for a non-defensive war.

So, it's all about supporting the troops until they think maybe they have been to enough wars, and then they're a 'disgrace and an embarassment'? I can only hope he never stumbles across this page, it's downright insulting.

And I just have to ask: Have you served in Iraq and Afghanistan?
post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Bengals View Post
Calling him a piece of trash is pretty harsh. He has stated that he will deploy if the courts won't hear his argument for exemption.

While I don't totally agree with his reasoning, he's going through the proper channels to challenge the deployment orders. Others have just gone awol.
You're probably right about the piece of trash comment being harsh so removed it from the OP. I guess that my initial post was written based more on emotion than anything else.

I don't agree at all with his reasoning. So what if HE has a life, schooling and a job that he doesn't want to leave. There are thousand of others who have been called up to deploy that also have lives that they don't want to leave either. He made a commitment and took an oath to serve when he signed the contract. I'm sorry to say it but his duty to serve doesn't and shouldn't take a back seat to his personal life.

I know that Iraq and Afghanistan are combat zones but I have to question how much, if any combat he has personally experienced. The reason I question that is that the United States Army Reserves have NO, and I repeat NO, combat units as part of their make up. The Reserve force is mainly logistical. The Army National Guard provides the combat troops to the regular army.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom
And I just have to ask: Have you served in Iraq and Afghanistan?
No, I served in Panama, Desert Storm and Somalia. And yes, I've seen and been in combat.
post #5 of 29
Hm, well the military disagrees with you according to that article. It says they granted 87% of deferment requests.

They even take your personal life into account when they are drafting.
post #6 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Hm, well the military disagrees with you according to that article. It says they granted 87% of deferment requests.

They even take your personal life into account when they are drafting.
I saw that but would like to know what the criteria is that they take into account when granting a deferment. Did you mean enlisting or deploying instead of drafting? The draft ended in 1973. Personally, I don't think that he'll be able to get a deferment considering he hasn't served even one continuous twelve month tour. I fail to see how the Army refusing to exempt him constitutes, in his opinion, unlawful custody considering he signed the contract to serve.

Just a few words about the Army National Guard. One of the roles of the National Guard is to augment the regular military during times of war. During WWII there were a total of 18 National Guard divisions deployed overseas, many of which were also previously deployed to Europe in WWI. The National Guard also served in Korea. As far as I know they didn't deploy to Vietnam. With the major reduction in force that has been going on since the end of Desert Storm there has been and will continue to be a greater dependency on both the Guard and Reserves to provide combat troops and logistical support to the regular active duty forces.
post #7 of 29
If the army had lived up to there end of the deal, i would be in the army today minus something bad, happing.

i am sorry but you sign you the papers. i dont see anything wrong with his length of time overseas
post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
[...]Did you mean enlisting or deploying instead of drafting? The draft ended in 1973. [...]

Just a few words about the Army National Guard. One of the roles of the National Guard is to augment the regular military during times of war. During WWII there were a total of 18 National Guard divisions deployed overseas, many of which were also previously deployed to Europe in WWI. The National Guard also served in Korea. As far as I know they didn't deploy to Vietnam. With the major reduction in force that has been going on since the end of Desert Storm there has been and will continue to be a greater dependency on both the Guard and Reserves to provide combat troops and logistical support to the regular active duty forces.
No, I meant drafting. 'when they are', as in, when they used to and presumably when they start again.

Far as I know, the war is over. At least according to the guy running it. Yes, one of their roles is to augment the military during war. But their main role is not, and they're being sent overseas to the point they can't do what they really are meant to do. Such as disaster response after Hurricane Katrina, etc etc.

This doesn't change the fact that he is a reservist, and it's not his fault that the military seems to have decided there's no distinction. He signed up before 9/11 and volunteered to be on active duty after it. Thinking back a little, you'd never have thought that in 2007 we would be mostly at peace in the world but for some reason stuck in a quagmire in a country unrelated to terrorism. I know he said he doesn't disagree with the war, but.

As for how long he's been over there. If the four deployments were spaced out over the past 6 years, that's a pretty serious disruption of 6 years of his life, and the sacrifices he made were undoubtedly not minor for the entire time.
post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
we would be mostly at peace in the world but for some reason stuck in a quagmire in a country unrelated to terrorism. I know he said he doesn't disagree with the war, but.

.
hmm that part is wrong, IRAQ gave money, and supplies for suicide bombers.
along with giving 20,000 US dollars to the family of the bombers.Iraq did engage in terrorism. there can still be debate about other issues.

They way i see it, it was time to leave after saddam lost his head.
post #10 of 29
And Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, and we consider them allies.

I'll agree though, any time prior to now was a good time to get out.
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
And Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, and we consider them allies.

I'll agree though, any time prior to now was a good time to get out.
yea, well Pakistan is a whole other issue. The are at best semi friends, until they get around to killing the presdent there. Then it will go back to being a hard line muslim country. Along with women losing a few of the rights the goverment there has been able to give them.

Everytime the guy goes to reform something, like last year and women rights thing, someone tries to shoot or blow him up.

oh yea, we got Al-Qaeda here.
post #12 of 29
"A country unrelated to terrorism" That is a laugh.


The guy signed up and it doesn't matter if he signed up prior to 9-11, that makes no difference at all. He signed up for the MILITARY.

Good grief.

And who said the draft is coming back, I must have missed that one or that is an opinion?
post #13 of 29
One of my friends has a son, in the National Guard. Lee enlisted last year and is at AIT, right now. His unit has been deployed, in the past and he knows that it may be deployed, in the future. If so, he WILL go.

If you're going to accept the benefits, you have to be willing to pay the price.
post #14 of 29
Semper Fi to you Kat
post #15 of 29
B was in the Army (full time though) and Combat. Basically his point of view is that when you sign up for the Army you waive a lot of rights. If you don't do what you're suppose to do, then you pay the price.

A friend's husband just returned from his 1 year duty. Since he continued it consistantly he has been told that he will not be going back (He is Army reserve, but not combat).

The army is starting to show lack of enlistees though. We watched a special the other night where recruiters are hanging out in Paintball areas in an attempt to recruit. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a draft by the end of the year if the number of people enlisting continues to drop.
post #16 of 29
Now I have heard that enlistment is up.
I don't think they will bring the draft back. No way. But I have heard a few Democrats say we should bring back the draft, believe it or not. I can't remember who, I THINK it was Charlie Rangle but not sure.


Yes, I agree, when you are in the Military, the Military OWNS you. If you don't like it, don't enlist.
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
"A country unrelated to terrorism" That is a laugh.
What's a laugh is that people still believe 9/11 and Saddam Hussein had anything whatsoever to do with each other.
Terrorists come to Iraq to fight us, though there are plenty now homegrown and will be far more in the future.

Iraq is not a part of the "War on Terror" and never was.
post #18 of 29
YOU said, "a country unrelated to terrorism"

I said that is not true and it isn't. Unless you don't think suicide bombers are terrorists. Do you?
post #19 of 29
My dad enlisted in the Marines, in 1944 and served in the South Pacific (Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Occupation Forces Japan). He opted to remain in and was subsequently sent to both Korea AND Vietnam. HE never said, "I've already been deployed and shouldn't go again". Pops just laced up his boots, packed up his footlocker, picked up his rifle and WENT.
post #20 of 29
And bless his heart for doing so.
post #21 of 29
He should do what he promised to do when joining: serve.

No, I've not been in the military; but men in my family were, including my husband, who joined the Army then the Marine Corps, and, even though he was scared to death, was in the first unit into the breach in Desert Storm. He did his duty, and followed through, though he knew he could die (he defused land mines; not a job with a high survival rate, BTW).

Yes, it's very easy for me to say all of the above; as I'm in no danger of going to war; but perhaps I'm just weird--I was brought up to believe that, if you signed a contract/made a promise, you followed through to the best of your abilities. I have a job I loathe; yet's that's no excuse to not show up, or to do a lousy, inferior job. I, in effect, signed a contract when I accepted the job.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
YOU said, "a country unrelated to terrorism"

I said that is not true and it isn't. Unless you don't think suicide bombers are terrorists. Do you?
Oddly, there were no Iraqi suicide bombers killing Americans until we invaded their country.

You didn't say it wasn't true, and you didn't even make any argument. You just said it was a laugh.

According to them, they're defending themselves. According to us, they're terrorists. According to us, we're defending ourselves (against who knows what), and according to them, we're terrorists.
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
What's a laugh is that people still believe 9/11 and Saddam Hussein had anything whatsoever to do with each other.
Terrorists come to Iraq to fight us, though there are plenty now homegrown and will be far more in the future.

Iraq is not a part of the "War on Terror" and never was.
Perhaps he wasn't, but with all due respect, my hubby was there in 1991, and saw the atrocities Saddam committed. My husband does not lie. And if you don't think he ever had weapons of mass destruction, remember how he gassed the Kurds, not once, but twice. Hubby also saw evidence of WMD while he was there.
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by katl8e View Post
My dad enlisted in the Marines, in 1944 and served in the South Pacific (Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Occupation Forces Japan). He opted to remain in and was subsequently sent to both Korea AND Vietnam. HE never said, "I've already been deployed and shouldn't go again". Pops just laced up his boots, packed up his footlocker, picked up his rifle and WENT.

Bless him! And my Dad, my brother, and my husband never shirked their duty, either.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by katl8e View Post
One of my friends has a son, in the National Guard. Lee enlisted last year and is at AIT, right now. His unit has been deployed, in the past and he knows that it may be deployed, in the future. If so, he WILL go.

If you're going to accept the benefits, you have to be willing to pay the price.
Yep! I've always said: many hate/resent our military/police force, etc., but, boy they are glad they're around when they need them...

Freedom does not come for free.
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MargeCat View Post
Perhaps he wasn't, but with all due respect, my hubby was there in 1991, and saw the atrocities Saddam committed. My husband does not lie. And if you don't think he ever had weapons of mass destruction, remember how he gassed the Kurds, not once, but twice. Hubby also saw evidence of WMD while he was there.
We all know he had, at some point, WMDs. We sold them to him.

Turkey treats the Kurds as poorly as Saddam did. Everybody does. Britain / other Western countries screwed up pretty royally in some of their map drawing and it has created all kinds of problems ever since.

I never accused your husband of lying, nor did I say Saddam Hussein was a great leader. I said that isn't the same thing as terrorism-- which by definition cannot be carried out by a government on its own people, that has other names-- and I stand by that statement.
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
We all know he had, at some point, WMDs. We sold them to him.

Turkey treats the Kurds as poorly as Saddam did. Everybody does. Britain / other Western countries screwed up pretty royally in some of their map drawing and it has created all kinds of problems ever since.

I never accused your husband of lying, nor did I say Saddam Hussein was a great leader. I said that isn't the same thing as terrorism-- which by definition cannot be carried out by a government on its own people, that has other names-- and I stand by that statement.
Yes, we may have sold them to him, which is wrong (I believe Saddam was even one of our allies back then), but many who think the current war is wrong claim he NEVER had WMD, just because we can't find them now.

Also, I apologize if I seemed to imply you said my husband was lying; I really put that out as a general comment, should someone question his claims.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Oddly, there were no Iraqi suicide bombers killing Americans until we invaded their country.

You didn't say it wasn't true, and you didn't even make any argument. You just said it was a laugh.

According to them, they're defending themselves. According to us, they're terrorists. According to us, we're defending ourselves (against who knows what), and according to them, we're terrorists.
It is a WELL known fact that Sadaam was paying every suicide bomber's family off. Have you forgotten about the hundreds of suicide bomber's that have killed hundreds of Israeili, men, women, children and babies. It has gone on for years, althought it has slowed down now that Sadaam isn't around making the suicide bombers families rich anymore.

There is much war to the Global War on Terror than the War in Iraq.

SADAAM was a terrorist.
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
We all know he had, at some point, WMDs. We sold them to him.

Turkey treats the Kurds as poorly as Saddam did. Everybody does. Britain / other Western countries screwed up pretty royally in some of their map drawing and it has created all kinds of problems ever since.

I never accused your husband of lying, nor did I say Saddam Hussein was a great leader. I said that isn't the same thing as terrorism-- which by definition cannot be carried out by a government on its own people, that has other names-- and I stand by that statement.
"Other names", that seems like arguing semantics to me. He was terrorist that, in addition to paying off Palestinian suicide bombers, massacred his own people by the thousands.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Reservist Tries To Block Deployment