Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    	The (female) doctor who refused to be called up for active duty
    seems to have no moral justification whatsoever (IMHO) because the
    activity of doing the best medical work possible for those injured
    in combat is a positive activity in humanistic terms.
    
    	To be in the service is to accept that duty requires one to go
    when called.  How does a doctor decide what is immoral in terms of
    medical service ?  Does one bind the wounds of a drug dealer who
    has been stabbed by an angry parent or let the victim bleed to death?
    
    	Of course like any other act of moral disobedience the reservist
    who has a strong sense of right and wrong surrounding any particular
    action is always justified in refusal and suffering the consequences.
    One can only appluad a woman who is willing to spend 20 years in a
    military prison rather than bind the wounds of soldiers injured in a
    war to liberate Kumait against Saddam's demonstrated aggressions.
    
    ~--e--~  flying above any battlefield all the wounded 2 look much alike
    

The article in the Globe bothered me, too.  I found myself leaning 
toward calling those people "irresponsible."  [My total thoughts and 
feelings on the issue are too complicated to put out here and now.  
There's more to it than this, but this summarizes it.]

I put this in the category of "Why didn't the car label have 'You
shouldn't drink and drive!' on it?  I'm suing!" or "Why didn't the
plastic bag have a 'Your kid shouldn't put this over your head and tie
it around your neck' warning label.  I'm suing!" 

The lawyers for these people are claiming that the military "tricked" 
them into joining.  That, at 17 (?) years of age, the "right" to 
"change ones world view" is more important than the responsibility of 
honoring a signed commitment in which two parties exchange services.

In our society, people are not taking responsibility for their 
actions.  This is just another example of it.  They bought the "Be all 
that you can be!" ads, and they gambled that we wouldn't actually go 
to war.  Now that we are at war, they want to go back on their 
commitment.  It stinks.  (War stinks, but not honoring agreements 
stinks, too.)

If the "changing ones world view" argument were true, then the filings 
for CO would have been happening in larger numbers before we went to 
the Gulf.

							--Gerry

    	An alternate view which will probably get people screaming at me
    	again... but so it goes.

    	There are several reasons for a request of CO status I can see 
    	Gerry:

    	- people's politics, religious beliefs, and outlook change over
   	 time. I know my views are radically different than when I was
    	 only 18 and just out of high school.

    	- I went thru 4 yrs Air Force ROTC. They never mentioned the word 
    	'rifle' or 'combat' once. Everyone told you "Oh, the Army does the
    	actual fighting. You don't have to worry about that. You're going
    	to be an Air Force engineer. You think they'd waste a $50K education
    	bill throwing you out on the battle field?" Well the "you'll be an 
    	engineer" was the first false claim to go. And right now I have
    	friends who are still in the AF & out doing conveys in Saudi Arabia.
    	You think they didn't jump when someone handed them a M-16 rifle?
    	They never as so much touched one in 4 yrs military training. They
    	were going to be engineers after all. The Army did the dirty work,
    	right? They were supposed to be behind engineering desks at protected 
    	AF bases, protected by all the MArines, Army, and Navy. Yeah right...

    	- So others got out into the National Guard. The Guard was a place
    	that stays home and protects the homefront you are told. They deal
    	with civil emergencies like hurricanes mostly. But when everyone
    	else is away at war, you are there protecting your country (literally,
    	your own land). Many people could deal with that. Protecting your
    	country from attack is something worthy of dying for. Going over
    	to protect another man's, Bush's, first American oil company in
    	Kuwait, going to another country to fight for political interests -
    	now that to some is not worth lives for. But no worry. The Guard
    	stays home and the Reserves go overseas. THEN they changed the
    	Total Force Concepts without telling people the significance of
    	it. All of a sudden Guardsmen aren't protecting their country
    	but are being shipped overseas to fight for oil. You bet more
    	people weren't surprised. That was not part of their agreement 
    	when they joined. You belonged to your state, not the President.
    	Yeah right. Look how much luck Dukakis had in keeping the MA guard
    	out of Reagan's political interests.

    	- And lastly, it is very easy saying "Yeah, I can be a war hero and
    	bravely march to the battlefield" before that time actually comes.
    	Until you actually have to pull that trigger, can you do it? Can
    	you take another human life? What if you freeze because you find
    	you can't.

    	Things change, people change. I don't point an accusing finger at
    	people in that terrible position, especially from my comfy easy chair.
    	People who do should join the service themselves. But whatever.
    	Life is not always fair, esp. for the black and poor forced in the
    	military to make a buck somehow.
                                                               
    	-Erik

    
    re: calling those people "irresponsible."
    
    	That was my first reaction too. 
    
    	However, it came from the same emotions as 'blame the victim' 
    	(in me).
    
    	They shouldn't have believed the recruiters. She shouldn't have
    	worn that attractive dress. I shouldn't have written feminist
    	perspective in male space. He shouldn't have been so careless 
    	letting people find out he is homosexual. She shouldn't have
    	been carrying so much money around anyway. That's what he gets
    	for buying such an expensive and desirable car. etc etc.
    
    	So it goes...

    
    RE .4
    Boy do you have that wrong!    'blame the victim'
    
    They wanted to take the money/college/etc and give nothing for it. Sort
    of like the S&L, something for nothing, greed. I have my rights, but no
    responsibilities even though they WILLINGLY signed on the dotted line.
    THEY WERE NOT DRAFTED!
    
    Steve

    .5... You hit the target!
    
    	Yes, get a college education for free and get nothing for it. It is
    all right to get paid to defend the country and when the time comes to
    defend it... show a soft back bone and rely on "conscience"... All this
    happens because we have a strictly VOLUNTARY forces, where soldiers GET
    PAID to defend the country; if we had a COMPULSORY army, where
    EVERYBODY, and I mean men, women, and all groups included HAD TO SERVE
    we would have no retractors and soft back bones would  become "hard
    backs" real quickly, just after the few first months of boot camp all
    would be tough enough to deal with whatever the need!
    
       I have lots of admiration for those troops who are there, and I hope
    with all my heart that their integrity, valor, and preparation will
    help them to defend the colors of the U.S.  and will bring them home
    with pride and victory.
    
       U.S. deserves the best people there are, anywhere!  The U.S. became
    a great country just due to its PEOPLE... to the hard work and wisdom
    of its PEOPLE, to the decency and honesty of its PEOPLE and now that
    the country needs them... I am sure that it's PEOPLE WILL RESPOND. 
	(God bless them all!)
    

    
    hurray fer us!

    
    
    Yah take the Kings coin, yah do the Kings bidding..Simple as that..
    
    
    David

    	I think .4 is extending the concept of "innocent victim" rather
    far. I know if (in this area) I buy a Volkswagen Golf GTI then there is
    a fairly high probability that it will be stolen. However, nothing in
    the purchase contract requires me to make it easy to steal - I might
    even ask the salesman if anti-theft devices were easy to fit.
    
    	To take the analogy back, these people should have asked at their
    recruitment interview how easy it was to plead CO or skip the country
    when a war came up.
    
    	If everyone who signs a contract is an "innocent victim" then that
    applies to you if you don't pay for the car after you have it, and to 
    the car salesman if he decides not to give you the car after you have
    paid. And that is quite independant of whether the car in question is
    stolen from you or him?
    
    	During the 10 years since I took out this house mortgage I have
    decided that it is immoral to pay interest to the bank. This decision
    was not lightly taken, and in the eventual court case I fully expect to
    be awarded the status of IV. ;-)

    .last

    	There is such a thing as truth in advertising you know. Buying a
    	K-car because the dealer said it gets 75 mpg and can do 0-60mph in
    	under 3 seconds so it'd be a good choice for your car racing
    	rallye career. You bet I'd be back demanding a release of that
    	contract when it turns out the car is neither what was promised.
    	I think .8 had the ideal military contract. State it up front that:

    > Yah take the Kings coin, yah do the Kings bidding..Simple as that..

    	Yes, you know that. And I know that, now. But I didn't in high
    	school, as I suspect most kids that age do not. 

    	If the recruiters said "Yah take the Kings coin, yah do the Kings 
    	bidding..Simple as that" and people signed that contract, not the one
    	that said "4 yrs to be a Aerospace Design Engineer", I think there
    	would be a heck of less problems. And much less surprise and shock
    	when the 18 yr old kid ends up with a rifle in his hand and as an
    	"frontline infantryman" once locked into the contract he was
    	smooth-talked into. Especially when dealing with high school
    	age kids.

    	That's why Cambridge is pushing to ban military recruiters from
    	high schools. The kids are too impressionable, too believing. They
    	believe the Army is about management and typewriters and forms,
    	believe the lies the recruiters feed them.
    
    	If the military is such a rewarding and good deal, why do they have
    	to lock people in and build a Berlin Wall of a contract around them
    	never being able to leave their mistaken imprisonment?

    	Ending up on the frontlines is a terrible first lesson in trust
    	for an 18 yr old kid. I feel the Cambridge ban on military
    	recruiters from their high schools is a good idea. NPR had a 
    	story about it this morning, along with the phrase:

    	"The military: it's not just a job, it's a political view."

                                                              

    I believe that folks should live up to contracts and in her case, there
    are positions for medical CO's.  All but one of the medics in my
    battallion were CO's, so the govt could find a place for her.
    
    However I think the Army should more realistically view the process
    that occurs when one gets a college education and may actually change
    their views.  Perhaps they should include such provisos in the contract
    so that people such as this woman can pay back their assistance or do
    time in public service as an alternative.  As it was she just got a
    "less than honorable discharge" which is a small price to pay for
    violating a contract.
    
    ed

 Well, guess who was on Nightline last night? You guessed it, our CO.

 I was very interested in what she had to say for herself. Unfortunately,
Ted Koppel neglected to ask some of the tougher questions (due in large part
to the format of last night's program).

 The bottom line was that she was regurgitating pablum taught to her in college.
We shouldn't do this, we shouldn't have done that, our government is immoral,
that sort of thing. She sounded like a cross between a scairt rabbit and
a liberal arts major. She appeared to be far more concerned with her own
skin than anything else. Her big philosophical change was effected by the
realization that the price she was going to have to pay for her education was
not insignificant, that there was no free ride.

 I believe if she has deep philosophical problems with her contract with the
military, then she should have no problems spending a few years in jail and
then paying back everything she owes to the government.

 The Doctah

I also think that salesmen are well trained.  There is a way to sell
something by telling only part of the truth, which isn't illegal. It's
done all the time.  That's why people say that you need to read (and
understand) a contract before you sign it. I think that
eighteen-year-olds are old enough to understand that concept. 

...and I still wonder why all these people who have gone through so
many life changes since they enlisted didn't apply for CO before
August.  That leads me to believe that the issue is _not_ a gradual
change of life's philosophy, but a visceral reaction to being sent off
to war. 


							--Gerry

                                          
    	Your second version of .13 sounds a lot more reasonable than your
    	first, where it read like saying that there's no such
    	thing as a faulty contract.

	And that is the key to this argument. What is a faulty contract?
    	What is false advertising? Another question, why are recruiters
    	allowed in high schools and given the air of legitimacy if the
    	military service is really such a 'sucker deal'?, where pages and 
    	pages of unwritten small print are designed to fool young people.

    	How about some more military surprises... "Hey, your '4-year'
    	commitment really isn't a 4 year commitment you know. Oh, I
    	know it says that in big letters on the contract you signed. Yeah, 
    	I know all your records have the release and end-of-commitment 
    	date of May 28, 1991. But this is the military, we can break our
    	contracts legally. All the president has to do is to cut a new 
    	order. And he did. So you're 4 year commitment is now an "INDEFINITE" 
    	commitment to stay in the Marines as long as we want you to. Breach
    	of contract? Sure. Just try and sue us kiddo!"   <and several are>
               
    	Surprise, Surprise, We broke our contract. Golly high school kids,
    	didn't your parents tell you that the military was all about
    	killing people, and not to believe military people when they scream
    	otherwise, that it's not all about killing people, that it is about
    	being a manager, and being a typist, and overseeing defense
    	contracts. Nope. Should have listened to the sixties generation and
    	your parents kids, we the military lied to you. But too bad, once
    	we have our clutches on you kids, you can't get away. Just try.

>...and I still wonder why all these people who have gone through so
>many life changes since they enlisted didn't apply for CO before
>August.  That leads me to believe that the issue is _not_ a gradual
>change of life's philosophy, but a visceral reaction to being sent off
>to war. 

 Exactly. None of them seem to have a decent answer to that charge.

    There are a lot of things behind the "enlistment contract" that are
    spelled out in the Laws of the United States that are clearly beyond
    the reach of an 18 yr old.  However, the same is true of civilianism.
    I've often heard young people say "How was I supposed to know that?"
    
    There ought to be a class on "Life in general" in High School but
    I don't think it would be enough.
    
    ed

>>August.  That leads me to believe that the issue is _not_ a gradual
>>change of life's philosophy, but a visceral reaction to being sent off
>>to war. 
>
> Exactly. None of them seem to have a decent answer to that charge.
    
    Listen to the both of you...  judging other people's true feelings for
    whether they can really kill another human being.  The air of some the
    replies here feels like they must 'prove' it to you, you people who sit
    outside of the realm of ever having to face that question first hand.
    
    Part of me feels like it shouldn't even have to be qualified.  But again,
    some more different perspectives for why this may be...  reminds me of CCD.
    "Gee, all these people decided at the last minute that they aren't really
    Catholic anymore, just when time for Confirmation came? Sure seems odd to
    me.  Why the change all of a sudden? This leads me to believe it wasn't a
    gradual change as they went to masses."
    
    Yes, I _do_ think big events are often what forces us to decide what our
    feelings are about something, that often events make us sum up our feelings
    over the past months or years and put it all together into a decision.  How
    many other people have put off a big decision until 'something' happened,
    whether buying a new car or changing jobs or finally getting married.
    
    Another perspective...  it's not like you can just quit the military and
    say "I'm not 100% sure I can fire a rifle in the vague context of the
    future (not that anyone ever mentions or sees rifles around the office
    here), so I want another profession other than killing people".  Their
    reaction, "Who's killing people? Get back to your job of typing and filing
    those defense contracts." You're stuck in there for as long as the
    contract, if they're nice to you [since a commander can deny your 'request'
    to leave at end of your contract if he feels he needs you (or wants to pay
    you back for being pain)].
    
    Yet another perspective...  you are an important Air Force engineer
    managing several million dollar AF contracts.  You are being paid to be a
    project manager for the AF.  All of a sudden your unit is called to the
    Gulf.  All of a sudden you are not a project manager, but are assigned to
    be a fire team leader.  You don't think you'd think about guns more all of
    a sudden? You don't think you'd think about whether you can do the job of a
    fire team member, 'all of a sudden'? You don't think some won't scream
    "where's my HP calculator and what's this M-16 doing in my hands? I'm a
    Project Manager, not an infantryman!"
    
    I can see all these situations happening to people.  Either way I think it
    is wrong for people to judge if someone really is a CO, or a Catholic, or
    any other internal belief system.  I feel (for me) that people should take
    their word for it.  Unless you think you know better than them.
    
    

>I feel (for me) that people should take their word for it. 

 And so what should happen to these people? They should simply be allowed to
renege without penalty?

 If someone is REALLY a CO, then they won't mind spending a few years in the 
slammer and paying back all of the money that the government spent on educating 
them. Allowing them to walk away with no penalty invites massive abuse of
the government. Allowing them to simply pay back the money invites abuse of
the military as a secondary student loan device.

 In a volunteer army, I find it very difficult to respect someone who suddenly
decides that they are CO the very minute that the country calls upon them to
fulfill their part of the bargain. In a conscripted army it is much easier to
believe that the CO is a true reflection of deeply held belief rather than
expedient excuse to duck responsibility.

 I hold nothing against soldiers who are afraid. Lord knows I would be if I
were at the front lines. Heck, I'm fearful for my little brother's friend whose
in the 101st airborne. What I do have a problem with is people who allow fear
to override their sense of duty and honor and ethics, and claim CO for the
purpose of saving their arse. 

 "Taking their word for it" without reservation is tantamount to saying "all
of you who are afraid or don't really want to do this, line up here and we'll
discharge you." That's BS. That's an insult to those soldiers who are scared
sh!tless but remain at their posts regardless. It's an insult to every soldier
that has ever fought for this country from the revolutionary war on.

 As far as I'm concerned, a deal is a deal. Caveat emptor. Nobody forced them
to join the service. Let them serve out their terms.

 The Doctah

    > Yet another perspective...  you are an important Air Force engineer
    > managing several million dollar AF contracts.  You are being paid to be a
    > project manager for the AF.  All of a sudden your unit is called to the
    > Gulf.  All of a sudden you are not a project manager, but are assigned to
    > be a fire team leader.
    
    Erik, Are you just being silly?  This doesn't happen.  The USAF is
    a business.  Does DEC just throw untrained people at a job and say,
    "do it"?  Not if they want to be successful.  Similar considerations
    guide personnel assignments in the USAF.  If they've hired and trained
    you to do procurements, and put you in a unit that has procurements as
    its mission, then that's what you do.  Until they send you to another
    unit.  Your procurement unit is not going to be packed off to the Gulf.
    
    There are plenty of things to complain about in the way the services
    conduct their business.  Try complaining about real things that you
    know to be true, not such silly scenarios as you've made up here.
    
    DougO

    
    
    I joined a National Guard Unit in 1983. When I enlisted I knew that I 
    would have to go through Basic Training first. This was to give me the
    fundamentals of a combat soldier. Only after I completed basic training
    was I allowed to attend the schools for my M.O.S.  I was in a
    engineering unit.  My M.O.S. training qualified me for a position with
    my hometown guard unit and benefited me in the civilian world.
    
    When I went through basic training, it was drilled into me and every
    other soldier that was in my company that our primary and formost
    function was as a soldier.  The M.O.S. that each of us had signed up 
    for was secondary.  This was made very clear to everyone.
    
    I was fortunate enough to have a recruiter that was straight forward
    from the start, so I knew exactly what my commitment was. My point is
    that even if some people are misled by their recruiter, by the time
    they are completed with basic training they will know they are a
    soldier FIRST.  This is the time to say hey this is not what I signed
    up for and plead CO to get out of their contract.  What I disagree with
    are the people that take the training for 3,4,5, years and so forth and
    then when the Govt. calls in and says we need you as the soldier we
    trained you for.......  They then suddenly turn CO
    
    

    Many people in the military have "turned CO" prior to the Gulf Crisis,
    so there is nothing new about this phenomenon.  I don't believe that it
    was ever simply a matter of taking the word of CO applicants--at least
    not without some investigation of the application.  Well before this
    war started or even became a serious threat, the military had accepted
    many CO applications over time, and had also rejected some.

    -- Mike

    re .19
    
>    Erik, Are you just being silly?  This doesn't happen.  The USAF is
>    a business.  Does DEC just throw untrained people at a job and say,
>    "do it"?
    
    First, the military is not a business, although it may conduct
    business.
    
    Second, your analogy is very poor, because (and I speak from field
    experience) the answer to your question is: far too often, yes.

>    Erik, Are you just being silly?  This doesn't happen.  The USAF is
>    a business.  Does DEC just throw untrained people at a job and say,
>    "do it"?
    
    No DougO, unfortunately I'm not just being silly.
    
    Like bigun::simpson, these perspectives are from my field experience as
    well.
    
    re: doctah
    
    There are enough benefits and accolades and glories to being an American 
    war hero that our country and society heaps onto servicepeople that I 
    think it is not necessary to cut up the COs and other people who were
    faked out into combat positions but are not compatible with it. 
    Personally, I'd see sending a CO into battle as a great liability to a 
    fire team, not a benefit worth forcing them into. 

    Ah, ok, Erik, I'd like to hear about your field experiences, then.
    I was also in AFROTC.  I was commissioned as a reserve officer, and
    I happened to go to a procurement unit, the biggest; the AF Contract
    Management Division, one of the major divisions of Air Force Systems
    Command (the other five are Armaments Division at Eglin, Electronic
    Systems Division at Hanscom, Aeronautical Systems Division at W-P,
    Space Division at LAX, and ...hm.  Can't remember the other 'product'
    division in AFSC.)  AFCMD doesn't exist anymore, as of this year, but 
    I learned enough about the procurement mission to know they don't just
    pluck entire units out of that role and ship them off to the desert.
    
    So, your experiences?
    
    DougO

    The question was:
    
>    Does DEC just throw untrained people at a job and say, "do it"?
    
    and my answer was:
    
>    ... I speak from field
>    experience) the answer to your question is: far too often, yes.
    
    As far as the military side goes, I have little time and no respect for
    people who will swear an oath and then drop it like a hot potato when
    the crunch comes.  If people are old enough and mature to vote and
    drive and drink and do all those other adult things then they're damn well
    old enough to understand the meaning of an oath which commits them to
    'defending' one's country against its 'enemies'.  (I apostrophise those
    words only because the exact wording will vary from country to
    country).
    
    Two totally different things we're talking about here...

    	If the contracts are so complex and full of hidden implications as
    implied then maybe only those who write them should be allowed to sign
    them.
    
    	Maybe if only someone who has maturity  and experience of life is
    capable of knowing what they are doing, then only those over 35 should
    be allowed to sign such contracts, but since I believe that if you can
    sign a contract or vote for something you should be capable of taking
    *all* of the consequences this would mean raising the voting age to 35
    too.
    
    	Or maybe you should require an intelligence test to qualify for
    voting and signing military service contracts? I assume that the doctor
    referred to earlier would have failed.
    
    	To put the above in context, I was convinced in my early teens that
    I would spend my late teens in prison. Britain still had conscription.
    I knew there were some circumstances where I might kill, so I could not
    claim to be a CO. Equally I was not going to allow anyone else to take
    the the moral decision about such circumstances. Fortunately for me
    Britain abandonned conscription, so I was never obliged to stand up for
    this opinion.

>	And that is the key to this argument. What is a faulty contract?
>    	What is false advertising? Another question, why are recruiters
>    	allowed in high schools and given the air of legitimacy if the
>    	military service is really such a 'sucker deal'?, where pages and 
>    	pages of unwritten small print are designed to fool young people.

Erik, this may come as a shock to you, but telling part of the truth, 
verbally, as a sales pitch, is not illegal.  If the 18-year-olds are 
dumb enough to buy it without reading the contract first, then they 
own some responsibility for what they've done.  I knew about reading 
contracts before signing them since early high school; I don't think that 
it's too much of 18-year-olds, people who are generally considered 
"adults"--to read a contract carefully before then sign it, especially 
when the deal involves thousands of dollars and years of your life.  

The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, is for the person to admit
that, due to a maturing world-view, that the person's breaking a
contract signed years ago.  And, that the person feels so strong about
his new value system that she or he will take the consequences of the
broken contract. 

That's the adult thing to do.  Focusing on the tangental points of 
slick government salesmenship ("blaming" the government for a contract 
that they signed), classism of the military, sexism of the military, 
and racism of the military is childish and irresponsible, in my 
opinion.

>    	How about some more military surprises... "Hey, your '4-year'
>    	commitment really isn't a 4 year commitment you know. Oh, I
>    	know it says that in big letters on the contract you signed. Yeah, 
>    	I know all your records have the release and end-of-commitment 
>    	date of May 28, 1991. But this is the military, we can break our
>    	contracts legally. All the president has to do is to cut a new 
>    	order. And he did. So you're 4 year commitment is now an "INDEFINITE" 
>    	commitment to stay in the Marines as long as we want you to. Breach
>    	of contract? Sure. Just try and sue us kiddo!"   <and several are>

This sounds like good grounds for a lawsuit.  In this instance, I 
don't see it being irresponsible to sue the government.
               
>    	Golly high school kids,
>    	didn't your parents tell you that the military was all about
>    	killing people, and not to believe military people when they scream
>    	otherwise, that it's not all about killing people, that it is about
>    	being a manager, and being a typist, and overseeing defense
>    	contracts. Nope. Should have listened to the sixties generation and
>    	your parents kids, we the military lied to you. But too bad, once
>    	we have our clutches on you kids, you can't get away. Just try.

I agree with the military on this.  I'll repeat it, "Didn't your 
parents tell you that joining the military can involve wars and 
killing people???"  How gullible were these young men and women?  

And, let's say, for the sake of argument, that you honestly believed 
in your heart (regardless of the fact that you didn't read the 
contract carefully enough) that you would only be an engineer or a 
typist and wouldn't have to pick up a rifle, didn't you realize that 
you, through your engineering and typing, would be supporting war?  
That you would be keeping a large system in place whose main purpose 
is to serve the United States in armed combat?

What kind of people are those who engineer and type for a group that 
kills, and then pisses and moans when they are asked to kill instead 
of asked to support others who will kill?

Gimme a break!  Take some responsibility for what you do (and 
_support_).

							--Gerry

 I find it very hard to believe that the government would leave itself exposed
to lawsuits on such a massive scale as Erik's note implies. Surely the contract
must at least refer to the fact that the "contract" is unilaterally extensible.
And even if it doesn't, none of the COs are complaining because their contract
was extended. They are complaining because they might be forced to take orders 
they don't want to follow.

 The Doctah

    Getting back to our Dr. CO mentioned in the base note:
    
    I was talking to someone last night about this Doctor.  The doctor,
    it turns out, is a psychiatrist and the reason she gave for joining 
    was so that she could get more experience treating special cases,
    such as combat fatigue and post traumatic cases.
    
    This was heard second hand so I don't know if its actually true, but
    I wouldn't be surprised.
    
    Its hard for me to take all this when my cousin is flying a helicoptor
    gunship in the gulf.

    Mr Simpson (why can't I remember your first name?  I intend no slight)
    I understood your earlier comments, that the answer to the rhetorical
    question posed was "no", and that therefore my analogy wasn't good.
    So DEC isn't so smart as the USAF, as far as preparing people to handle
    their jobs in procurement.
    
    Now, you took issue with my statement, "The USAF is a business." 
    Perhaps I am too general.  A better statement would be, the USAF is a
    corporate entity.  By that I mean it has long range plans and
    approaches to its problems, and perhaps even moreso than a private
    business, as far as goes its regard for putting people with appropriate
    training into appropriate jobs, that will help the corporate entity
    accomplish its goals/achieve its missions.  And it is upon these
    grounds that I was disputing Mr DeBrie's claim that a procurement unit
    would get shipped off to the desert.
    
    Similarly, I would take issue with his characterization of the four
    year committment contract terms as something changeable at the whim of
    the president, and thus grounds for a lawsuit.  The President can
    extend tours of duty, yes, but only in two very specific cases: one,
    the Congress has declared a war, or two, the president has declared
    some state of National Emergency.  In those cases and no others, has
    the Congress passed laws that give the president the authority to
    extend tours, Erik's sensationalism to the contrary.
    
    DougO

> Try complaining about real things that you
>    know to be true, not such silly scenarios as you've made up here.
>
>        Ah, ok, Erik, I'd like to hear about your field experiences, then.
>    I was also in AFROTC.  I was commissioned as a reserve officer... in AFSC
>
>    So, your experiences?

  DougO,

  'Real' things??? Making it up?? You are clearly not asking because you want
  to know, but because you feel I am just 'making silly scenarios' (based on
  your own military paradigm).  Should I not trust what you voice from your
  experience either?

  Doug, you were very lucky to remain behind a procurement desk for your entire
  four years.  Most other people I know got swapped to other jobs at least once
  during that period.  That includes an ex-girlfriend who was also an Electrical
  Engineer in AFSC at W-P who is now commanding convoys on extended exercises
  out in the field on another continent.  No desk, no VOQ, no calculator, no
  engineering, just a tent and lots of mud.  Not quite what the picture ROTC
  painted of a graduate EE working in the AF.  How much is she using her EE
  education leading convoys? DEC doesn't throw away trained people and doesn't
  throw untrained people into a job and say 'do it', but the military does.
  [Isn't that one of their selling points? 'No experience required, get it
  here']

  How many times did you fire an M-16 in ROTC? (me - none, just shot a tiny
  revolver once as a day trip excursion at field camp one time, as sort of a
  pencil-whipping for the paperwork, further enhancing our ROTC view that AF
  officers don't shoot guns).  I didn't even know what a M-16 *was* after ROTC
  graduation and four years military training! (A tank?) How many times had you
  even heard of chem warfare ensembles in ROTC? (me - none).  The very idea of
  chem warfare wasn't even a concept in my mind back then.  What would they
  have said to you if you said "The military 'profession' is about killing
  people, right?" What would they have screamed at you as if you said the
  biggest lie? "Who knows the military, us or those peaceniks cadet!" But now,
  people are saying "Heck, didn't they know the military isn't about desk jobs
  and engineering and procurement but about killing and combat? How could they
  not know that."

  You were in four years and apparently you didn't even get that rift.  Did you
  buy into that "the Army does that combat stuff cadet" line too? (I did). 

  Now as for my own background...  I just deleted 200 lines of it.  I could go
  on and on from my military 'career'.  But it started reading like memoirs.
  And this isn't a very supportive file for sharing, so I won't offer that much
  of my private details in this audience.  It also has little to do with this
  topic, except relaying the fact of how many 'surprises' hit me and people I
  know in the military, and that the concept "You take the King's coin, you do
  the King's bidding" is an accurate one for the military.  [THAT should be the
  contract, right up-front and so clearly understood like that].

  At the beginning of my military 'career', I was of the frame of mind that if
  I bought something and it was broken, too bad, it was my own fault for being
  so stupid for buying it - live with it.  If a dealer had sold me a lemon of a
  car, too bad, live with it, it was my own fault for being so stupid for
  buying it.  If the military career wasn't as promised all thru four years of
  military training, too bad - if you were so stupid to trust the military,
  live with it.  So I did.  Proved I was a tough man I did.  [Now however if I
  am stiffed with a lemon car, broken merchandise, or a job radically different
  from the one I took - you bet I don't just sit and take it and 'live with it'
  like a sucker anymore.]

  These are to show that surprises do happen, I made my own judgments here for
  myself, however I am not judging that these are or are not reasons for other
  people to get out...

  My own background is similar to yours.  An EE in AFROTC.  I'll link together
  some of the 'surprises': 

  - From a man with a very impressive title, my ROTC 'Aerospace Studies'
  professor, I learned for three years that the AF was the 'best engineering
  experience in the world', "Why who do *you* think designs all them airplanes
  and electronic systems the AF has, freshman Erik? AF engineers of course." I
  was told I'd be doing EE design work like I was going to school for.  That's
  what I wanted to do.  He said 'join the AF, ROTC engineers do that work."
  After all 'Aerospace Studies' sounds like engineering, he must know.  So I
  joined.

  - Boy was I duped.  By senior year when we were already locked into program,
  they told us, "Well you don't really do the design work but you fill out AF
  mgt forms monitoring the company's engineers actually doing the actual design
  work.  Surprise, you're not an engineer but a project manager.  That's what
  we meant by engineering, because we like to have engineers filling out those
  paperwork." The first of many 'surprises'.  But I lived with it.

  - Like you Doug, I was slated to go to AFSC at Hanscom with ESD or AFSC at
  Wright-Pat too, but ended up assigned to a Civil Engineering Project Officer
  slot.  An EE as a CE? Yup.  Surprise! The official reason - "engineering is
  engineering.  And well, the AF doesn't do engineering but project management,
  so it doesn't really matter what the actual type of engineering is since
  you'll just be doing project mgt anyway." Let me tell you I had some fears of
  overseeing CE projects when I was an EE! But still I lived with it.

  - There I was, managing hefty-figure projects (like most afrotc grads, like
  you probably), when they said "We need an officer to direct CE projects at
  FOBs (forward operating bases) in the position to direct the building of
  bare-base airbases and runways on the frontlines from the dirt up and
  maintaining it.  You're a CE, well, you're in a CE mgt slot, so that's now
  your job.  Surprise! And btw, you won't be on a secured airbase anymore and
  that close to the frontlines you can't count on the Army to protect you in
  those situations," so they shoved an M-16 in my hand and handed me a chem
  warfare suit and said "better learn how to use these." But I lived with it.

  - And then one day they 'liked' the way I handled perimeter security during
  one extended 'prime beef' exercise so I became in charge of a fire team as
  well as commanding FOB Prime Beef CE operations.  A fire team! A fire team =
  combat.  A hell of a long way off from sitting at a desk with your trusty HP
  calculator doing EE design work. What a contract! But I lived with it.

  [BTW, if you were in the European theatre, you would have had opportunities
  for this to be done to you too, even in a procurement or other 'desk-job'
  slot from what I hear from my friends stationed there, including my
  ex-girlfriend.  AFSC in Con-US is somewhat pampered from the 'real' military,
  so they say.  Personally I think the entire AF is pampered from the rest of
  the 'real' military, based on what I heard from my enlisted people who are
  from all different services.  My W-P friends say they don't ever even talk to
  any enlisted there, that they felt like the lowest rank their as LTs.
  Meanwhile I was only one of 4 officers in charge of a whole squadron of
  enlisted CE tradesmen and infantrymen.  For me I was one of the higher ranks
  as an LT.  [PS- I got to hear in horrid detail about what the enlisted in all
  services think about rotc "90 Day Wonders".  They were all set to 'blanket
  party' me when I first came in just because the word 'rotc' preceded my
  arrival].

  So there I ended up standing in the mud leading fire teams with an M-16 in my
  hands and wearing a chem warfare ensemble, and saying "This is an AF
  Electrical Engineering career?" If DEC hired you as a design engineer but
  then once you're in, placed you as a janitor, would you stay there for four
  years? Probably not.  But in the military, they can surprise you, completely
  legally, in more ways than you'd ever thought possible - even as a college
  freshman, especially as a naive high school 18 yr old.  [How big would the
  military be if we only allow 35+ yr olds and quit suckering naive high school
  students??]

>    I learned enough about the procurement mission to know they don't just
>    pluck entire units out of that role and ship them off to the desert.

  As for all the other so-far protected desk-job staff in the reserves and
  Guards, I don't doubt for one moment that if it is decided by the republicans
  that politically it wouldn't do well for Bush to call a draft, that
  Guardspeople and Reservespeople won't be called into combat instead, no
  matter what cushy job or promises were made to them.  CE Project Managers and
  EE Procurement Officers in the Guards won't be shipped out with their units,
  huh? I think basing the entire military on your 'pampered' experience of just
  being in a AFSC slot is hardly a wise thing to do.  The Marines, Navy, and
  Army are hardly the AF, and AFSC is hardly even representative of the AF.
  IMO.

  I stayed in.  But I can truly understand people who were sold a lemon of a
  career wanting to break their faulty contract.  If the recruiters gave them
  all the wrong facts, I think they have a case.  In fact, I think people who
  do have far far more courage in standing up and saying "This wasn't our
  agreement" than the people who are just docily and passively being led to the
  latrine and back by the military, and who just 'live with it'.  Maybe that
  belongs in the "COURAGE" note.

  So there, that was my 'field experience'.  But I would hardly call it that,
  vs.  what the tougher REAL field experiences the Army and Marines have.  I'd
  rather not talk any more about those wasted four years though.  Gave me great
  insight into the way the military works but what a waste of time...
     
  -Erik (who has lived the rough tough macho 'real-man' role in the extremely
  non-Valuing_Diversity 1950's _conservative_ _male_ military environment)

    <<< Note 559.18 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Phase II: Operation Desert Storm" >>>
    
> In a volunteer army, I find it very difficult to respect someone who suddenly
>decides that they are CO the very minute that the country calls upon them to
>fulfill their part of the bargain. In a conscripted army it is much easier to
>believe that the CO is a true reflection of deeply held belief rather than
>expedient excuse to duck responsibility.
    
    I agree 100%.
    
    It ain't the fear thats getting them, its that these people signed
    up with the intention of never fighting for real.  I still believe 
    that there is a signicant population in the reserves
    and national guard who just signed up for the 'free' benefits, like
    it was just another part-time job.  I can remember in high school
    when kids were on ego trips because they were going into the marine
    reserves.  They were going to be the best.  They weren't going to 
    defend they're country, they just identified themselves as the best.
    
    Similarly, I suppose you can also say that about a majority of the 
    full-time services.  These people (men and women, remember) probably 
    had no place to go except into the service.  But they know that they
    have a job to do.  No exceptions.
    
    One of my best friends is in the marine special
    forces in Norfolk, VA.  He signed up over a year ago. He signed
    up for the marines becuase he wanted to protect and serve his country
    as a member of the best force in the world.  Its lucky for his wife
    and two infant children that he's assigned to guard NATO and not
    sneak into Baghdad.  He'd do it in a minute, with a smile on his face.
    
    I'm rambling ...
    
    
    

    Is anyone else having trouble with "CO" as the designation
    for Conscientious Objector?  I keep reading it as
    Commanding Officer...  It really flips me out when the
    context of the sentence demands "conscientious objector"
    and my mind says to me "commanding officer."
    
                          Wil

    
    	Time for a paradigm switch. :-)
    

>>>August.  That leads me to believe that the issue is _not_ a gradual
>>>change of life's philosophy, but a visceral reaction to being sent off
>>>to war. 
>>
>> Exactly. None of them seem to have a decent answer to that charge.
>    
>    Listen to the both of you...  judging other people's true feelings for
>    whether they can really kill another human being.  

No.  You misunderstand what I say.

I think that it is fine for a military person to decide not to go to 
war.  I am only saying that that person should accept responsiblity 
for that decision (and accept the consequences) and not pawn it off as 
the government "tricking" them.  

I have made no judgements as to whether someone should or should not 
want to kill someone or as to what they might be feeling.

Please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying, Erik.

							--Gerry

>What kind of people are those who engineer and type for a group that 
>kills, and then pisses and moans when they are asked to kill instead 
>of asked to support others who will kill?

    Gerry, they're called 1-A-O conscientious objectors.  While I
    personally would not choose to opt for 1-A-O for precisely that
    reason--I don't see a moral distinction between pulling a trigger and
    helping someone else pull the trigger--others apparently disagree, and
    these people are recognized by the U.S. military and are assigned a
    special selective service class.  This is a distinct class from 1-O.

    -- Mike

    re .31,
    
    Thanks, Erik.  I really did want to know.  Your account suggests to me
    that there were many aspects of your contract you didn't understand
    when you signed up.  An EE assigned to CE work, yeah, that isn't much
    fun.  Actually, I wasn't a procurement officer; I was in a procurement
    unit as a computer systems support officer.  You can imagine how many
    CS grads the AF gets vs how many it needs, so there wasn't any chance
    they'd assign me to do CE (for which I wasn't trained nor competent).
    And once they'd gotten me, there was no way my unit wanted me to go
    seek another assignment, so they didn't push too much of that gung-ho
    macho kaka my way; they stayed out of my way, and let me run their
    systems and networks.  Built my first VAXcluster there, and lots else.
    
    I didn't fire an M16 in ROTC, but, like you, spent a day firing a .38
    at a range during 'camp'.  I trained on the M16 later, while on active
    duty, because there were people in my unit who arranged training for
    the rest of us, if we wanted to participate.  Voluntary, 'just in
    case'.  Acknowledging that who knew, if we got sent, say, to Belgium on
    the F16 CAS program, and something happened while we were there, who
    knew what we might need to be able to accomplish?  Better to be prepared.
    
    >  even heard of chem warfare ensembles in ROTC? (me - none).  The very 
    > idea of chem warfare wasn't even a concept in my mind back then.  What 
    > would they have said to you if you said "The military 'profession' is 
    > about killing people, right?" What would they have screamed at you as 
    > if you said the biggest lie? "Who knows the military, us or those 
    > peaceniks cadet!"
    
    Definately sounds like your ROTC training didn't encourage you to
    understand the nature of the profession nor the positions you'd be in. 
    I can't say my ROTC training was so useless.  All those engineering
    projects you wanted to build, what was their purpose?  Wanted to be 
    involved in building jets, freshman Erik?  But they never told you what
    was done with jets?  Never told you some of the lessons of Vietnam?
    I'm don't mean that in a condescending way, but it really sounds to me
    like you didn't get the training ROTC was supposed to provide.
     
    I remember the 4th year instructor I had in the Aerospace Studies
    curriculum; a senior captain, had spent time enlisted, had spent time
    on assignment at NSA.  He turned me on to a book I've used to
    explore many, many aspects of social change, and upon which I based
    my final paper in his class.  Its a book I've even quoted here in
    mennotes, when I was trying to explain my views of social change to
    Mike Zarlenga.  "Revolutionary Change", 2nd Ed, by Chalmers Johnson.  
    It was that sort of learning, questioning, and investigating the ways 
    not only our society, but other societies worked; and what part a 
    military organization could play in the very fabric of it's society, 
    that I was taught in my AFROTC classrooms.  (My paper applied Johnson's
    book to several societies in South America, and how their own military
    cultures and US military interventions over the past 100 years have 
    shaped those societies.)  Sorry to hear they didn't give you a similar
    understanding in your AFROTC classes.  They were supposed to.
    
    I'd imagine that the experience you gained from command of enlisted
    troops wasn't so worthless as you've painted it; while granted, it
    wasn't what you expected you'd learn.  You know, I vaguely remember
    some of the hype you mention, but I never remember trusting it; I knew
    what my contract had said, I knew there was no way to guarantee any
    particular assignment unless they promised it in writing, and I knew,
    as a CS officer, how lucky I was to be running VAXes.  I coulda got
    stuck running obsolete SAGE, IBM, Burroughs, or Cyber trash in some
    missile hole in Wyoming, or [*shudder*] at SAC in Omaha, or at Minot
    North Dakota.  Yes, there were awful assignments to be had, and I was
    out there at risk of being assigned to them.  They didn't keep any
    promises to me, and I wasn't looking for them to.  So perhaps my slot
    was 'pampered'.
    
    > I stayed in.  But I can truly understand people who were sold a lemon 
    > of a career wanting to break their faulty contract.  If the recruiters 
    > gave them all the wrong facts, I think they have a case.
    
    Well, and there it is, the difference in expectations.  I knew and
    accepted what was in my contract.  You didn't know, and you accepted
    it, and you find it helps you understand people who want to break their
    contracts now.  Well...I don't dispute your experience.  But I don't
    agree with your conclusion, either.  I think people who sign up for the
    military owe it to themselves to know what they're getting into, and to
    take responsibility for their own actions.  You accepted that
    responsibility, and met your committments.  Why would you expect less
    of others?
    
    DougO

RE: .27

	Gerry, we  have  different  perspectives  and  I  think  it  is a great
	discussion  to  air  them.   Let's keep this in good will, OK? And just
	exchange our different ways of looking at things. (Just re-affirming).

>Erik, this may come as a shock to you, but telling part of the truth, 
>verbally, as a sales pitch, is not illegal.  

	I am not shocked, you are right.  However, there is also the 'intent of
	contract'  too.   My  Am.  Law classes in high school were a while ago,
	but  isn't  the  intent  part  of  the equation too? IE, a door-to-door
	vacuum cleaner salesperson can't sell an ederly person a vacuum cleaner
	and  then  on  the form have in extremely hard-to-read small print that
	the  sale  of  the  vacuum  cleaner results in them losing their house.
	INTENT  is  a  powerful  factor in the 'broken contract' equation, if I
	remember properly.  How do the laws around false advertising and faulty
	contracts work?

>it's too much of 18-year-olds, people who are generally considered 
>"adults"--to read a contract carefully before then sign it, especially 
>when the deal involves thousands of dollars and years of your life.  

	I agree with you that kids should be told that they have to read all of
	the  contract.   I  agree that the military should be portrayed in high
	schools and by parents as the 'profession of killing people'.

	However, there  are pages and pages and pages of very hard to interpret
	contracts  to  read.   What  is  the  reading level of the average high
	school  grad? S/he is going to be able to understand legalese? No, what
	happens  is  the trust thing.  IMO.  "Gee, my Dad served and he said it
	was  Ok and my high school counselor pushes that the military as a good
	"career  choice"  and  it's  in  my high school, so it can't be a scam.
	These  people  are the US gov't, I trust them." And the pages and pages
	of  contracts get signed in one sitting.  [How many kids bring a lawyer
	with  them,  like  we  adults  do  to  our  mortgage  contract signings
	involving 'thousands of dollars and years of our life'?]

	A high   school   would  not  let  a  college  come  into  school  that
	discrimintaes  against  women  or  that  discrimintaes against gays and
	lesbians  or  a company that suckered students into jobs other than the
	ones  promised  to  them.  But the military is there.  I feel we should
	get  rid of that 'trust relationship' between school, authority, school
	counselors, and the military.

>I agree with the military on this.  I'll repeat it, "Didn't your 
>parents tell you that joining the military can involve wars and 
>killing people???"  How gullible were these young men and women?  

	That's funny  Gerry.   Just  try asking somebody in the military if the
	military  is  about  killing people.  I know what was screamed at me by
	countless  rotc  students and staff when they heard that hideous phrase
	"killing people." 

>What kind of people are those who engineer and type for a group that 
>kills, and then pisses and moans when they are asked to kill instead 
>of asked to support others who will kill?

	I dunno,  I  think  the  difference between pulling the trigger to kill
	somebody  yourself  and  supporting  your  fellow  Americans  is  a big
	distinction  for  people.   Are  all  the  anti-war  Congresspeople and
	activists willing to fire a gun at someone when they say "I support the
	troops"  or they send a care package of cookies to the Gulf? Or sitting
	in  MD  creating  all the versions of new AF forms or doing AF payroll?
	There  are  many methods of support.  And I think for many people there
	is  a  big  distinction  between the two.  IMHO, many people who say "I
	support  the  troops"  don't  mean to be saying that they would like to
	actually pull the trigger and kill other wo/men themselves.

	-Erik                                            

RE: .37 DougO    

>    Thanks, Erik.  I really did want to know.

	Thanks Doug [or is it DougO? :-)]

>  Your account suggests to me
>    that there were many aspects of your contract you didn't understand

	Yeah, I'll  admit to that.  Some other things I'll admit to not knowing
	until  just  recently  -  that  the  National  Guard  mission went from
	'protect the homefront' to a pure combat role deploying with the active
	duty  forces..   And  that  the  standard  'four-year' commitment isn't
	really  a  four-year  commitment,  that  it can be extended without your
	knowledge or permission.

>    I'm don't mean that in a condescending way, but it really sounds to me
>    like you didn't get the training ROTC was supposed to provide.
>     
>    explore many, many aspects of social change, and upon which I based

	Social change?  In *rotc*!! I'm flabbergasted! You sure had a different
	unit than I did!

	Sure, we  read  books about the military's roles in society, but it was
	all  about  power  and  the dangers of communism and military glory and
	resistance  to  progressive  change  (our AS profs spoke with pride how
	they  resisted  those 'weird radical hippies' Vietnam war protesters on
	campus)  and  about the conservative agenda and how rampant nationalism
	is  OK  when  we  do  it  but  bad  when the Germans do it.  They never
	mentioned  women  or  women's issues (not in a non-derogatory sense) or
	any  other  progressive  ideology.   Pretty much the same as I've found
	outside  ROTC,  very  conservative  and male dominated opinions (of the
	1950's).

	Oh, and we must have spent almost a whole year on learning all those AF
	acronyms. :-)

>    I'd imagine that the experience you gained from command of enlisted
>    troops wasn't so worthless as you've painted it; while granted, it

	So worthless?  No.  It was a lot of traditional management training, in
	the  old KITA style of doing it anyway.  But to someone who at the time
	did  not  want mgt as a career, it certainly seemed so.  I also learned
	how to wash mud off boots quickly and how to iron fatigues w/o an iron.
	[:-)]

>   They didn't  keep any promises to me, and I wasn't looking for them to.

	Well there's  a big difference right there.  I think many people expect
	the  military  to  keep  up on its side of the bargain, or else they'll
	drop  theirs.  I wonder if it is any different for people on the inside
	track,  ie,  how  many sons & daughters growing up with a parent in the
	military join it afterward, and what their expectations of their career
	are... if any different.

>    responsibility, and met your committments.  Why would you expect less
>    of others?

	You know,  I  really  wouldn't  want them to go thru what I had to.  My
	older  friends have given me some very cynical sides at times.  This is
	one.   Often  I feel people push other people into doing something just
	because  they  had  to do it too.  I took the WPI Comp, I think all the
	future  students  should  have  to suffer it too.  I had to get married
	before  I  could  have  sex, I think you have to too.  I had to walk to
	school, I think you should have to too.  I had to be in the military, I
	think  all 18 yr olds have to too.  [I esp.  hate when they say "Suffer
	it, it'll make you a MAN."] No, I wouldn't want them to have to go thru
	it too.  

	AKA "Euu, this is *terrible*.  Here, you taste it." :-)

	-Erik

    I was thinking about this note and came up with:
    
    She got off with a "Less that Honorable" discharge which is a
    slap on the wrist really.  Was that the result of a political decision
    to minimize the publicity?  Was it sexist in that some guy who does
    the same thing gets 10 years and a DD?  [Only time will tell on this
    last one.]
    
    I think it was political.  She should have gotten a couple of years.
    
    ed

Don't be too quick to assume she got off easy.  A "Less than Honorable
Discharge" will haunt her for many years as she looks for work.  My brother
found this out...

				Steve

[Please don't give me condescending orders on how to note, Erik.   
I promise not to do that to you.  Thank you.]

>>Erik, this may come as a shock to you, but telling part of the truth, 
>>verbally, as a sales pitch, is not illegal.  
>
>	I am not shocked, you are right.  However, there is also the 'intent of
>	contract'  too.   My  Am.  Law classes in high school were a while ago,
>	but  isn't  the  intent  part  of  the equation too? IE, a door-to-door
>	vacuum cleaner salesperson can't sell an ederly person a vacuum cleaner
>	and  then  on  the form have in extremely hard-to-read small print that
>	the  sale  of  the  vacuum  cleaner results in them losing their house.
>	INTENT  is  a  powerful  factor in the 'broken contract' equation, if I
>	remember properly.  How do the laws around false advertising and faulty
>	contracts work?

1)  Good luck proving that they intended something different than what 
the contract said.  All they have to do is verbally use words like 
"most" and "usually," and they are off the hook.  

2)  You are still not addressing my main theory, made in my first note: 
this really isn't about contract law and changing world view 
(otherwise, we would have seen large numbers of lawsuits and Con. Ob. 
applications in previous years); this is about a knee-jerk reaction to 
the possibility of having to go to war.  The rest is tangental excuse 
making (in my opinion).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm out of this discussion.  I've given enough so that people should 
be able to understand my current opinions.  I'm going to shift to 
listening mode to see if I can learn something new.


							--Gerry

    
    4 years?  Read the contract. It says 6 years.  Min enlistment. You
    might do 6 months, 1 year, 2, 3, or 4, active but the contract is for 6.
    
    My recruiter was very honest to me.  He told me that I would be able to 
    get ANYTHING I wanted when I was in the Navy.  He meant it too. 
    
    As far as the service "types" in the Middle whatever. They want to be
    there.  They are enlisting, re-enlisting and volunteering to go to fight.
    The best time to be in the service is when there is a "war" on.  
    
    I had one of the most dangerous jobs in the Navy.  Pressing pants.
    Now that took courage and stamina... You would not believe the size
    of some of the buts that are in the service just marking time.  
    I get my 20, I'm outa here... This attitude is rampant and it is what
    lead me to get out of the RESERVES.  Not many "co's" there.  
    
    Just get rid of the august "co's".  Give them lots of EMI.
    Discharge under less than Honorable and extract/nomercy on their bankbook.  
    
    anchors aweigh...
    
    

    re .41, Steve, this may be one area where reverse sexism exists.  I'm
    not sure that having a less than honorable discharge will make it any
    harder for a woman to obtain a job.  Since most women are never in the
    military anyway, most employers don't expect women to list it on their
    resumes.  If she never mentions she was in the service nobody will ever
    know.  
    
    I was in the army for awhile and got an honorable discharge due to
    "apathy" but I certainly don't list it on my resume, and nobody would
    ever dream I was in the military unless I told them.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    
    	... as Lorna points out ...  Chances are her service record will
    NOT matter much in civilian life.  With that in mind maybe she should
    have been sentenced to some number of years of prison time equivalent
    to the remainder of her enlistment period in the reserves.  Then this
    prison record could (perhaps) be worked out over an extended period
    as public service without her actually being put "behind bars" and
    yet the principle of punishment appropriate to the crime would have
    been served and she would then have to list her "prison record" on a
    job application ... or lie about it by ommission.
    
    	Seeing anybody sleeze by our legal system just because they are
    NOT WASP males seems to diminish the concept of "equality" that women
    and minority rights activists wish to see as the standard in America!
    
    ~--e--~  eagles believe harm is done to causes by "political" solutions
     

re: .42
    
>[Please don't give me condescending orders on how to note.
>I promise not to do that to you.  Thank you.]
    
    	Ditto.
    

    I call it desertion, not CO. Failure to perform in a time of declared
    war. She got less than a tap on the wrist. She should have done hard
    time for 10 years at Levenworth.
    
    You can make all of the excuses in the world for these people. The
    important thing that all have to remember is that everyone KNOWS that
    armies have throughout history fought and died. End of story.
    
    You join the army, navy, whatever. You have to know that it could
    result in service in combat. That's drilled into you at basic and
    throughout your career. The first time they stick a weapon in your hand
    and you participate in weapons training, a precedent is set that you
    will kill on command. At the time they hand you the weapon, you have
    the opportunity to reject it and the action. If in the little recesses
    of your devious little mind you file a note that says you won't play
    for real, you've frauded the government and misrepresented yourself.
    
    Once they had her, they should have shipped her butt to the front! 
    
    I wonder if I, US taxpayer could sue her for theft of my tax dollars???
    
    Ken

    re: .last
    
    	Agree with your sentiment that everyone should know the true
    	terrible nature of the military, but wanted to point out:
    
    	- 'basic' for an officer is not the same as Basic Training for an
    	enlisted, especially in the AF anyway, where she is serving.
    
    	- I doubt very much that medics are ever given a weapon or weapons
    	training. Wouldn't be surprised if for most officers in the AF, the
        very first time they are given a M-16 in their hands, is when they
    	are being used to fill the draft.
    
    >important thing that all have to remember is that everyone KNOWS that
    >armies have throughout history fought and died. End of story.
    
    	May sound like a stupid question, but the image is (and young
    	people will ask it):
    
    	"Yeah, the Army does that and always has. But what about the
    	high-tech Air Force? They just fly planes, right? Only the Army
    	shoots the guns."  <WRONG>
                                                                   
        

    .47> I call it desertion, not CO.

    Precisely.  Had this person been in my unit I *guarantee* you that
    court-martial proceedings would have been initiated.  If you really
    want to screw up the rest of your life there's nothing like a
    dishonorable discharge to get you started ....

    I remember well the turkey who, when he found out that he was going to
    Vietnam, decided that he was gay .... I escorted (read that "drug") him
    to what was called STB (Special Training Battalion -- a hell hole to be
    sure) ... he cried (big ol' crocodile tears) the whole time .... 

    Turned out that he was gay (probably) and I made damned sure that he
    got a dishonorable discharge ...

    I, along with Mr. Kupton, think that he should have done a minimum of
    10 years hard labor but a dishonorable discharge was the best that we
    could do at the time ... personally, I hope that he was never able to
    hold a job or the remainder of his life ....

    Sorry, I have no tolerance for that type of person ... am I that
    "evil"?

    Jerry
    1st Division, USMC

    
    > To Hell with 'em ....
    	&
    >  Sorry, I have no tolerance for that type of person ... am I that
    > "evil"?
    
    	You aren't a General. Jerry.
    
    	Just better hope that your male & female commanding officers
    	approve of your 'rough treatment' decisions and have your reasons 
    	for that decision and the case well documented. The reasons above
    	hardly cut it.
    
    	-Erik
    	3rd Squadron, USAF

.50> You aren't a General. Jerry.

    Immaterial ... Private First Class or 4-Star General ... makes no
    difference.
    
.50> Just better hope that your male & female commanding officers
.50> approve of your 'rough treatment' decisions and have your reasons 
.50> for that decision and the case well documented.

    "..rough treatment...?" ... war is rough ... I don't want turkeys like
    that anywhere NEAR me when the lead starts flying .... I don't want 'em
    in the service ... 

.50> The reasons above hardly cut it.
    
    Wrong.  Not one dissenting vote when we mustered the turkey out.  I'd
    do it again, today, in a heartbeat.

    Jerry

    "..rough treatment...?" ... war is rough ... I don't want turkeys like
    that anywhere NEAR me when the lead starts flying .... I don't want 'em
    in the service ... 

Turkeys like what Jerry? Homosexuals or people who are trying to get out of
the service? If the latter, and you "don't want 'em in the service" I would
think you could cut a deal. If the former - I don't think I have anything
more to say to you.

	-- Charles

    re .50
    
    You know, Erik, it's increasingly clear that you don't have the
    faintest understanding of the requirements of a combat unit.  They
    don't have the luxury you enjoyed of worrying about sensitivities. 
    They absolutely require the confidence that when they're fighting
    against a bunch of bastards on the other side equally intent on killing
    them that everybody around them will stand and fight with them.  There
    is simply no room for people who betray that trust.  I'm willing to bet
    that Jerry's fellow officers gave next to no thought for the way he
    handled the miscreant - because they knew too that people who run away
    when the going gets tough can get them killed as well.

    RE: .53
    
    >You know, Erik, it's increasingly clear that you don't have the
    >faintest understanding of the requirements of a combat unit.  They
    >don't have the luxury you enjoyed of worrying about sensitivities. 
    
    	And that was just the point. I am not a Marine. The AF is not run
    	like the Marines. Yet from what I'm hearing from civilians
    	unfamiliar with the military, is that they expect AF people to be
    	Marines, under the image that all the military is like that 'rough
    	and tough' Marine image.
    
    	AF engineers don't have guns. AF base hospital medics don't either.
    	The services operate differently. Try playing out Jerry's management 
    	decisions in an AF Enginnering office office-space. If an AF
    	officer had displayed the same 'brutality', it would have resulted
    	much much differently in an AF office environment. I would have
    	handled it quite a bit differently, to say the least.
    
    	[And fwiw, on my own behalf, I've spent enough time as a fire team
    	leader that I think I have more than a 'faint understanding' of a
    	combat unit. Albeit, not a Marine one].

>   "..rough treatment...?" ... war is rough ... I don't want turkeys like
>    that anywhere NEAR me when the lead starts flying .... I don't want 'em
>    in the service ... 

.52> Turkeys like what Jerry? Homosexuals or people who are trying to get out of
.52> the service?

    The "people who are trying to get out of the service" class of
    individuals.  I really don't give a flying damn if a person is black,
    white, yellow, brown, straight, gay, undetermined, transsexual,
    bisexual, butcher, baker, candlestick maker ... or whatever.  I could
    care less .... BUT ... when you raise your right hand and swear a oath,
    I anticipate that you will live up to it ... you're going to follow
    orders ... if you are subordinate to me, you'll follow my orders - if
    you don't - you're history.  That's the way that it is in the military
    - if you don't like it then change it - but - until then, that's the
    way that is is.

    Clear?  Good.

    Jerry

    PS - Just for the record ... had it not been for a Marine that was as
    queer as the day is long I wouldn't be here right now ... he pulled my
    butt out of a fire fight and saved my life when we got shot up by the
    VC ... he's dead now ... direct hit from a VC rocket attack, but believe
    me, he'd puke if he could see most of the stuff written there.  Please,
    don't give me any condensing crap about homosexuals in the military ...
    when you put that uniform on you're FIRST a Marine and somewhere down
    the line you're ... homosexual.
    
    Clear?  Good.

.55> I am not a Marine. The AF is not run like the Marines.

    No, it's not ... and .. I really don't care .... what I DO care about
    it that when I call for an air strike at some coordinates .. I want the
    strike WHERE I called for and the TIME I called for and with the
    ordinance that I call for.

    We work as a  T E A M - nothing more and nothing less.  It was drilled
    through my head from the first day of boot camp that EVERY piece of
    ordinance exist for ONE AND ONLY ONE REASON and that is to get the foot
    soldier to his objective .. all the way from the guy who's got his
    fingers on the missiles to the guy who's washing dishes in some rear
    area ... as Patton said, "this individuality stuff is a bunch of crap".

    This dissension between the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard
    ... makes me sick to my stomach .... 

    Jerry

>    Turned out that he was gay (probably) and I made damned sure that he
>    got a dishonorable discharge ...

 Because he was gay?

    re Jerry Beeler, you seem to have no understanding for the fact that
    some people enlist in the military and later discover that they are not
    suited for that life.  Everyone is not suited for the military way of
    life.  I would think it would be best for everyone concerned to
    discharge these people as soon as possible and get them out of the way. 
    Why should someone be treated so badly just because they don't have the
    temperament to adapt to military life?  The same person might have a
    great deal to contribute to society in another area.  
    
    Sometimes people, especially very young people in their late teens or
    early 20's, make mistakes.  They think they might want something and
    then after trying it out for awhile find out they were mistaken.  It
    could be a particular major in college, a certain job, a marriage or
    the military.  The majority of people who enlist in the military stay
    in, so I think there could be a little compassion for those who made a
    mistake by enlisting.  All people are not suited for all jobs, and that
    includes the military as well as anything else.
    
    I don't know you well enough to say that I think you are "evil" but I
    do think, from your notes, that you do show a lack of compassion and
    understanding for those who think differently about things than you do.
    
    Lorna
    
    

.59> I read someplace that the Air Force's *least* favorite mission
.59> is ground support.

    The least "favorite" of any air support unit ... you've got to go in at
    very low altitudes ... for the most part ...and slow ... you're a sitting
    target for SAMs and AA ... a great deal of the time multiple passes are
    required.  It's not a "fun" place to be ....

    Jerry

    I deleted .59 because this isn't the right topic for it.
    
    Thanks for the answer though...
    

    re .60
    
>    suited for that life.  Everyone is not suited for the military way of
>    life.  I would think it would be best for everyone concerned to
>    discharge these people as soon as possible and get them out of the way. 
    
    The beef really isn't with those people.  I don't know about in the US
    but the Australian Army has alway taken a somewhat lenient view of
    people who go AWOL and desert - in peacetime.  Sure, the MPs will make
    an effort, but if the guy is dead-set keen on getting out that way then
    rather than waste too much taxpayer's money they'll just sign a nasty
    form kicking him out and forget about it.
    
    The beef is with people who stick it out right up until the point when
    they're called to make it all worthwhile.  They don't decide they're 'not
    suited' as long as they are getting what they want out of the system -
    but when push comes to shove they bail out.

    I hope they sent you the ordnance you wanted and left the ordinances
    for the company clerks.
    
    :-)  Just trying to lighten this up.
    
    ed

.60> re Jerry Beeler, you seem to have no understanding for the fact that
.60> some people enlist in the military and later discover that they are not
.60> suited for that life.

    Please do not judge my compassion or understanding by this very
    imperfect medium ... I have a great deal of "understanding" for those
    who are not suited for a military life.  As Mr. Simpson stated, I'd
    rather get 'em out as soon as possible .. but... how long do you wait? 
    
    After completion of boot camp?  After the completion of advanced combat
    training ... After a year of service ... after two years of service?

    Where do you suggest that my unbounded compassion and understanding end
    and my desire to knock 'em side the head begin?

.60> I don't know you well enough to say that I think you are "evil" but I
.60> do think, from your notes, that you do show a lack of compassion and
.60> understanding for those who think differently about things than you do.

    To know me is to love me :-) ... the operative phrase here is "...from
    your notes..."  Please do not judge *anyone* from their notes ...  I've
    been a student of notes ever since the prototype days and believe me,
    those with whom you most violently dislike in notes ... you'd probably
    find them to be your best friend outside of notes ... I even fell in
    love (seriously) with one of my worst notes_enemies after we managed to
    meet face to face!

    To judge a person by their notes is a serious mistake and you are
    depriving yourself of what could possibly be a new and close
    friendship...

    Jerry

    PS - I'll be in New England around the first of March and if you're
    located there ... you can buy me dinner and we can get acquainted :-)
    

>    Sometimes people, especially very young people in their late teens or
>    early 20's, make mistakes.  They think they might want something and
>    then after trying it out for awhile find out they were mistaken.  It
>    could be a particular major in college, a certain job, a marriage or
>    the military.
    
    	I think this is saying that a marriage contract, a military
    contract, another employment contract, a mortgage contract, 
    possibly any other contract, should be cancellable by "very young people" 
    without any problem or penalty.
    
    	While I agree that the law should protect minors and idiots I would
    hope to see a consistent definition of what constitutes a minor or
    idiot. It is not clear which of the two the doctor referred to earlier
    is claiming to be, and either she or someone responsible for her should
    make a clear statement.
    
    	If repudiation of a contract can be based on just "I made a
    mistake" then you can expect that insurance companies will *never* pay
    out (they just calculated the odds wrongly) and in any sale possesion
    becomes ten tenths of the law instead only nine.
    
    	Actually it would make the U.S. a lot more productive. Since
    contract law would be unenforceable there would be hundreds of contract
    lawyers unemployed and looking to design the next range of computers
    and operating systems.
    
    	I agree that it is not worth an organisation keeping someone on the
    books who *will* not fulfill requirements, but I would argue that the 3
    'M's (military, mafia, morgage company) should execute a contract in
    the same way.

>    Turned out that he was gay (probably) and I made damned sure that he
>    got a dishonorable discharge ...

.58> Because he was gay?

    Excuse me Herr Doctah ... bad choice of words ... that should have read:

	    	 "...but I damned sure ...."
        	     ^^^
    The implication being that I really don't care what his/her/it sexual
    orientation is ... I did my best to see to it that a dishonorable
    discharge was issued.  [When I was in the Corps, homosexuals got
    dishonorable discharges ... I believe that has since changed to
    "General Discharge"].

    Jerry

I have no problem with people who enlist and then discover they are not cut out
for the military life.

I have a soft spot for people who discover this fact shortly after getting 
orders to go to a fire fight - its a bog in Killarney!

Once in, and past basic training, you have an obligation to get down and get 
dirty, when the chips are down.

Try and leave and you'll be arrested. And if you are shot trying to escape I'll
shed no tears.

There is only one place for individuals in the military: the 'ghosts' of
military intelligence. Even special forces (US Delta force, British SAS/SBS)
fight in pairs.

/. Ian .\

.68> ...if you are shot trying to escape I'll shed no tears.
    
    At Parris Island the swamp surrounding the island took care of most of
    those "problems".
    
    Jerry

  I've been watching this one and wanting to reply but I have bit my tongue
  because of the controversy around this touchy subject!

  First of all, I should mention that I have mixed feelings about the war
  but I do SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!!  I have pro's and con's which I won't
  get into because the subject at hand is "CO's".

  My main question is, and probably was asked in here earlier but, "If
  you are a CO, why in the hell are you enlisting in the first place?"
  If I recall correctly, all the motto's of all our services are just
  like the police force, "To Protect and to Serve".  If you can't understand
  those words, then you better go back to junior high.
  
  It has been mentioned by someone previously that not everyone goes through
  the same training and that medics aren't "probably" issued a weapon!
  BS!!!!  

  All personnel in the service MUST qualify with a weapon!  In combat zones
  medics have the option of carrying a weapon.  Most of them carried .45's
  since they have to have their hands free to render aid and rifles are 
  a little bulky.

  Everyone, enlisted and officer material, go through basic training.
  Why do you think they call it "Basic Training"?  While in the service
  most people who were kwown "CO's" became medics, solely because they
  weren't required to carry weapons.  However, when I have talked with
  Vietnam Vets down at the DAV, those same medics were the targets of 
  the VC's, because they knew the medic's usually wouldn't shoot back, 
  and if they wounded or killed a medic, that meant one less medic to
  fix up the soldiers that were doing the shooting.

  It was also mentioned that the young don't know what they are getting
  into.  Well, that could be true and unfortunately, enlisted people have 
  no real recourse except AWOL or desertion.  They may be able to get someone
  in politics to help but it's tough.  If you are an officer, then they
  can "resign" from the military service.  (I alway's thought that was 
  unfair but RHIP).

  In peacetime, I have no problem working with CO's, because this is 
  America, the Land of the Free.  However, I could never understand why
  they enlisted.  Did they want free room and board?  Obviously.  Did
  they think the service OWED them something?  Apparently so.

  I would have NO PROBLEM AT ALL against extending the contract of 
  a CO who refused to go to battle after having taken the bennies for a
  couple of years.  Just extend their contract to the length that they
  have already been in, take 3/4 of their pay, and after their time
  is up, give them a BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge).

  Maybe another topic should be started (if I haven't overlooked it)
  "Why do CO's enlist in the 'Armed' Services"?

  
  Thanks,

  Kenn

    > If you are an officer, then they can "resign" from the military service. 
    > (I alway's thought that was unfair but RHIP).
    
    Eh.  Not quite.  An officer can resign their commission.  If they still
    have a contract with a time committment, resigning their commisssion
    means serving the rest of the time as an enlisted troop.   Doesn't
    happen all that much; no matter how bad one hates being an officer, 
    one doesn't try to improve on it by joining the enlisted ranks!
    
    After one's initial time committment has been met, you periodically
    renew for another 2 or 3 or 4 years (Congress changes the rules every
    couple of years.)  Or get out then.
    
    DougO

    re .60  I think you sum up my position on the Beeler notes Lorna.
    They sure comes across as non compassionate and not very understanding
    of other points of view. 
    
    Its great to take the send me a Rambo style mans man to go into combat
    with ME.... nothing less will do, but... I don't know how one knows how
    another is going to act during combat until they get into combat.  I
    agree that there are certain preliminary signs such as being a C/O
    which would indicate that a person has the 'wrong' attitude to enter
    combat but other than that I don't know how you would know beforehand. 
    (I am assuming that all get appropriate training before hand).