Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For one reason, it's an all volunteer military.
Secondly, the article states that she said she wasn't going no matter what.
You take an oath; you live by it.
This is not WWII.
Seriously.
Now lets review:
Go back and read the first two words of my post..."Even in". Now please stop reading in what's not there and try to read what is.
Because it gives CD members a chance to express opinion on a variety of topics like this woman's personal case and her motives or not. The decision of the military to not court martial.
It also gives the opportunity to discuss single parent status, where is the father in all this? The article stated 5% of listed personel are single parents. Are the military rules fair as is both for the military and enlisting people regarding parenting or should it be changed? Should single parents not be allowed to enlist? Was the military's decision to lenient?
All these things can be discussed.
I cannot feel sorry for her, because these people hands are not being tied down, to serve, they know what they are getting themelves in for when they sign up. She should have worried about the welfare of the child, when she signed up FOR THE JOB. This tells me one thing, single parents, should think long and hard before signing up to serve.
"Even in" infers comparison.
The Army 70 years ago is not the Army of today.
Gee. Ya think?
Perhaps you really are an expert on military law and policy so please enlighten us all with the changes in such matters that have been made.
You also claim that "Almost everyone looks at the economics before they sign on the line." Do you have anything to substantiate that claim? Can you back that up or are you stating your opinion as fact?
Perhaps you really are an expert on military law and policy so please enlighten us all with the changes in such matters that have been made.
You also claim that "Almost everyone looks at the economics before they sign on the line." Do you have anything to substantiate that claim? Can you back that up or are you stating your opinion as fact?
You're the one comparing WWII to today.
Since I work on an Army base, I'm a little closer to the ground than you are.
Everyone looks at every job with an economic focus.
From the whining I hear, they didn't look too hard.
Are they serving for free?
Not from the AFAP meetings I attend.
Are you saying that people don't look at the money they're going to make? The educational benefits? The free health care?
That's what recruiters talk with them about.
I cannot feel sorry for her, because these people hands are not being tied down, to serve, they know what they are getting themelves in for when they sign up. She should have worried about the welfare of the child, when she signed up FOR THE JOB. This tells me one thing, single parents, should think long and hard before signing up to serve.
Did you read the article? She joined the Army in 2007 and her son is 13 months old so she had her child after signing up.
She had a plan for the child and it fell through. Do you expect her to allow her child to go into foster care?
Your kids comes first. I dont care if you are in the military or not.
Perhaps you really are an expert on military law and policy so please enlighten us all with the changes in such matters that have been made.
You also claim that "Almost everyone looks at the economics before they sign on the line." Do you have anything to substantiate that claim? Can you back that up or are you stating your opinion as fact?
You think people sign up for the military for the hell of it? I am sure some people do but in the end it is a job and they are doing it for the benefits and the paycheck list most people do.
I went through the recruiting process back in high school and practically the only thing really discussed was money and benefits.
Did you read the article? She joined the Army in 2007 and her son is 13 months old so she had her child after signing up.
She had a plan for the child and it fell through. Do you expect her to allow her child to go into foster care?
Your kids comes first. I dont care if you are in the military or not.
As was discussed in the other thread on this topic, she signed a contract.
From the article linked in the OP, she had plans to never deploy, no matter what.
She's responsible for having a backup plan that's doable.
She has responsibilities when she takes the oath.
You don't just go AWOL because of whatever reason.
The child has a father; she could have applied for discharge.
Instead she went AWOL.
It costs a heck of a lot of money and is a big mess logistically for one person when they are absent without leave.
Armed Forces Network has PSAs on a regular basis about not showing up for deployment and what can happen to you.
She was informed.
She made a choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
