US troops sue over tours in Iraq

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by msr, Dec 7, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

  2. hmm msr I am not sure I agree. Bearing in mind our usual tour length, I think you would see a few unhappy faces in our forces too if they were extended in theatre to that length.
  3. ...but with this capacity for illogical reasoning, you don't even have to be standing next to anyone to be dangerous. :roll:
  4. This is bloody ludicrous! The fact that anyone can even consider it reasonable is absolute bulltwang in my opinion. Back when the great land of Oz was in Vietnam blokes would do their tour, have a few weeks off then go back and do another one.

    These American soldiers seriously need to have their bloody heads kicked in. If they don't like it, piss off. The Army is not a democracy, and if they don't follow their orders they should be dealt with accordingly.

    What happened to soldiers being 'ard bastards?
  5. Having seen the effect of back to back tours on families over the last 10 years I can see the guys point.

    We all accept that in the case of general war you stay as long as required, however this is not the case at the moment. A lot of the US overstreach is cause by the Command system, under this only Centcom trops may be used in Iraq, hence the large numbers of Guardsmen being mobilised.

    I belive that we arrived at a 6 month tour for good reason, long enough to get up to speed, short enough to maintain family and troop morale.

    A little known fact about WW2 is that most Ta units that had been overseas for 5 years were returned to the UK and put into training units, so even under those presures, we still had a good idea of what people can deal with.
  6. It's only a matter of time until someone files a lawsuit for being deployed in the first place. All those people shooting at you have got to be in breach of health and safety regulations. Someone is bound to get hurt.
  7. Errrm...

    "If they dont like it, urine off" I think that is what they are trying to do?

    "If they don't follow their orders they should be dealt with accordingly" I didnt see anything in the story about soldiers not following orders.

    "What happened to soldiers being 'ard' bastards' I assume your soldiering credentials are better than Americans who have served continuously in Iraq since 2003?

    People can disagree with the decision of these American soldiers to seek legal redress for a change in their terms of service (NOT disobey orders). After the fuss in UK about whether the Black Watch were getting home for Christmas, it seems to me a wee bit hypocritical to criticise these Americans in the terms you have, mate. If we had large numbers of soldiers serving continously in Iraq since the invasion, I suspect they might just have had something to say about it by now.

    Would be interesting however to hear how Australia is managing and what is their usual operational tour length.
  8. They signed a contract, they want to pull out. Sounds like desertion to me (not following orders was the wrong thing to say). I didn't hear about the BW blokes wanting to be home for XMas, so I didn't bring it in or have it factor in my thoughts, however, I still stand by my original statement
  9. While I feel for these people, they signed the contract knowing this could happen. Too many of these Reservists join just to 1) make money for college and/or 2) wear the uniform and feel like Rambo or 3) get the uniform to impress Susie Rottencrotch back home.

    One of my Drill Instructors once told us that the quickest and easiest was out of the service was to do your time, keep your gob shut and at first chance, get out. I still believe this to be true.
  10. Not desertion either. I appreciate SMiller you have no experience of these issues, not a criticism and I leave it there. :wink:
  11. Yeah Corp that sounds good advice to me. I don't know enough about their terms of service to criticise or defend these guys, its a national matter anyway, but I wanted to remind people of our shorter tour lengths before we went too overboard in our criticism. (How did I end up defending spams anyway? :oops: :lol: ) But I didnt think the "stop loss" policy was only affecting reservists? I do believe that ultimately any state has the right to require the services of its citizens in times of national danger.
  12. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I'm not familiar with the specific cases these guys are suing over but USArmy is handling the whole thing badly.

    NG guys were mobilised late 2001 for afghanistan and have been in constant ops or mobilisation or covering guys sent overseas since then. Regular guys have been on ops for the same.

    Sure, they signed a contract but to find yourself away from home for 2 years with two weeks R&R is causing serious family and morale issues. The USAF (and USAFNG), USN, USN Reserve, and USMC are all rotatingt their troops properly, the US Army however is not.

    Officers are taking leave ahead of their troops and there are not enough R&R flights for everyone so there is a lottery or 'random' selection process going on in many units.

    The US system is crap, 12 month tours with extensions of another 6-12 coming in 1 month before endex are common. There is an exmaple of one flight actually getting turned back midair as the troops were decided that they were still needed.

    Midair after 12 months in!
  13. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    If that is what is really happening I would have every sympathy with a soldier who has come to the end of his contract and gets it extended.
  14. It's gotta suck, there's no way I will disagree with that. But thems the breaks.