Should any human being (including those of any sexual persuasion) have a basic right to resign from the armed forces of any nation at any time, and for any reason?

Of course! A stupid troll following me around giving -3's on a site where they are MEANINGLESS. LMFAO

• Report

by LarryH54 on September 9th, 2009

UR to counter the dippy.

• Report

by Moongrim on September 9th, 2009

Do you think such liberalization would make it
difficult or impossible to sustain the armed forces?

• Report

by palmagma on September 9th, 2009

No, I think most ppl have more personal integrity than that. At least for now.

• Report

by LarryH54 on September 9th, 2009

Don't you wish the "other side"
had provisions like this?

• Report

by palmagma on September 9th, 2009

Other side as in those we are fighting when at war do you mean, and do I wish they could leave their armies whenever they want? Not entirely sure what you're asking.

• Report

by Who Is She on September 9th, 2009

Let's say most of the soldiers in an opposing army
thought the war they were fighting was unjust.
Would you want them to be able to quit?

• Report

by palmagma on September 9th, 2009

It would certainly be convenient for us if those in the opposing army were allowed to quit and chose to excersize that freedom. If the opposing army didn't have rules in place that made them effective as an army all the better for us, obviously. Bit of an odd question - You're kinda asking IF we would want to win.

• Report

by Who Is She on September 9th, 2009

"The reverse side also has a reverse side."
(Japanese proverb)

• Report

by palmagma on September 9th, 2009

Yes, they have to "sign up".
But do you think the system
would fall apart without this?

• Report

by palmagma on September 9th, 2009

Maybe after giving one month's notice,
like in most other jobs?

• Report

by palmagma on September 9th, 2009

I suppose, I mean if they did do that...the brave would only be braver cuz they went in and never chickened out and left. (if that was the case)

• Report

by schmee2369 on September 9th, 2009

Presumably private security contractors
don't have a recruitment problem,
even though they do not have the same
enlistment system as the armed forces
and are expected to do a lot of the
dirty work (basic peace-keeping)
amongst the local population
in occupied territories.

• Report

by palmagma on September 9th, 2009

They do get a sign on bonus though, how would they pay that back?

• Report

by schmee2369 on September 9th, 2009

I don't know.
Maybe there's a clause in their contract about this.

• Report

by palmagma on September 9th, 2009

No - Sir!

• Report

by palmagma on October 9th, 2009

Yes, that's undoubtedly the case, and it probably makes no difference
after such a contract is signed, if the military gets called upon to engage
in some undertaking that the signed-up party just does not want to support,
even if the reasons for not wanting to support the assignment are reasonable.

• Report

by palmagma on October 9th, 2009

So you don't think any of the armed forces
could be run like a private security company
with individual members hired as needed
on salary but without the threat of court martial?

• Report

by palmagma on September 10th, 2009

thats why there is blackwater..

• Report

by MHfreak1991 on September 10th, 2009

So why not run (say) the Marines the same way?

• Report

by palmagma on September 10th, 2009

cuz its more than for money...

• Report

by MHfreak1991 on September 11th, 2009

Meaning its OK to make people risk their lives
after they've signed up and maybe then realized
for the first time that they are no longer
as free to decide their own fate as are
the mercenaries in private security companies.

• Report

by palmagma on September 11th, 2009

thats why they know the risks before getting in, i knew that i was signing a contract, every other person in the military did too, itsa their choice

• Report

by MHfreak1991 on September 11th, 2009

Not everyone reads the fine print.

• Report

by palmagma on September 11th, 2009

yah, but it is still their responsibility to, so its not the governments fault if they dont read it.

• Report

by MHfreak1991 on September 13th, 2009

Assuming they can read sufficiently well.

• Report

by palmagma on September 13th, 2009

their really isnt "fine print" its all laid out when you sign the contract. it literally says "you are willing to take up arms" sign here__________. its not that easy to misinterpret the contract

• Report

by MHfreak1991 on September 13th, 2009

But what we are talking about here is
the right to resign (i.e. to lay down arms).

• Report

by palmagma on September 13th, 2009

that would be insubordanation...they could try it but they would end up in the brig

• Report

by MHfreak1991 on September 13th, 2009

Military contracts could however conceivably be
re-written so that resignations were acceptable
if reasonable (say one month's) notice were given,

• Report

by palmagma on September 13th, 2009

i see your point but, it wouldnt be reasonable, its not the type of career that you can just back out of without negative effects

• Report

by MHfreak1991 on September 14th, 2009

It's a question of human rights versus
traditional organizational methodology.

• Report

by palmagma on September 14th, 2009

well its not like their torturing us

• Report

by MHfreak1991 on September 15th, 2009

Here's a young lady with her own ideas on what
might better be done with our military budgets:

http://media.causes.com/510213?p_id=65118680

• Report

by palmagma on September 15th, 2009