Stop-Loss very moving

Any movie with Channing Tatum I'll pass on, can't stand the guy.

 

It's getting trashed by reviewers, and Rotten Tomatoes only has it at 60%

 

60% isn't bad for RT around this time of year. I can't imagine much else is getting higher than that.

 

Hopefully, it will tank just like Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Elah, Redacted and the other recent "efforts."

 

Not to be too OT here, but the fact is, they DID sign up for it. It's right there in the contract, always has been. It's inconvenient sometimes, a pain in the butt for some, but it's not some trick, it was always in the contract.

 

Trashed by reviewers normally means I will like it

 

eh i didnt really like it. I thought this and Jarhead were both pretty dissappointing.

 

Jarhead was definitely better than this.

 

I duno man i didnt really like either. I really think Chedder Bob played a big part in ruining Jarhead for me, that and they make a point to say that the whole story is really about them building themselves and the audience up for nothing. And im someone who loves war movies. These new ones are just nothing compared to Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, etc.

 

Thats a real over-simplification of stop loss if I've ever read one. I'm assuming you've never been stop lossed or had people in a unit you're serving with stop-lossed? Its not a 'oh well you signed up for it tough luck' issue, it affects their lives, their families, more than a few have not come home after being stop lossed. I haven't seen the movie and having returned from Afghanistan recently really don't want to sit through any war movies at the moment but really I think taking a minute to look at the human side of the huge troop movements and the way stop loss isn't a bad thing.

 

Really? Cause I so happened to take a gander at my old enlistment papers, and no where does it metion stop loss in it. Your signing for a mandatory 8 yrs, however many years active and the remainder in the inactive reserves. But Stop-Loss affects anyone that is serving an enlistment that is about to expire. Most people learn of stop loss after there are in. So this ohh, they should have known doesn't really cut it.

 

Unfortunately that's the reaction that some people have to any questioning of any policy that questions their parties leader, in this case Bush.

That's what this attitude is all about IMO.

It amazes me that anyone can buy into any party or candidate so much that they will refuse to question any policy or action by that candidate or party. So much so that they'll even attack anyone that brings up points against them venemously.

Agree with the war or not there are questions in this conflict that are legitimate and at the least the soldiers that are getting extended deserve some compassion.

Yet you have people here basically saying "tough ***" to their plight for fear that considering this aspect might show them to be questioning the legitimacy of our continued presence in the Iraqi conflict.

Interesting aspect of human nature.

 

I don't know when you signed your contract, but in my nephew's, it says pretty clearly that you can be called up anytime in that 8 years for however long the need arises.

 

Exactly, and that is completely different than stop-loss. Stop-loss is when your enlistment is about to come to an and end and you are involuntarily held on active duty. For instance I've been in 9yrs, If my enlistment ended tomorrow, they can't call me back for because I've served the 8 yrs our contracts say we have to, but if a Stop-Loss order came down today, I couldn't get our or Retire (if I was at 20 yrs) until they remove the stop-loss. So what your describing is a completely different from what a Stop-Loss order is. So it is a situation that you don't sign up for and you have completely no control.

Air Force doesn't have a stop-loss order right now, and they have only implemented a couple times since I've been in. So instead of imagining someone who has done less than 8 yrs, imagine someone who has done 24 yrs of service and then being told, sorry but you can't retire until we remove the stop loss order.

 

Some excellent points, having just returned from a deployment I've seen all these sides. People could not retire, couldn't ETS after serving over 8 years, etc. Basically the Army is supplementing itself because they cannot recruit enough people to support all the missions it is running. So instead of honoring people's contracts or allowing them to retire after 20+ years they use a loophole to force them into a deployment. These are the first sustained conflicts that we've been in like this without a draft and stop-loss is basically a way to avoid a draft for unpopular wars. These wars would end if we started a general draft again.

 

"These wars?" What wars would "these" be? Because the only war that we've had without a draft that's been unpopular is Iraq. You're making this deduction from a whopping sample of one?

 

The War In Iraq and the War in Afghanistan would both end if we had to institute a draft. The next election would find everyone that voted for the draft gone and they would end. I'm not saying thats right but its why we haven't instituted a draft when we need more troops. I'm just giving my take, you can take it or leave it. I'm making deductions from personal experience and talking to people in the real situations, how are you making you're deductions?

 

The war in Afghanistan is not unpopular. You won't find too many politicians against it and not too many of the general public either.

 

So back to the topic..

 

Just seen this movie (I know, I should not bump this) and thought it was pretty solid. I expected it to be a joke because it was a typical movie that would hate on the military and it was produced by MTV. The acting was pretty solid and the story was clear. They showed a lot of typical veteran personalities, so to say, and that was pretty nice. It's one of those movies I'd recommend you see, but I wouldn't buy it.