Single Mothers in the Military: Kids or Country?

Lyndsay - posted on 02/26/2010

Christina;

I'm not trying to be harsh, or rude. I'm simply stating my opinion. And my opinion is that if you have two conflicting roles expected of you (soldier and mother, for one) you should have to make a decision between them. Both of those jobs require 100% from you, and then what is left from the other?

Not once did I say that women should have to stay home with their children all the time. They should live with them, see them every day, and be there to nurture them... they do not have to spend every waking moment with them. If you are strongly against an abortion, that's great... then have your baby and leave the military. If you are strongly against leaving the military, don't have your child.

Parents need children. Bottom line. If you can't be a parent, don't have a child.

Valerie - posted on 02/25/2010

@ Kathy - The posts got so long I'm not sure if anyone addressed your original concern. :) I understand your concern for the child, that the child must come first. But this is the struggle for any single mom. You must provide for your family thus you must have a job that will keep you away from your child. She has chosen the military as her form of employment to provide for her family. As many people have pointed out, it's not like the military didn't give her options to leave or find other areas so she wouldn't be deployed. She is the one who chose not to take any of them! I'M NOT MAD AT THE MILITARY! I'M MAD AT THIS IDIOTIC MOM WHO SINGLE OR NO WAS IRRESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO NOT SEEK THE BEST SOLUTION FOR HER CHILD! I don't care what profession you are in, however you choose to provide for you child you must be responsible and think constantly of the future of each decision as it affects your child. She obviously did not do that! In any job a single mom cannot just suddenly say, I'm not going to do my job at all. Tough nuggets I have a kid so you shouldn't do anything to me. That's ridiculous. She would be fired from any job. As a teacher I had to turn in a request for a leave of absence and do an exit interview after that leave was done. I researched and followed proper procedures so I could be home with my kiddo. She could have done that and didn't.
I just wanted to point out that it is not the military's fault for holding a mom to a contract and to performing her job. It's the mom's fault for making decisions that put the welfare of her own child at risk and childish to think it should be her employer problem and not hers.

Meghan - posted on 02/25/2010

Add a comment If we can all get back on track I am willing to open this thread back up for discussion...please don't let it get back off topic.

JL - posted on 02/23/2010

Debating out the door............and now let the name calling commence. I did use the word ignorant. IMO telling someone their view was ignorant because it lacked knowledge, research, and understanding is not name calling especially when they admitted to their ignorance. Getting snarky and having a condensending tone was uncalled for in some instances and I already admitted that I did that, but I did not call anyone any names in a demeaning manner. I did not call anyone foolish, stupid, hypocritical, or bigoted. I did not go out my way specifically directing names at anyone.


Call me a hypocrit all you want but there were generalized comments made that I found not only incorrect but personally offensive.

Jenny - posted on 02/23/2010

A child is more important than ANY contract.

C. - posted on 02/23/2010

Christi did a great job of wording her post. I recommend if you haven't read it, to do so.

@Jenny.. I understand that, but all we were trying to get at is if you are under contract and are set to deploy, then you cannot expect to NOT get a military discharge and/or jail time.. Especially if there are ways to work it out (all you have to do is talk to the command and they will try to help with what they can) and you are trying not to deploy on purpose. It's a breech of contract and ANY breech of contract (military or civilian) has consequences.

Shelby - posted on 02/23/2010

You know what scratch everything I wrote here. You are not worth my time nor my energy. Stay away from any of my posts and we will be fine.

Christi - posted on 02/23/2010

In my opinion, the bottom line in this situation is that Ms. Hutchinson knew when she joined the Army (based on age, rank, and MOS) that she would most likely deploy. She signed up anyway. She knew, being a female, that she may get pregnant, and that she would then have a choice of either separating or staying in with the chance of deployment. She had a care plan in place. Her care plan suspiciously fell through. It was incredibly irresponsible on her part getting pregnant in the first place, but she did and she knew the consequences. It comes down on her. The Army has systems in place to care for kids whose parents have no other choice. Not state foster care, not social services. She should have discussed it more with her supervisors and, since she's the mother- not them, figured out what needed to be done. Instead she did a cowardly, lazy, irresponsible thing, and just decided not to even show up.

Yes, it's terrible and insensitive that it had to come to jail time, but is the Army really to be expected just to let anyone separate who decides they "can't" go to war? There wouldn't be any more military if at the last minute everyone could chicken out. Who isn't scared before they deploy? The military deals with hundreds of cases like hers, why should she be special?.

I don't understand how anyone who has enlisted in the last 8 years can possibly think they'll never deploy.

Jenny - posted on 02/23/2010

I have no experience or exposure to military life either but my opinion remains, my children before my country every time.

C. - posted on 02/23/2010

@Shelby.. I never called Kathy a bigot and I posted the definitions b/c she apparently only knew ONE part of the definition (she was saying that Sharon was wrong, that she wasn't a bigot- but in all actuality, in the first part of the definition, I suppose she could be considered as one.) I also told her that it wasn't MY words, but the dictionary's words. It came straight from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. I never once personally called her a bigot and I even stated in one post:



"I would just as soon call you an ignorant person rather than a bigot."



Also, nobody CALLED her a fool, they said not doing any research about something and continuing to comment made her LOOK FOOLISH.



Yeah, telling someone to grow the hell up in a little tantrum, that's real mature on your part. And just b/c I may not be as old as you, doesn't mean I am a child. And I didn't not simply resort to throwing out name-calling. If you actually READ any of my posts, there is so much more substance than a name being thrown in. Yes, we have different views on the military, BUT WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THEY ARE IGNORANT ABOUT THE MILITARY AND ARE COMMENTING ON THINGS THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF, SOMEONE NEEDS TO SET THEM STRAIGHT WHEN THEY SPOUT OFF UNTRUE STATEMENTS.





"Yet Not one person can go back through these posts and show me where Kathy said anything about ALL SOLDIERS"



Ok, well in Kathy's FIRST post, she wrote: "Please bear in mind that this is very general" and "I cannot see anything good or noble in killing people" and then said in other posts: "And they DO go to war to kill people."; "Just dump him for a year while she's off killing people?"



Ok, Shelby, the woman in the article is a COOK. So automatically the statement of dumping her son off for a year so she can go off and kill people, implied that cooks kill. Yeah, I'm sure if someone came in and started shooting at her while she was cooking, yeah she might kill someone. But it's not like killing is her main objective AS A COOK. Also, saying she doesn't see anything good or noble in killing people.. Fine, we all have our opinions, I just wanted to make it CLEAR that their are many other jobs in the military that don't involve killing (unless the off-chance comes along and they have been ambushed, etc). And saying the DO go to war to KILL people? That's NOT all the military is about. Yes there is SOME killing and there is ALSO SOME PEACEKEEPING. I really don't see how that is so hard to understand?



"She never made the extreme statements that are to include every member of every country's armed services"



Kathy said in her first post that she was making GENERAL STATEMENTS, so YES she DID include EVERY MEMBER of the military! General statements are broad statements. Broad statements cover a wide range of people, not just one particular person!



"She admitted her ignorance"



Yes, she did. But when Joy, Sharon and I have ALL tried to explain things about HOW the military works, she just would not hear it! If you KNOW that you are ignorant about a subject and there are several people coming at you saying almost the exact same things, then I think it's time to reevaluate yourself and do some friggin research! Yet she refuses and that just adds to her ignorance.





Now, I know the last comment was for Joy, but I just wanted to point something out.



"Tell me where I called any of them a killer."



Well, you said that soldiers weren't there as peacekeepers and were asking WHY they always carry weapons. Firstly, part of their job IS to make peace, SECOND, my husband carries weapons everywhere he goes out there and has never had to shoot anyone. Just b/c they carry a weapon, doesn't meant their only objective is to kill. Did it ever occur to you that it could be for their protection? Meaning, if they get shot at, to then shoot whoever shot at them, not just to go out looking for Iraqi blood!



"So what gives you hypocrites the right to say whatever in the hell you please to whoever you please?"



You're a good one to call a hypocrite. Anyway, what gives us the right? I do believe that is a little thing called freedom of speech.. You know, one of the many freedoms our military men and women are risking their lives for to keep them in America!



"How about we use the words extirpate, or neutralize?"



Well see, that's kind of the problem. Before any of this got really ugly, several of us were TRYING to calmly explain what the military is about b/c one person had no idea. They just wouldn't hear it, resulting in a nuclear word bomb. Yeah, try to play peacekeeper now.. Even though you were contributing to the verbal war. (HEY! I do believe that is going back to the hypocrisy thing.. Imagine that)



"Thats what they think of when they think of war"



Ok, well someone who has no knowledge of military and has Military Brats/spouses coming at them and telling them otherwise, don't you think they should listen or at least do some of their own (UNBIASED) friggin research to find out?





Anyway, I already apologized to you, SHelby, so if you're digging for another apology out of me, you're wasting your breath (I am referring to the post to me and about me, not the one to Joy).

Sharon - posted on 02/23/2010

When someone claims ignorance and then goes on to post an unbelievably BIGOTED IGNORANT message - they are what they are. She is ignorant. Her message was BIGOTED. Those are the facts. She straight up says so. She also says, plain as day, that she refuses to learn anything. She used this thread as an opportunity to put her message of hate and discrimination out there.

Its disgusting.

No she doesn't admit to being bigoted but what else do you call it when she dislikes something/someone without reason? And admitting to knowing nothing about military life is knowing NOTHING.

JL - posted on 02/23/2010

I will admit that I have let and I am still letting this debate emotionally and personally bother me. THe use of the word kill in any sense in reference to soldiers bothers me deeply. My father was in the military for 25 years and when I was a child I remember another kid telling me my father killed people, that he was a killer because he was a soldier. As a child you are taught killing people is bad, killers are bad so I was very hurt by this accusation. I went to my dad who was in the Artillery and I asked him do you kill people for your job. I saw him whence with uncomfortability and pain at the use of the word kill. He told me he patroled, defended, protected, secured, and fought people and yes sometimes that meant people died and lives were taken.



My husband is the same way he does not like the use of the word kill or killing or killer in association with him,because too many people denotes the word kill with the idea that lives are being taken indiscriminately without any bit of remorse or feeling. It denoates that he desentized to what he does and to what happens while in combat.



He tells me constantly taking someones life if not easy and not done without regard for the meaning of life. He like my dad refers to his job as protecting and defending people from bad guys. My cousin who is tanker when he was asked by my little cousin if he kills people his response was that he patrols, defends, and takes out the bad guys.



Most miltiary people I know and spouses whence at and find pain in the use of the word kill/killing/killer. Yes, lives are taken, the enemy is taken out by force and some of them without regret because they were bad people but the use of the word is an emotional kicker and it pissed me off and I reacted with pain and regret that someone would say that a single soldier was going to leave her son so she could go off and "kill" people.



I have a mouth on me in person and in type and I can come across as being insulting and condenscending because I do let my emotions get the best of me...that is why I would make a crappy lawyer and why I decided not to go to law school after undergrad or get into politics like I intially planned and also why I did not join the miltiary..backtalking superiors not good.

Shelby - posted on 02/23/2010

While I respect your post, After reading it again, I see through my initial stupidity I see your post is a direct attack at me... Tell me where I called any of them a killer. I said there are plenty of them that are trained to where that is what they HAVE to do. We are getting tangled up over WORDS Don't fucking DUR me like I'm some kind of fucking idiot. I was going to delete my post beings you are obviously no different, but I'm going to leave it up there to show that we can all be wrong about people.

Everyone wants to spout off their holier than thou mouth that "oh its not her views that were offensive, its the words she uses, and her verbage" Whatever...So what gives you hypocrites the right to say whatever in the hell you please to whoever you please? What makes you all so much better? I really do wish there was another word for kill. How about we use the words extirpate, or neutralize? Is that better? I simply used the word kill because its the easiest word in the English language to define that particular action. And most people who have no connection to any military...Thats what they think of when they think of war. I have no problem with the post explaining to her different MOS', or the repercussions in the military of failing to follow orders, or explaining different avenues offered to this lady before she just shit on the army. I have no problem with any of that. Yet you let someone speak up against the majority and this is what happens.

You know what my husband's job in the marine corps is not to extirpate either. Actually far from it, He is a life saver. No one wants him to ever have to work. If he is actually working then a major travesty has taken place. So yeah I know. I also know some basic combat marines who were some of my husband's closest friends. Maybe its me, and I'm going cross-eyed really trying to see what you all are reading here, but saying that people "kill" and calling them "killers" are two different things, And calling our servicemembers killers is something that I did not do.

Shelby - posted on 02/23/2010

I personally didn't mean to go off on a "tangent" I just didn't think it was appropriate for people to begin calling names...Kathy may have called herself ignorant, but thats not the same as straight out being called a bigot or any other name. I myself am "ignorant" of many things but that doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion about them, or that I am stupid. She did not deserve to be called a fool, or stupid. No one does. Joy your posts come across very cool, level headed and intelligent. You have not belittled anyone and for that I highly respect everything that you write. However when someone is just being childish, I have no respect for that. I myself have never been accused of being level headed, Yet have always been accused of having somewhat of a sharp tongue. At times it has been my friend, other times my foe.



Yet I have one on here spouting off to me about putting words in HER mouth, Yet Not one person can go back through these posts and show me where Kathy said anything about ALL SOLDIERS are out to kill. She made the remark that there in nothing noble in war because there is nothing noble about killing people. She never made the extreme statements that are to include every member of every country's armed services. Personally there is a WHOLE lot about her statements that I don't agree with, but personally attacking her is absurd.

The thread itself was not about the right or wrong of the military presence in the world, Rather about this ONE soldier, and although Kathy seems to know absolutely nothing about this situation either, She admitted her ignorance... Wherein, I would say continue on, Yet for some reason it is felt as though kicking a dead horse is gonna get you somewhere that its not willing to go.

JL - posted on 02/23/2010

This debate has gone into a stupid ass tangent but I keep thinking many ways must I point out the blatantly obvious.

MILITARY=peackeepers/nationbuilders/warfighters....Warfighters meaning fighting, and yes that means that people are killed........no one said that was NOT a main part of the military. As one of my freinds here on COM likes to say HELLO, Cap'n Obvious.

It is kinda of obvious and does not need to be said that every soldier despite their MOS is trained to branish weapons, fight, and kill if under attack that is kinda of an obvious and blatant part of being a soldier. There is no denying that and no one did deny that soldiers are trained to shoot and go into combat. No one said that peackeeping and nationbuilding meant that they were not carrying around weapons and are not in full military gear ready to fight and shoot to kill if neccessary.

Yes, we bomb, yes we shoot, but like I said the objective is to clear, build and hold. Clearning requires fighting and like I said one part of a unit maybe fighting while the other part is peackeeping and nationbuilding.

The whole friggin point was to say that a blanketed statement about soliders being nothing BUT killers was wrong. Yes death happens, fighting happens and they kill people DUR they are soldiers but it is much more complicated for most MOS's in the military then just going in and shooting up whoever and whatever so they can kill.

Once again Yes SOLDIERS are all trained to defend, fight, serve, and protect. There are combat MOS's with specific job of fighting with arms.....infantry and artillery and yes that means they will kill when neccessary, but there is NO MOS thats job title is simply KILLER.

THERE IS A HUGE difference between being a SOLDIER and being a KILLER. Killers kill without discrimination or purpose. Soldiers fight to protect and defend. Yes the Semantics make a HUGE difference in the way our soldiers are portrayed. And I would think that ALL AND ANY military spouses would recognize how damaging on morale those semantics can be to our soldiers and I don't know any soldier that wants to be simply referred to as a Killer.



Jennifer, I just want to say that personally I don't find your opinion offensive in the fact that you would not want to marry someone in the military. You know yourself and what kinda of lifestyle you can handle and being married to a soldier or being a soldier is not meant for everyone.



As far as single parents being in the military I have no issue at all with it. There are many jobs that can be just as dangerous and keep a parent away from their kid. You have just a likely of chance getting hit by a car today on your way to work as a soldier does getting shot and killed in a combat zone. Truck drivers, sales people and array of other jobs require parents to be away from their kids. Plus the military has non deployable decisions and many single soldiers have very close families that help them raise their kids. My nieghbor is a single soldier. His mother lives with him and helps him raise his kids and she is the one who takes care of them when he is deployed. His kids are not screwed up or have a defunct life due to their fathers deployements.

Jennifer - posted on 02/23/2010

Christina yes I did contradict myself so to be straight her child should alwayts come first regardless of her career. And I think you'll find I did not attack women who have husbands/partners in the army I simply said I couldn't be in a relationship with a man in the army in the same way as I couldn't be with a man who worked away for months on ships or as my father-in-law does for weeks on end being a shopfitter. It works for lots of families but it's just something I wouldn't want.

Shelby - posted on 02/23/2010

Christina how about you grow the hell up. A debate USUALLY has two sides...Do you even understand that? Its not about trying the change the others' minds. I read every comment on here...skipping the definitions you had to add because you think people are stupid. Your acting like a child throwing a tantrum. LOL, to my surprise, You are a child...No wonder you are simply resorting to just throwing out name calling to everyone who has something to say that you don't like. Funny thing is...Most of us agree on TOPIC. BIG DEAL we have different views on the f'ing military GROW THE HELL UP!!!



*Had to edit that..I'm calm now*

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

That was quite harsh, Lyndsay. Some single women in the military could have ended up getting a friggin divorce for all you know. And the fact that you think women should stay at home all the time for their children is all well and good, but the reality is, sometimes it's just not possible. And I can't believe you would suggest an abortion just b/c a single, pregnant woman might be in the military. Just like you have strong feelings about stay at home moms, some women might have strong feelings about killing a baby that is growing inside of them, but that's another debate.



And, Lyndsay, you actually have a higher chance dying in a car accident while driving in the town of which you reside, than you do of being killed in war. Both risks are high, but you drive everyday, you don't go to war everyday. You do the math.

Lyndsay - posted on 02/22/2010

I think that single mothers should stay home with their children, simple as that. They are the only parent available to their child, and if they are not willing to give up their previous commitments in favour of the child, they should not have the child.

It actually disgusts me when single mothers leave their children to go to war. For one thing, you might DIE. If you are not going to be there for your child then why did you have him/her? Just get an abortion and try again when your contract is up.

(Just a note to all you "army wives"... I am not against military parents. I am against military parents who are SINGLE parents.)

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

Don't go telling me what to do, Shelby. You were being condescending and if I feel that someone is being condescending or ignorant about something, then you're DAMN RIGHT I'm going to say so!

And for the LAST time, I never said the military was ALL ABOUT PEACE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO REITERATE TO KATHY THAT KILLING IS NOT THE ONLY JOB THE MILITARY DOES. But no, YOU had to go off on a friggin tangent when you obviously had not read the entire post! I didn't even read the rest of your comment. There is so much bullshit in there b/c you didn't even read what I wrote and you're just ASSUMING that I said/implied something when it is PLAIN AS F***ING DAY that I did not!

Shelby - posted on 02/22/2010

And, I am not condescending... Don't start throwing the name calling. Alright.

Shelby - posted on 02/22/2010

a million and one questions??? Lets forgo getting melodramatic shall we. I'm simply stating that while I don't agree with Kathy's views either. SHE was the one attacked. You...far from it. Trust me. Peacekeeping efforts are all well and good, and yeah our military does that too. TOO being the operative word in the sentence So, for instance, in Marjah, Should we have just dropped off some unarmed "peacekeepers in the middle of the night to draw up a treaty? I'm sure that would've worked. Obviously the battle that has ensued never would have happened right, because of course the enemy has all heard that we are now ....I don't even remember the "new" names for us. FIRST and FOREMOST what they are ALL trained to do is KILL if necessary. NOT ONE soldier is handed a camera, or wrench in bootcamp...Not one sailor is handed a protractor in bootcamp, Not one marine is handed a spatula in bootcamp. These all come in their MOS schools. These are secondary training. What comes BEFORE the peacekeeping mission??? My husband is a marine, and let me tell you there are plenty of MOS' that have the sole purpose to shoot and stop any moving object coming near you with a weapon plain and simple. No, you are right, Not all military servicemembers job entails that is their main objective when they go. But rest assured if it comes to it. I don't care who they are or what they do...If forced like even you all have said...Even a cook, Let the opposition take that camp, and EVERYONE gets a rifle, and they know how to use it. In a perfect world, all we would need is someone with a "laptop and inkpen" to write out treaties...and peacekeeping armies to patrol the streets without weapons, but its not a perfect world. And all this new terminology, all is well and good. Ask a combat marine, Or a combat specialty MOS soldier exactly what has changed in his MOS with all that new fancy talk. Because obviously the bad guys haven't gotten that memo...The whole world hasn't gone as "PC" as the U.S.A has gone. The bad guys are still out to kill, thats it. Not, Clear. KILL. So I hope that someone soon gets word to those 0311's fighting in Marjah about the negotiating skills that are so popular now amongst the world.

Its great that we are progressing. Its great that we can go in and maintain a peaceful nation and provide freedoms for those otherwise denied to them. However, there are still plenty of them that are trained to do EXACTLY what we are too ashamed to even talk of, like it doesn't exist. A U.S. Marine Grunt is not trained to negotiate the surrender of the enemy. He is trained to clear the way for the "peacekeepers" to do their job. So without those that are willing to "kill" then how would a peacekeeping mission even begin to work, And for those of you so hellbent that our military is not a force...Then I challenge any of you to go "talk" Osama out of his wrong doings, and ask him to surrender..Please.

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

@Shelby.. I apologize, but when I see someone coming at me with a million and one questions about something I never implied, then yes I take that as an attack.

And I know I am not the only one married to a soldier and I know I am not the only to know any soldiers. But when someone is taking words and putting them into my mouth, I tend to get a bit defensive! If you don't want to debate, then fine, leave. I am trying to get a point across to Kathy b/c she is apparently having a hard time reading what is being written and/or she is just reading what she wants to see. I don't understand how you think that I believe I know it all. You are one condescending woman. I do not oppose someone else trying to explain how the military is to someone so ignorant, but I would prefer if said person would stop saying I implied something, when I clearly did not!

JL - posted on 02/22/2010

THe US Army is made up of peacekeeping forces and warfighters. The goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is to capture enemy forces, gather information, train locals to police their own lands and train and help them build armies, rebuild structures, hold secure elections to allow for the rebuilding and establishement of free democratic governments, and the maintain presence as peacekeeping units.

Yes, they are trained to shoot and to fight THEY ARE SOLDIERS, but their ultimate objective is not to kill. In fact intelligence units and commanders make it quite clear that bringing back enemy combatants alive is important for intelliegence purposes. You shoot when shot at and don't go in gun blazing ready to kill...that is why soldiers are taught sweep through techniques and why intel is minded before they go into certain areas in order to prevent deaths.

We have spend billions of dollars not just on military equiptment but on paying local tribal leaders to sit down negotiate and cooperate.Billions of dollars to rebuild. The miltiary has become so much more that just a deadly force they have become a complicated mechanism for reaching demands and terms to come to peace. More successful negotiating in Afghanistan has been done through our military commanders rather than through our politicians.

Whenever any soldier now takes any leadership course especially an officer course they are told that since the Cold War Era the militaries identity has changed from being simply a warfighting force to being a force that operates as a peacekeeping/nationbuilding/warfighting force. They are told the US military has a multilayered identity and their stance as peacekeepers are complicated and intricate.SO while on one hand a part of their unit will be facing enemy tanks the other part of their unit will be facing the challenges of peacekeeping and nation building.

The old guard pre Cold War idea that the miltiary is mearly a deadly fighting machine has been overtaken with the modern ideal of the military which is teaching our soldiers how to be leaders, how to work with, talk with, and negotiate with, how to rebuild and restructure so we can drawdown leaving nations in peaceful positions where out presence is not needed.

Since military regs adopted the beret as the official headgear in order to present our forces in a more international peackeeping light the military has started officially referring to itself as a peackeepers and warfighters not as a deadly force. Our commanders are more forward and modern thinking. They have changed the terminology in which they speak of and refer to the miltiary. They do not talk of deadly forces and withdrawing. They talk of nation building, peacekeeping and draw dawns. The offical objectives in Irag and Afghanistan have been to "clear, build and hold." When McChrystal and Petraeus lay out miltiary plans one of the main objectives they point to is winning the hearts and minds of the locals.


No one said lives are not lost in wars and that killing does not happen and I did not say that an anti-war opinion was wrong. I am anti-war.. But when someone makes a broad generalized statement that comes off as with tone and intent that every soldiers objective and duty is to kill then expect disagreements because that is NOT true.

When someone makes a statement that the female soldier in the article was going to have to leave her son for a year so she could go "kill" then expect people to point out the obvious that she is a cook and her duty would entail her staying in the camps and FOB's to cook for the soldiers coming and going...that would not entail her to brandish a weapon in any forward engagement unless enemy combatants showed up on camp or the FOB shooting at her.

I just want to say the Anti-War stance WAS NOT OFFENSIVE....but the verbage, choise of words, and the way things were stated was....to refer to soldiers as "killers" to say they just go out and "kill." That was offensive in tone because it simplfies what they do and it simplifies how they feel. They do not want to kill but they do want to protect. My husband IS NOT A KILLER. He DOES NOT go out and murder people for the fuck of it. He DOES NOT WANT TO TAKE A LIFE, but he does want people across the world to be safe, to have the same freedom and rights we have. He wants women across the world to have freedom of choice. He wants children to have access to an education. He wants people to not live in fear so he CHOSE to stand up against those with weapons who prevent those things and that does require him to be trained with weapons so he can fight back for those who cannot.

Shelby - posted on 02/22/2010

Christina, How on EARTH did you find that as I'm attacking you??? Are you serious? This is obviously NO WHERE near a debate. You clearly know it all because you are the only one who has ever known anyone in the service and the only one married to a servicemember. I'm out.

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

@Shelby.. You obviously need to re-read my comment to you. First of all, I was not attacking you, so why are you coming to attack me? Second of all, I NEVER said that the military was NOT to be a deadly force. All I said was that being a deadly force isn't what the military is ALL about! Haven't you heard about Intelligence operations? They use SOME intelligence ops for negotiating and the rest for strategy/figuring out codes, etc. I know for a fact that they have them in the Army and the Air Force and I am assuming they have that in the Marines as well.



And Shelby, some of the soldiers DO go in there with laptops and ink-pens!





@Kathy..



"Yes, I am talking about ONE soldier because I understood that that is what this thread is about. Don't you get that?"



No, I don't get that all you were talking about one soldier b/c FROM YOUR FIRST POST YOU SAID YOU WERE MAKING GENERAL STATEMENTS. What part of your own statement do you not get???



You don't understand anything about the military or anything about ANY contracts for that matter, otherwise you would clearly see her dilemma. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you don't follow a contract, military OR civilian, you could face jail time!



I am really getting annoyed that you only read bits and pieces and/or are not taking the time to comprehend what is being said. SO I REPEAT MYSELF, YET AGAIN.



"Part of the point in a debate is to GATHER your research, FORM your honest opinion BASED on your research, THEN debate the topic at hand. Not to form an opinion off the top of your head, being completely ignorant about the subject and then denying that you were never making any general statements."



@Teresa.. What you need to understand is that this woman (Ms. Hutchinson) HAD a chance to get out of the military b/c she knew her MOS was deployable. She did NOT get out of the military, leading her command to think that she had someone lined up to care for her son when it came time to deploy. She did not take ANY initiative to find someone, so they EXTENDED her stay AT HOME so she would be able find a caregiver for her son. She BLATANTLY DEFIED HER ORDERS, that is why she is facing discharge from the military and a possible jail sentence. Since she waited to the last minute to tell her command that she could NOT find a caregiver, that leads ANY military personnel to believe that she defied her orders on purpose in hopes that they would not allow her to deploy EVEN THOUGH she had already been told that she WAS deploying. Trying to get out of a deployment alone can get a person jail time b/c it is dishonorable service to your country. But when they gave her extra time to figure things out and she STILL waited to let them know what was going on so they could try to work things out, there was simply NO EXCUSE for her actions. Every pregnant soldier gets counceled and are given the option to stay in the military or receive an Honorable Discharge. She refused to get out. Not the military's fault, it is her own.



If a civilian blatantly defied orders from their boss, they would get fired from that job, especially when they have been given more than one chance to figure out the situation. Why should the military be ANY different? PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME!!!

Sharon - posted on 02/22/2010

You are so wrong. I do not care about ONE soldier. I care about all of them.



I also care that 9/11 never happens again. And we are goddamned right when we call our troops peacekeepers.



I don't see any of you calling our police force warmongers for carrying a weapon. They kill people too. In the name of KEEPING THE PEACE.



Ms. Hutchinson is a fucking whore who made a LIFE DECISION and then didn't like it. So SHE GOT PREGNANT ON PURPOSE TO GET OUT OF IT.



She had a baby AS TOOL. Not for the love of a man, not as an accident, not for any other reason other to screw the Army out of her contract.



Her first duty was CLEAR, it was to the Army and she signed a contract saying so. Getting knocked up by the first idiot who agreed to not wear a condom shouldn't negate the original contract.



Thats the point. Leaving out the war entirely - it never needed to be brought up. Instead you're using this as thread which had nothing to do with war to get your "message" out. Hunny, I've got the message - it has nothing to do with your stance on war. And everything to do what I think of you.

Kathy - posted on 02/22/2010

You seem to care about ONE soldier...

Yes, I am talking about ONE soldier because I understood that that is what this thread is about. Don't you get that? I don't need to know stacks about the military to have an opinion about thism ONE incident! If anyone chooses to be offended by that, that is, unfortunately, not my problem.



..and that seems to be ONLY b/c it gave you a chance to throw out your ignorant political views to everyone..



That's your interpretation. Don't impute motives to me! If you find my political views ignorant, that's OK by me, but am I not allowed to have my own opinions? And talk about them? I was under the impression we were allowed to have individual opinions here - and that includes those who agree with me and those who don't. As I said earlier, my opinions relate to war, not the military.



Ms Hutchinson's first duty is to her her baby, and I don't need to do lots of research to believe that.

Shelby - posted on 02/22/2010

So our military is peacekeepers now?? And thats it? They are here to negotiate? I thought thats what our politicians did...Why do they train ALL military personnel with a weapon?



Why do we spend SO much money on weapons? If we aren't a Deadly force PLEASE explain to me what is going on in Afghanistan...Why are they going in there with rifles, tanks and bombers instead of laptops, and inkpens?

Teresa - posted on 02/22/2010

OK... most of the comments here are way too long for me to read right now. I don't need to know anything about the military to know that as a single parent your first priority is to your child/children regardless of what your career is. If this woman had/has the option to get out or at least not need to be deployed then that is what should've happened IMO. Since that didn't happen I have no further comments on what should or should not happen now.

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

@Shelby.. Kathy called herself ignorant, for one. For another, if you're going to sit there and spout off completely ignorant statements, someone is bound to call you out on it. And another thing, my husband is in the Army, my parents were in the AF, one of my Grandfathers was a Marine, but that was back in WWII, so I don't know about the rifleman thing.

We never said that there weren't people killing other people in war. We agreed that it does in fact happen. The point we were trying to make to Kathy was that NOT ALL soldiers are sent there to kill, b/c she implied that it was the only job to do out there, until people set her straight, that is.

And the basis of our military isn't JUST to have a deadly force when necessary, but it's also to be able to negotiate with people and try to bring peace among our nations. I didn't get to finish reading your comment and I apologize for that. My son just woke up from his nap, so until his bedtime, have a good day :)

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

@Kathy.. I was speaking more along the lines of the first part of the definition: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Read the first definition, please.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
Main Entry: ob·sti·nate
Pronunciation: \ˈäb-stə-nət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French obstinat, Latin obstinatus, past participle of obstinare to be resolved, from ob- in the way + -stinare (akin to stare to stand)
Date: 14th century
1 : perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion
2 : not easily subdued, remedied, or removed
— ob·sti·nate·ly adverb
— ob·sti·nate·ness noun

Ugh, I repeat myself. You are only reading what you WANT to read!!!

I said the conspiracy thing b/c a lot of people that I personally know who refuse to do research about things like the military, often say so b/c they think everything is a government conspiracy. It was a "just in case" statement, not a "I know you're thinking this" statement.

" did not think I needed an in-depth knowledge to make a personal comment on one situation"

The situation is about the US Army AND the woman, not JUST about the woman!!! And you have absolutely NO knowledge whatsoever about the US military, so again I am asking you, WHY ARE YOU STILL COMMENTING?? You CANNOT form an HONEST opinion about something that you are COMPLETELY oblivious to!!!!

"I have never said every soldier is out for blood"
"I did say, and I stand by this, that people go to war to kill people"

I hope you realize that you just contradicted yourself in those two statements. I already explained to you that the main reason is to negotiate, not kill. What is so hard to understand about that, honestly??

"I will say that it's a sad day when holding a view others do not support is not tolerated."

Honestly, I couldn't give a crap whether you support the war or not. What I DO care about is that you keep spouting off about something you are beyond ignorant about and you just won't stop! You say you're sorry for offending people and yet you still keep running your mouth, saying the same things over and over.

"So I'm not anti-military. Those with whom I've been discussing this thread seem to have come to that conclusion."

I said "anti-military/war" b/c I wasn't sure at the time where exactly you stood. It doesn't mean that it was my final conclusion about you. I still find you quit ignorant and highly irritating, though.

"Perhaps you could also add caring to that list.. Yes I know Ms Hutchinson signed up WILLINGLY, I know she had her opportunities to get out of the army before being sent to Iraq and didn't. She's obviously in the wrong organisation, and doesn't look like good soldier material to me. But, in my opinion, her child comes first. Let her go."

I'm sorry.. I can't bring myself to do that. Maybe someone else can, though. You seem to care about ONE soldier, and that seems to be ONLY b/c it gave you a chance to throw out your ignorant political views to everyone.. From what I have read, you don't really seem to care about much other than that. If her child came first to her, she would have found someone to watch him b/c now she is going to have to spend some time in jail (most likely, anyway) instead of seeing her kid.

"I have carefully avoided making any generalised comments about the US militia as a whole"

Kathy, this is from your first post:
" Please bear in mind that this is very general "

How are we all supposed to think you are not making generalized statements, when you said in your first post they are GENERAL statements?? Now do you see why people are all up in arms with you??

I think we all can agree that if you are not going to make any effort in researching this topic, then maybe you need to quit posting in this thread b.c you are doing absolutely nothing besides pissing a lot of military wives off.

Part of the point in a debate is to GATHER your research, FORM your honest opinion BASED on your research, THEN debate the topic at hand. Not to form an opinion off the top of your head, being completely ignorant about the subject and then denying that you were never making any general statements.

You really need to do some research. You're just making yourself look like an idiot, and apparently I am NOT the only one that thinks so!

Shelby - posted on 02/22/2010

However the fact that I by NO means agree with Kathy I see her point. I do not think it is fair for her to have been called any names for her disagreeing with anyone else's views. I'm sure there is a word for that, However my intelligence level limits me at times. And lets please not be naive about things shall we. I'm not sure about all armed forces but the key underlying component in the Marine Corps is "EVERY MARINE IS A RIFLEMAN" first and foremost. The entire time spent in bootcamp is training for a basic fighting machine. So in all actuality all military personnel are trained to kill. And, I'm (again)not sure about the other branches, but in the Marine Corps even after intense training in bootcamp to become riflemen they spend time in either California or North Carolina to undergo MCT...Military Combat Training. All of this before they EVER go to their MOS school. So to say that not all soldiers, marines, airmen, etc...are not out to kill is not all together true. The very basis of our military is to defend our nation with DEADLY FORCE when necessary. To expect any less is extremely naive. Your husband may be a photographer, or a medic, or a mechanic, or even a cook...but guaranteed...They can at a moments notice pick up a M-16 service rifle and hit the target EVERY time. Guaranteed they qualify on the rifle range once a year...Well At least they do in the marine corps. I mean honestly people this is the Armed Services.
I apologize for tying up this thread but its not fair to be so rude and ignorant towards someone and flat out call them names. I mean in all honesty this goes for Alexis Hutchinson also if you don't want to take the chance of having to kill someone, or deploying or being away from your children...THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU IN THE ARMED SERVICES....JOIN THE PEACE CORPS... I have said this before and will say it again. This is NOT a scholarship program. People...We go to WAR. There is a reason they are trained with a rifle.
Again sorry for taking over the thread, but seriously lets not call each other names. To me, its embarrassing as a military wife. There is much more decent ways to get our point across.

Kathy - posted on 02/22/2010

Firstly, I utterly reject the bigot accusation - hatred and intolerance? Where on earth do you get that from?



I have never said it's a conspiracy. I have never said every soldier is out for blood. I have said I'm well aware that there is a huge variety of jobs in the military. I did say, and I stand by this, that people go to war to kill people. For example: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan200... .

And although this happens to be an American example, I am well aware that other nations have the same sorts of reasons.



I chose not to research the US military because I was only commenting on one situation and did not think I needed an in-depth knowledge to make a personal comment on one situation. I still don't. As I've said earlier, I know there are many soldiers deployed in lots of different jobs during war , and I also know that many soldiers and soldier' families do not support the war, but no-one has yet acknowledged that I've said that.



I have carefully avoided making any generalised comments about the US militia as a whole, brcause I did not think this was in any way relevant to the issue of "kids or country."



My anti-war stance has obviously offended many people. I'm sorry about this, but that is one of my most deeply-held principles and I won't be changing it. As well as emotion, this stance is based on research into the causes and effects of a wide variety of wars over history. I will not be going into that here, as I do not think it appropriate or necessary. I will say that it's a sad day when holding a view others do not support is not tolerated.



Indidentally, being anti-war does not necessarily mean anti-military. I know of many situations where military units are deployed as peace-keepers. So I'm not anti-military. Those with whom I've been discussing this thread seem to have come to that conclusion.



So far I've been called a bigot, a fool, ignorant, stupid. Perhaps you could also add caring to that list.. Yes I know Ms Hutchinson signed up WILLINGLY, I know she had her opportunities to get out of the army before being sent to Iraq and didn't. She's obviously in the wrong organisation, and doesn't look like good soldier material to me. But, in my opinion, her child comes first. Let her go.

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

Jennifer, you just contradicted yourself. Sure you can be on the fence in half of one uniform and half of the other side's uniform, but when you walk down the middle of the two, you'll get shot at from both sides. See what I mean? With what you said you can get verbally "attacked" by us whose spouses are in the military and with the people (person, rather) who is for only the mother. Please, for you and for the sake of the thread, please further explain your point?

Jennifer - posted on 02/22/2010

She made the choice to join the army so she should face up to her responsibilites. But whilst she has a responsibility to the army her child should come first - if that means disciplinary action then so be it. I personally would not want to be with someone who was in the army because at the end of the day there's a big chance that they could die and my son could be left without a dad and also he would hardly ever see his dad growing up, apart from that I'm a very physical person. I have always wanted to be a stay-at-home mum and could never see myself working whilst my children are growing up nevermind being in the army!

JL - posted on 02/22/2010

I am a military wife and a military brat who DOES NOT support War, but I support the troops.



I wish we lived in an idealic world full of love, peace, and understanding but I understand that in real life where there are sick degrading psychopaths that prey on the weak and turn them into killers to form armies so they can start needless unwarranted wars in the name of hate. That is why we have organized militaries with trained men and women so when these sickos strike they can stand up and protect the world.



WTF would have happened if there had been no organized trained soldiers willing to stand up against Hitler. Yes, not every war is neccessary or just and innocent lives are lost and no one relishes in that but war alone is not the reason for lives lost. Soldiers do not force terrorists to attack their own fellow countrymen, soldiers do not force terrorists to set bombs in buildings. If anything you should put your disgust on those who declare unwarranted wars.....politicans and those who attack and murder people out of disillusioned hate..........terrorists.



I don't think you are a bigot...ignorant yes, but a bigot perhaps not but referring to soldiers in a generalized comment as killers does make you come off sounding like a bigot.



What you continue to fail to recognize is that the woman in this situation WILLINGLY signed up for the military under the understanding that she would deploy to war. The Army did not make her sign a contract or get pregnant or choose to stay in as a deployable single mom...she chose that.



I am a feminist who believes deeply in freedom of choice and if a woman chooses to join the military and deploy for a year leaving her child behind she has every friggin right to do so and that doesn't make her a bad mom or the military heartless.

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

Sorry, Kathy.. I forgot you may not know what MOS means. It means Military Occupational Specialty(ies).

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

@Kathy.. If you read the definitions I posted, you would see that you do fall under the category of a bigot. Not my words, but the dictionary's words. I would just as soon call you an ignorant person rather than a bigot. I was saying that I think Sharon was right in her wording considering the actual definitions.

Nobody was saying that people do not die in war, we were saying that not everyone goes out there to kill b/c you seem to think that EVERY soldier is out to get blood and that's just not true.. Of course, you would know that if you did some actual research on military and what the jobs entail. And NO, we DON'T go out there JUST TO KILL. How hard-headed can one person be? People who DO have knowledge of the military are TELLING YOU FLAT-OUT that we don't go over there just to kill people.. And us telling you that is NOT a conspiracy that you may think we all joined forces to think up just b/c you're anti-military/war. Our troops go out there to negotiate with others to TRY and bring peace, but not everyone is WILLING to make peace. You seem to have skipped a lot of our posts, which explained that. You're reading only what you want to read.

"I think her duty to her baby is paramount. Everybody has different ways of working for their country.."

Kathy, you seem to be missing the point. Joy made it VERY clear in her last post. This woman HAD A CHANCE to get out of the military and she made no effort of doing so. After 9/11, anyone in the military should be ready to deploy b/c it's inevitable unless they have a non-deployable MOS. My husband was non-deployable for three years (he was supposed to have a surgery done), but low and behold a month before he was set to deploy, his 1st SGT fought it and my husband had to go. His MOS was NOT non-deployable, so we knew that there was a small chance that he would still have to go. Being a cook in the military, this woman should have known she would have to go at one time or another. As Joy stated before, every pregnant soldier receives counseling and are told they can get out if the want/need to. This particular soldier refused. Maybe to make a statement, who knows. But she refused, knowing by her contract that if she refused to carry out her orders she could be discharged and possibly receive a jail sentence. Either way she would be away from her son, so she really had no excuse. You can find someone to look after your child if you look hard enough. They extended her time at home so she could find someone and she didn't try. Please re-read Joy's posts and my and Sharon's posts.

And I have to say, Dana said it perfectly when she posted this:

"Kathy, if someone refuses to research a particular subject then they shouldn't talk about it, it only makes them look like a fool. It's insane to be against something yet know NOTHING about it."

Kathy - posted on 02/22/2010

I've been really trying to explain myself here. My initial concern was the baby, who's the one that seems, to me, to be ignored here - his welfare is paramount, I feel.



I was concerned at the lack of flexibility shown by the army IN THIS SITUATION. I did not comment on army men and women and their families, so if you've taken my opinion as personal criticism I'm sorry. I was, in fact, at pains to make my comments on this situation specifically as I'm aware there is a large number of soldiers and families in these communities,



It looks like I shouldn't have mentioned my anti-war feelings, and I regret that. Not the feelings, just mentioning them. This was not the place for an anti-war rant. I originally saw it as context for my comments, but I can see now it was the wrong thing to do.



I've obviously hit a nerve by suggesting that people kill people in wars. Here are some figures. I've included them ONLY to back up my point that people die in wars, not to have a go at anybody.



As of Dec 2009, total US reported killed in Iraq is 4,287 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/o...

Estimates vary in the number of reported Iraqui deaths. President Bush said in December 2005 that there were Iraqi 30,000 civilian deaths. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...



I also know that there is far more happening than the actual fighting - cooks, photographers medical workers etc etc.But I do know people go to war to kill and you can't get past that fact. And yes, I am aware of the reasons they go and that they don't all agree with the war.



Christina and Sharon, are you saying I'm a bigot? If so, could you please give me an example? I haven't seen any bigotry in my posts or anyone else's. Perhaps having a different opinion from you makes me a bigot?



But back to Ms Hutchinson - I think her duty to her baby is paramount. Everybody has different ways of working for their country. Bringing up a child is one of them. I think 1 year is far too long for a child that age to be separated from his mother, even if Ms Hutchinson has holidays (or whatever the army term is - furlough?)

Sara - posted on 02/22/2010

I just want to add that i consider myself a pacifist, I don't agree with war and I would not join the military to fight in one. That being said, you should respect all soilders for the sacrifices they make for you. They are just doing their jobs, just like you do your job. They aren't involved in the politics or in making decisions about where they go and what they do. I think you can hate the war but still support the troops, and you should.

Dana - posted on 02/22/2010

Kathy, if someone refuses to research a particular subject then they shouldn't talk about it, it only makes them look like a fool. It's insane to be against something yet know NOTHING about it.

C. - posted on 02/22/2010

@Kathy.. I know this is going off topic yet again, but I just have to say one more thing. Saying that everyone who is at war is "going off killing people" is not only ignorant (and you know that already) but it IS an attack on everyone in the military AND the military spouses/families. A lot of these men and women are not in combat (that's usually the only job where they kill people). Joy mentioned intelligence work and combat photographer. Shelby said her husband saves lives (I am assuming he is MedEvac?) There are cooks in the military, desk jobs, I have mentioned my husband's job. Not all soldiers are killing people. Yes, they carry a weapon just in case they get attacked and they won't be caught with no protection, but that is NOT to say by ANY means that they are all out for blood! There are people that are TRYING to negotiate with the presidents of Iraq and Afghanistan and the locals, but they have to carry weapons for their own protection. If your spouse was out at war, wouldn't you want them to carry a weapon just in case THEY got shot at? I would think so! Refusing to do any kind of research on this subject, yet still commenting on this thread.. I have to agree with what Sharon said b/c of that, too. It's a shame, really. If you don't have any knowledge about something, then how can you form an honest opinion? You are just going by hear-say and not actual knowledge, therefore making your comments/statements null and void. They have absolutely no meaning, other than you offending people and quit honestly I think that's all you wanted to do was to step on some toes. Look out, Honey! We're going to step on yours right back! You cannot expect to comment on a thread pertaining to military anything, whether it be guidelines, actions, what have you, and NOT have all the wives, family members and friends of military personnel coming back to defend those who are out fighting for all of US. I just don't understand how someone can be so ignorant! Just b/c some of us have spouses out in Iraq or Afghanistan, it does not mean that we are FOR the war. Personally, I am glad that we have people to defend our country when things go haywire, and I do think that the war in Iraq has gone a little too far but the war in Afghanistan still holds meaning.

I know all too well what war can do to a person. My Great-Grandfather was in WWI, both of my Grandfathers were in WWII, my Uncle went to Vietnam, my Father-In-Law has been deployed (I don't remember where he went, but he's about to deploy again soon), my Cousin's hubby has been deployed, friends that I used to work with when we were in High School are currently deployed and my husband is also currently deployed. And my friend's husband was deployed a while back and just deployed again. He was hit with an IED the first time around and has not exactly been the same since. I KNOW what war can do to people, but they are still going out and fighting so that WE can have such freedoms and that we can live. We wouldn't be alive if people were still carrying out terror attacks on us right now, now would we? As many years as it has been since 9/11, are you kidding me? More than half the population would have been wiped out by now if it wasn't for our troops going out and putting their lives on the line to save our asses!

Your ignorance is what causes so many fallen soldiers to die in vain b/c ignorant people do not appreciate what they do for us. Really? Australia sends troops, too? Wow! What a concept. They are protecting YOUR ass, too, you know!

Well, Kathy, since you don't want to accept what Sharon said..
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

Main Entry: big·ot·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gə-trē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural big·ot·ries
Date: circa 1674
1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

Yes, I do believe she was right. All in all, the woman got what she deserved b/c she could have gotten out and she did not. She willfully disobeyed her orders, so she deserves to be kicked out and jail time. I am sure if she looked hard enough she could/can find someone to care for her son while she is gone. She made immature decisions, not looking at what COULD happen if she disobeyed her command. Instead she thought she would be able to get away scot-free.

Kathy - posted on 02/21/2010

Not at all, Sharon, but if that makes you feel better, that's fine by me.



I originally posted here because of my concern about the baby and his mother. I tried desperately not to make any personal attacks on members of the military and their families, and I don't think I did. I'm sorry if it came out that way.



Yes, I'm opposed to the war - that was a background for all my comments, but I realise I went too far. I should have just mentioned it and got on with the rest of my comments.



My comments about the military? I said I was ignorant, but I didn't realise you had to know everything before you're allowed to comment and give an opinion.



Bigotry? I absolutely do not accept this.



Indidentally, I want to add that I certainly don't feel attacked here. I accept that if you hold extreme views you'll cop some flak. What I see are people who have strong views too. We all have every right to hold and defend such opinions. It's part of being a democracy and a learning experience. So I enjoy reading all your posts and adding to my total life experience.

Shelby - posted on 02/21/2010

I totally forgot to post my thoughts on the original post, Absolutely she should be reprimanded. She should lose rank, Have to pay back lots of money, Dishonorably discharged...Unfortunately I can't say brig time, I wish she would be able to, but clearlythere is no one to care for her son. Yet her ignorance beyond pisses me off. Yet so much of this goes on, and I get so worked up over it!!!! GRRRRR

Lindsay - posted on 02/21/2010

On the original post, this woman is totally deserving of any legal actions taken against her. She didn't want to be responsible for her actions and tried to use her own son as a tool to get what she wanted. She didn't take any available avenues to help her so instead, she igorned her duties and threw a tamtrum when she didn't get her way.



As for the soldiers and their families, I am so thankful for their sacrifices and services that I don't have to live in that day to day fear. I'm so thankful for everything they do and sacrifice so that me and my children are able to rest our heads at night and know that we are safe!

Shelby - posted on 02/21/2010

War is an unwelcome necessity in society. That is just the way it is. Do you happen to notice the sick fucking things going on around the Earth in these 3rd world countries??? Do you see what happens to the "weaker" people by the "men with the guns"? Do you want that happening in your country? I personally will never ever forget watching Good Morning America the morning of Sept 11, I don't ever want to relive that. I don't ever want to be afraid to walk my children to school. I don't want to be afraid for my children to play outside. I don't want to be afraid to pray in my church. Hell yes they are killing people over there... I'm a bit of a hard nose...So I won't say too much because sometimes I seem to get carried away.But, with that said, It could be happening on our own soil...Or on Australian soil...Think about that. No my husband's job isn't necessarily a first round "killer" either. In all actuality he is actually a life saver. If a helicopter goes down. Hes the one that gets the pilots and the crew out before they burn to death, so he helps to save a life. But yes, He carries that rifle, but to keep the horrific things happening over there...Not over here.

Krista - posted on 02/21/2010

So, I'd like to point out that without these "killers" you COULD quite possibly be fighting off invading armies who would pillage and rape any woman or child they came across because there was no one to protect the country.

Sharon - posted on 02/21/2010

Here's a thought since you don't care to have one. If you know nothing about the military - why bother to comment since all you did was highlight your bigotry and ignorance?



I think you had no care to the topic, you just wanted to voice your opinion on war. Which wasn't the topic. Since you knew NOTHING and admit it, about this case and our military - why comment? You also said you had no intention of doing any research - again, WHY COMMENT? Just to slam the rest of us who are military, national guard and police officers?

Kathy - posted on 02/21/2010

I accept that I was spouting off about things I don't understand - I said that at the start. And I stand by my refusal to research the military life because I'm not very interested in that subject. I'm not very interest in the subject of the dream life of tadpoles either, so I'm not researching that! And I know many people need a stable job.

But people still get killed, don't they? And they DO go to war to kill people. Why are so many of our tax dollars spent buying military equipment if this is not the case? My dad was in New Guinea, so I know about military life from his point of view. He had to kill people. I have known lots of people who went to Vietnam and either didn't come home or came home so severely damaged they couldn't hold a job down. And this sort of psychological damage passes through the generations. I've seen it on many occasions. I've seen families trying to cope emotionally when their father/son/brother came home from war damaged beyond belief. A friend of one of my daughters came back from Iraq and spent monthe having nightmares and crying. So don't try and convince me there's anything noble or heroic about war!

I am aware that not all soldiers are in favour of the war. Australia sends troops, too, you know.

Christina, I'm posting on a military thread because the topic was about kids. And because I'm allowed to, even though I have no direct knowledge, just vehemently-held opinions.

I tried not to hurt anyone's feelings directly, but obviously I did, so I apologise. And just as I wouldn't expect others to change their opinions I won't be changing mine.