[MMike]

I am forced to watch the Nanny reality shows. My wife is into them. They really are the only remotely valuable reality TV out there.

Anyhoo tonight there was a family where dad was off in Iraq fighting the boogey man leaving mom alone with 3 horrible little kids. That is some messed up priorities. Abandoning your family to fulfill your GI Joe fantasy is just irresponsible...yet he's hailed as a hero??

A man has to take care of his own, first and foremost...

 

[slein]

He's fighting for their country and their future. Albeit for a BS war, but thats another thread.

He should have instilled military discipline in them before he left, unless he's an officer. They have to be told to suck eggs on a daily basis.

The Nanny sorts out the kids... doesn't she sort out the parents too?

 

[manimal]

umm...so the guy should just forego his first promise that he probably made before he was married and had kids? he swore to "defend against all enemies foreign and domestic". part of that oath carries with it the possibility of leaving friends and loved ones for something that many, like yourself, that will never understand.

 

[MikeD]

Yeah, those kids would be TONS better off if their dad was in military prison for refusing to go.

I realize you're trolling, but that's still pretty weak, just on a practical level. In any case, I'm sure glad you're apathetic enough to just think these kinds of thoughts rather than actually bothering to show up at the airport to spit on the returning servicemen.

A man has to take care of his own, first and foremost.

Why is it that when an American says that, he's evil and greedy and selfish and soulless, but when a Canadian does, it's somehow noble?

(Damn, you trolled me anyway...you're good...)

MD

 

[Reactor]

Some people are career military, should they all forgo kids? The military has some resources to help out the spouse in these types of circumstances. If they want kids the need to figure out how to cope with it. If the Nanny helped, more power to her.

On the other hand, once I decided I wasn't going to be career military I didn't take any chances. I've seen how screwed up things can be, and I didn't want a wife and kids left to fend for themselves. My dad joined during the Korean war and went to NAM.

 

[enkidu]

A career in military can be a noble profession, but THIS war of aggression and occupation is NOT noble.

MMike has a point in saying that perhaps fulfilling such mundane obligations as feeding and fending for the family and the community, repairing roofs and pot-holes in back countries and such CAN be more instrumental in strengthening the country. Not all of us are called to be worriers.

 

[MikeD]

A career in military can be a noble profession, but THIS war of aggression and occupation is NOT noble.

MMike has a point in saying that perhaps fulfilling such mundane obligations as feeding and fending for the family and the community, repairing roofs and pot-holes in back countries and such CAN be more instrumental in strengthening the country. Not all of us are called to be worriers.

Not to belabor the astonishingly obvious, but members of the military don't choose to go to war or not. They go when they're told to go by civilians, and if they didn't, we'd have even bigger problems than we already have.

Direct all comments about the nobility of the war to your elected leadership and the electorate that put them there, not the people with their asses on the line regardless.

What's really sad, to me, is the way electorates see success as a self-justifying thing...if the war had been easy and quick, people would have thought it was right and proper. Now that it's not as easy, painless, and self-gratifying (allowing some gloating over our own heroic self-sacrifice and worldwide benevolence), the same asses who were all for it are screaming retreat. What a bunch of idiotic pussies.

MD

 

[Pau11y]

Stoopid question here:
If you want to stir up some sh!t w/o violence, I mean seriously stir up some...to the effect of calling for the impeachment of our mentally ill-equipped commander in chief, how does one get started? Sheehan (spelling?) was doing well to show just how big of a pussy bush really is (no pun...). I think she should have escalated to a bit of name-calling and worked over his more-proud-than-smart texan pride/ego. I'm really psych'd about this current wave of discontent in both sides of Congress tho. It has to be really screwing w/ the registered "reds", that maybe, just maybe the color they were following was actually the greater of the two evils during elections - your normal mid-west farmer John and Betty Jo's whose sons and daughters are dying in this friggin' war for oil. But then again, we are talking about republicans...

 

[MMike]

Well first of all, I wasn't trolling. I do actually believe what I said. Secondly I'm not trying to create yet another GWB is an idiot thread...we have enough of those.


But as far as going off to do "what you think is right in the name of freedom", (or whatever the reasoning is), and the expense of the welfare of your family just make no sense to me. Strictly speaking, if you decide you want to be a career army guy, then really I don't think you should have kids. Kids have a hard enough time these days. Signing up for something that will almost guarantee that you will be away from your kids for huge amounts of time is wrong as far as I'm concerned. Go ahead and be patriotic. But take care of your kids. The military jut seems like a "get out of family jail free" card.

Your family IS more important than "fighting for freedom". Unless of course the enmey i on you next door neighbour's front lawn.... then I may reconsider my view.

 

[MikeD]

So who's going to be in the military, then? 18-year old kids who don't yet have families, all the way from privates to generals? You need experience and age to have an effective organization.

If you made it a requirement to remain single, you would indeed accomplish your goal of keeping parents home with the family...not a heck of a lot of worthwhile people would stay in the military because they'd rather have a family if faced with choosing only one.

As is, there's your occasional warrior-monk bachelor-colonel (or SNCO) type, and plenty of divorced people running around in all ranks, but there are lots who balance the needs of the family with the duties they've undertaken.

And of the healthy families in the military, the spouses understand the obligations-they accepted them in the bargain, and actually love and respect their partners' dedication...they would be let down themselves if the one they loved and trusted took a cowardly step to back out of what is basically a sacred oath to society as a whole. Yeah, there's probably a little masochistic pride in the sacrifice...but you should appreciate that rather than mock it, because people like that form the backbone of any nation's ability to survive.

MD

Edit:

But as far as going off to do "what you think is right in the name of freedom", (or whatever the reasoning is),

You 're still not getting it. It's not a choice that's made with regard to any specific circumstance...it's the exact opposite. Do you think it's like a contracting business where you can take or turn down work as you like?

Only mercenaries have that luxury. You could level this accusation at Blackwater or KBR personnel in theatre, if you like, but that'd be your business. I don't bear a grudge against them at all, but I also see them as businessmen engaged in a really risky endeavor for which they're extremely well-compensated. The risks they take are up to them and their family to weigh...and you can criticize all you want; I'm sure they won't care. Their dead also won't have flags on their coffins (as if that matters to a corpse) and the US military won't count them as casualties on the evening news.

 

[fluff]

It's not only soldiers whose job takes them away from home...

As for what is right in the name of freedom we probably all have different ideas, fighting Iraqis in Iraq is different from fighting Chinese in Korea or invaders in your homeland (or your neighbor's lawn) but it's a matter of degree (so long as you accept the principle that there is a threat to your nation).

I personally disagree with the reasons for going to war in Iraq but I do not have any issues with the troops who have enlisted prior to the war and are not performing their sworn duty.

 

[slein]

Making babies is what the military is all about. At least, that's what the drill sergeant said during basic training. Anywho....

Military personnel get deployed all the time, and often without their families. Its a part of the job, and domestic issues are excluded in decision-making.

I didn't see the show, but I wager that the wife could do more. I was gone for nine weeks for work and everything was fine when I returned. This is a case of weak parenting, and that's why there's the Super Nanny. Otherwise, set rules and boundaries, and give lots and lots of hugs.

 

[Reactor]

A career in military can be a noble profession, but THIS war of aggression and occupation is NOT noble.

MMike has a point in saying that perhaps fulfilling such mundane obligations as feeding and fending for the family and the community, repairing roofs and pot-holes in back countries and such CAN be more instrumental in strengthening the country. Not all of us are called to be worriers.

I'm going to agree, at least in large part. There are a lot of more constructive things people could be doing. Joining during a war when you already have a family...well I'll just say it isn't the brightest thing to do. If the guy was already in the military, it's a crap shoot, you might serve 20 years and never see something more violent than marines fighting over then last slice of pizza. Or you might be in an intermittent state of war your enitre career, having a family is a hard choice.

MikeD et. al.
None of this should be seen as endorsing this idiotic war. I was against it from day one, I'm not a Johny come lately who wants to cut and run. I said this war, and the intellegence used to jusify it, was a sham from the very start. Every single reason for going into Iraq has been discredited. Were going to be paying for this war, and the damage it's done for a long time. I am not dogging the military in general, as was pointed out earlier, civilians decide if and when to fight.

 

[MikeD]

MikeD et. al.
None of this should be seen as endorsing this idiotic war. I was against it from day one, I'm not a Johny come lately who wants to cut and run. I said this war, and the intellegence used to jusify it, was a sham from the very start. Every single reason for going into Iraq has been discredited. Were going to be paying for this war, and the damage it's done for a long time. I am not dogging the military in general, as was pointed out earlier, civilians decide if and when to fight.

I've never been of the opinion that the war was well-begun or imminently necessary... I would have worked things out quite differently if I was in charge.

However, bald facts are that we're there now, thanks to (insert who you like to blame here...the politicians or our chicken-little populace) and we need to succeed no matter how much it sucks. Some people (not saying you necessarily) don't want us to succeed because 1) they hate Bush 2) they hate the war and 3) would like to see themselves proven correct.

I don't think that's wise or honorable...we're there and have to remain. I didn't start this mess, but I'm determined to see it through to the most positive end we can have...and I honestly do think it'll be a positive end. It may and hopefully will turn out to be extraordinarily positive for all comers aside from the dead and maimed.

I think the net effect could have happened in a smarter, less difficult, and more appealing way, and I'm not a fan of how it's made us look or the price we've paid. But I'm still not going to hope that our team loses, just to spite the leadership. Nor do I think you're dumb enough to want that, either.

MD

PS I honestly think the way to a better Iraq and a better Middle East was through Iran, not vice-versa, and that Iran 1) posed (poses, actually) much more of an actual threat and 2) would have been more amenable to change, from within or [just perhaps, in the course of a developing situation] from without. Theoretically, I'm a fan of not involving the US abroad any more or longer than it has to...but I also don't think Iran's posturing can be ignored any longer. Now, we're close to Iran physically and militarily, but kind of tied up taking care of a tar baby of our own making.

 

[DaveW]

A man has to take care of his own, first and foremost...

Why is it that when an American says that, he's evil and greedy and selfish and soulless, but when a Canadian does, it's somehow noble?

Possibly Due to the fact that if an American states it, it all to often denotes his (or her) intention to f*ck some one else over?

Yeah I know ......sweeping generalisation, but it's what the rest of the world see's on a regular basis.

 

[Reactor]

I've never been of the opinion that the war was well-begun or imminently necessary... I would have worked things out quite differently if I was in charge.

However, bald facts are that we're there now, thanks to (insert who you like to blame here...the politicians or our chicken-little populace) and we need to succeed no matter how much it sucks. Some people (not saying you necessarily) don't want us to succeed because 1) they hate Bush 2) they hate the war and 3) would like to see themselves prove correct.

I don't think that's wise or honorable...we're there and have to remain. I didn't start this mess, but I'm determined to see it through to the most positive end we can have...and I honestly do think it'll be a positive end. It may and hopefully will turn out to be extraordinarily positive for all comers aside from the dead and maimed.

I think the net effect could have happened in a smarter, less difficult, and more appealing way, and I'm not a fan of how it's made us look or the price we've paid. But I'm still not going to hope that our team loses, just to spite the leadership. Nor do I think you're dumb enough to want that, either.

MD

PS I honestly think the way to a better Iraq and a better Middle East was through Iran, not vice-versa, and that Iran 1) posed (poses, actually) much more of an actual threat and 2) would have been more amenable to change, from within or [just perhaps, in the course of a developing situation] from without. Theoretically, I'm a fan of not involving the US abroad any more or longer than it has to...but I also don't think Iran's posturing can be ignored any longer. Now, we're close to Iran physically and militarily, but kind of tied up taking care of a tar baby of our own making.

Exactly. Now we have to figure out how to become disentangled in Iraq without creating an even bigger mess than we started with. Meanwhile Iran and North Korea pose a much greater risk to world peace than Iraq ever did. North Korea just kicked out the world food program. By next winter they'll have a starving populace, and multiple nuclear weapons, and a missile capable of hitting the west coast, not to mention Russia, china, south Korea, and japan.

Iranians in general like Americans, the Iranian government hates the American government, and Israel. If they get the bomb, the whole region could destabilize almost overnight, and we don't have the type of military force needed if the negotiating gets rough. They know it and are trying to hold Europe up for what is essentially "protection money".

 

[MudGrrl]

as the saying goes...


the military didn't issue you a family


(meaning:the military doesn't care)

 

[fluff]

Exactly. Now we have to figure out how to become disentangled in Iraq without creating an even bigger mess than we started with. Meanwhile Iran and North Korea pose a much greater risk to world peace than Iraq ever did. North Korea just kicked out the world food program. By next winter they'll have a starving populace, and multiple nuclear weapons, and a missile capable of hitting the west coast, not to mention Russia, china, south Korea, and japan.

Iranians in general like Americans, the Iranian government hates the American government, and Israel. If they get the bomb, the whole region could destabilize almost overnight, and we don't have the type of military force needed if the negotiating gets rough. They know it and are trying to hold Europe up for what is essentially "protection money".

Arguably the US action in Iraq has already destabilized the region.

There was a clear underlying message that if you do not possess nuclear weapons then the US will invade, if you have them the US will negotiate. Is it any wonder that Iran is trying desperately to develop them?

 

[MikeD]

Hey MMike...we never finished this one.

So what IS the moral solution for a military servicemember called to duty in Iraq? Refusal to go to war and subsequent imprisonment, or running off to Canada or Mexico to avoid this (and dragging your family along, naturally, because we can't abandon them as moral people)?

Or are you just saying that every military servicemember with a family is inherently immoral?

Some people get sent to WWII, some get sent to Korea, and some to Iraq. It's not their choice, and none of these wars were/are garden spots or GI Joe fantasy camps.

MD

 

[Reactor]

Hey MMike...we never finished this one.

So what IS the moral solution for a military service member called to duty in Iraq? Refusal to go to war and subsequent imprisonment, or running off to Canada or Mexico to avoid this (and dragging your family along, naturally, because we can't abandon them as moral people)?

Or are you just saying that every military service member with a family is inherently immoral?

Some people get sent to WWII, some get sent to Korea, and some to Iraq. It's not their choice, and none of these wars were/are garden spots or GI Joe fantasy camps.

MD

If you are going to do a term in the military and then out, I think it's not advisable to have kids, aside from the war, you have the transition back to civilian life, and it's a lot easier and your options less limited if you don't have kids.

If you are career military, you and your spouse need to understand what it means, really means. You might be deployed for long periods of time, and you might not come back. Your spouse might be caring for your kids alone, with very little or no help. You need to clarify your situation before you have children.

Having children isn't a good reason, in and of it's self to forswear your oath to your country. Either you had them first, and knew what it meant entering the military. Or you had them after you entered the military, when you really knew what would happen.

I'm still against the war.

 

[Reactor]

Arguably the US action in Iraq has already destabilized the region.

There was a clear underlying message that if you do not possess nuclear weapons then the US will invade, if you have them the US will negotiate. Is it any wonder that Iran is trying desperately to develop them?

Well, I think the message we are sending. North Korea was/is much worse than Iraq on a humanitarian scale. They are much more of a threat. They actually have nuclear weapons. All the alleged reasons for going to Iraq go double or triple for North Korea. The rest of the world knows this and takes our choice of targets to mean we won't invade a nuclear power. You can be as mean, dirty, nasty if you want....if you have the bomb.

 

[Tenchiro]

All I know is that she can put me on the "naughty mat" anytime she wants. :devil:

 

[MMike]

It's this whole "sworn oath" business.... how does it outweigh the "sworn oath" you should have to your kids? You are making a sacrifice for your country completely at the expense of your kids...who have no say in the matter. How can your ideals win out over the welfare of your family?

Let's put it into terms that we can all understand. Say you have an opportunity to tie N8 to a stake and let fire ants devour him slowly. But it's on the other side of the world, and because you want to do it right, it will be a year long process. Of course you KNOW it is the right thing to do. But it will take you away from your family. As much as it would pain me to pass up the opportunity, I wouldn't do it. My kids are more important.

 

[urbaindk]

Some would argue that by fighting for their country they are ultimately protecting their family's future and freedom.

How does that come into play here?

 

[Reactor]

It's this whole "sworn oath" business.... how does it outweigh the "sworn oath" you should have to your kids? You are making a sacrifice for your country completely at the expense of your kids...who have no say in the matter. How can your ideals win out over the welfare of your family?

Let's put it into terms that we can all understand. Say you have an opportunity to tie N8 to a stake and let fire ants devour him slowly. But it's on the other side of the world, and because you want to do it right, it will be a year long process. Of course you KNOW it is the right thing to do. But it will take you away from your family. As much as it would pain me to pass up the opportunity, I wouldn't do it. My kids are more important.

You either had kids first, and knowing you had kids decided to join the military, knowing full well you could be called on to go in harms way, and it might interfere with your being a parent. In which you chose the job over your kids ALREADY.

Or you were in the military, knowing you could go in harms way and decided having kids wouldn't interfere with your military duty. In which you chose to have kids knowing they would be secondary.

Either way there are two choices, one requires you swear a very serious oath, to protect the constitution for enemies foreign and domestic and follow the orders of officers appointed over you, including the d- cheerleader. One unfortunately is all too easy, and requires only a modest amount of grooming or some roofies, or a girl from a republican state. You don't have to sign anything, or swear anything (unless it's that you don't have VD).

If you wanted both kids and a military career you had to make two choices to have them. In the U.S. and other countries serving in the military is comparable to voluntary servitude. You give up a lot of your right to serve. I took and still do take my oath very seriously. I didn't mix kids and a military career because I knew what it meant and knew I couldn't and wouldn't accept it.

To complain that you were too stupid to know what going in the military meant, and too stupid to know what having kids meant is well..stupid, and should be grounds for mandatory sterilization and loss of all parental rights. You took an oath, you collected a paycheck when life was easy (relatively). To complain now is at it's least irresponsible, disreputable and dishonest.

I knew people like that in the military, and I hated them. Fair weather sailors. Happy to strut around with whatever rank they had and usually abuse people with it. But give them the midwatch, or put them on any duty that required some actually work...how quickly you got the "My wife she..., my kids they.., my dog it..." line of B.S.. If that didn't work they became sick bay commando's.

I also know a Navy (reserve) Commander who is a single parent, and is going to Iraq for a year on some very hazardous duty. But he's doing it, because he swore to.

The point is choice, these people chose to have kids and chose a military career, they have no right to complain about those two choices clashing now.

On a lighter note, I do wish none of them had to go to this ill conceived war.

 

[MMike]

Some would argue that by fighting for their country they are ultimately protecting their family's future and freedom.

How does that come into play here?

Very very very very indirectly, and theoretically. What about the kids' daily life? Who's teaching little Jimmy to catch a baseball?

 

[MMike]

The point is choice, these people chose to have kids and chose a military career, they have no right to complain about those two choices clashing now.

.

I don't argue that. I just can't fathom NOT choosing for the immediate good of your kids. fighting for the "ideal of freedom" is pretty hokey at best. meanwhileThe kids are missing out.

I guess I should mention that my wife's dad did not meet her until she was over a year old. He was a marine in 'Nam. He did 2 tours... he signed up for a second tour knowing he had a daughter at home. I'm not one of his biggest fans....

 

[urbaindk]

Very very very very indirectly, and theoretically.

I agree with you.

What about the kids' daily life? Who's teaching little Jimmy to catch a baseball?

Terrorists? Just don't let them catch you flying a kite.

 

[Reactor]

I don't argue that. I just can't fathom NOT choosing for the immediate good of your kids. fighting for the "ideal of freedom" is pretty hokey at best. meanwhileThe kids are missing out.

This we can agree on. Not only was I in the Navy so was my father, for about five years we were both in the Navy. Being the oldest child, with four younger brothers, I swore I would not have children in the Navy. My father was a away for six to nine months, only to turn around and leave about the time you got reaquainted. For my part, I couldn't even tell family where I was going or how long I was going to be gone. I couldn't see raising a family like that.

 

[MikeD]

It's this whole "sworn oath" business.... how does it outweigh the "sworn oath" you should have to your kids? You are making a sacrifice for your country completely at the expense of your kids...who have no say in the matter. How can your ideals win out over the welfare of your family?

Let's put it into terms that we can all understand. Say you have an opportunity to tie N8 to a stake and let fire ants devour him slowly. But it's on the other side of the world, and because you want to do it right, it will be a year long process. Of course you KNOW it is the right thing to do. But it will take you away from your family. As much as it would pain me to pass up the opportunity, I wouldn't do it. My kids are more important.

MMike, I understand that you consider family more important than any other promises or oaths. Still, the question stands open... a military member has two choices when ordered to go. Go, or go to jail. Either removes them from their family, which seems to be your major issue.

So what are you saying? You've made it clear you think it's immoral to go to war when you've got a family. Is it more or less moral to go to jail? Or is it inherently immoral to have a family and be in the military?

And if the latter is indeed your stance, how do you propose militaries staff themselves? Again, I understand you'd probably rather not have any military, and requiring people to remain single is a good way to ensure very few people join up and stick around, but on a practical level, militaries do and must exist.

I just don't get your criticism. What SHOULD military parents do? Staying at home to play catch with Billy simply isn't an option.

MD

 

[PonySoldier]

...... What SHOULD military parents do?...
MD

Well in the fall of 1990 when my wife and I both got stop-lossed we requested exceptions to the stop-loss as we had a 16 month old child. In no way shape or form was my wifes battalion commander going to grant her an exception. My battalion commander considered stop-loss to be a breach of contract and granted as many as he could for the full spectrum of MOS's in the battalion that had been stop-lossed. We had come to the conclusion before the stop-loss that a family with both parents in the military and a child on board was big-time unworkable.

 

[Reactor]

I guess the real problem is so many people don't plan for their future at all. They don't save, they don't think about what having children really means, and the responsibility that comes with it. A lot don't think about what being in the military really means.

BTW, I'm NOT gigging the career military personnel who fully think out their choices and make plans and allowances. I'm talking about the nimrod who is in the military and thinks because he had a kid, everyone and everything should be rearranged for his benefit.

I was single when I was in the military, sometimes I was happy to make whatever allowances I could for family people. When we put into port, I always pulled the first day's duty section, so the married guys could go and see their families. But there were people who abused the system. Anyone here who is, or was, in the military knows what I'm talking about.

 

[PonySoldier]

... I always pulled the first day's duty section, so the married guys could go and see their families. But there were people who abused the system. Anyone here who is, or was, in the military knows what I'm talking about.

Did mountains of this when I was single when we returned from a field problem and continued to pull married peoples duty for cash money on holidays until our kid was born...and I know exactly of what you speak

 

[Reactor]

Well in the fall of 1990 when my wife and I both got stop-lossed we requested exceptions to the stop-loss as we had a 16 month old child. In no way shape or form was my wifes battalion commander going to grant her an exception. My battalion commander considered stop-loss to be a breach of contract and granted as many as he could for the full spectrum of MOS's in the battalion that had been stop-lossed. We had come to the conclusion before the stop-loss that a family with both parents in the military and a child on board was big-time unworkable.

Good for you. I've never seen a family with two parents in the military pull it off, sooner or later one or both have to leave the militarty. Looks like you figured it out sooner.

And for what it's worth, I think stop-loss orders are a dirty deal.

 

[PonySoldier]

...
And for what it's worth, I think stop-loss orders are a dirty deal.

My lifer LTC battalion commander thought the same, surprised us when he started putting pen to paper like mad to grant every exception requested... As he put it "No point in turning them from volunteers into draftees, I've got no use for draftees.."

 

[Silver]

BTW, I'm NOT gigging the career military personnel who fully think out their choices and make plans and allowances. I'm talking about the nimrod who is in the military and thinks because he had a kid, everyone and everything should be rearranged for his benefit.

I was single when I was in the military, sometimes I was happy to make whatever allowances I could for family people. When we put into port, I always pulled the first day's duty section, so the married guys could go and see their families. But there were people who abused the system. Anyone here who is, or was, in the military knows what I'm talking about.

That's not a military thing. That's a normal state of affairs in the civilian world too.

"Oh, Jim can finish this proposal. I've got to run to Timmy's soccer game! See you in the morning. I'll be in around 10, Timmy has a dentist appointment."

 

[MMike]

I just don't get your criticism. What SHOULD military parents do? Staying at home to play catch with Billy simply isn't an option.

MD

Honestly I don't know. Pretend to be gay so you get kicked out of the military? Put the kids up for adoption... Sell them into slavery? I truly don't have an answer. But I wag my finger vigorously at them! Take THAT and THAT!!


Oh and I think it was fluff that addressed this way back. Civilian careers can be as bad. Two cases: A friend of mine is a very successful sales guy. He has 3 girls between 3 and 8. He is gone overseas on sales trips for weeks at a time. He's gone more than he's home. He's making tons of cash, and has the Samsung plasma TV home theater to prove it. But he never sees his kids. Again, I wag.

And another guy I used to work with took a job in Kuwait years ago rebuilding pipelines. He left about two days after his son was born, and he was gone for a year. He missed the first year of his kid's life. I can tell you from experience, lots of cool stuff happens in that year. WAG! WAG! WAG!!!

 

[Ciaran]

Good for you. I've never seen a family with two parents in the military pull it off, sooner or later one or both have to leave the militarty. Looks like you figured it out sooner.

And for what it's worth, I think stop-loss orders are a dirty deal.

Sorry to slightly de-rail, but what is a "Stop Loss Order"? Having never been in the military I don't know.

 

[Tenchiro]

Damn, am I the only guy here looking to be punished by Nanny Jo?

 

[PonySoldier]

Sorry to slightly de-rail, but what is a "Stop Loss Order"? Having never been in the military I don't know.

It is an action ordered/put into place by the Military to extend your "enlistment" past your original active duty contract date. In my wifes case her active duty was extended from November 1990 to May 1991.