US Soldiers not willing to die for the war? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 10-15-2004, 06:29 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in649727.shtml

Quote:

It's supposed to be unthinkable for soldiers in wartime, troops refusing to follow orders in a combat zone. But with U.S. casualties in Iraq mounting, American commanders are being forced to think about it.

In one case that is still under investigation, members of a U.S. Army logistical unit may have rejected an order they considered too dangerous.

With many of Iraq's major roads turned into shooting galleries, 19 members of an Army reserve unit are under investigation for refusing an order to deliver a convoy of fuel trucks, reports CBS National Security Correspondent David Martin.

One of the members of the unit, Sgt. Larry O. McCook, told his wife they refused to go because the trucks they were driving weren't adequately protected.

"They don't have bulletproof protection on the vehicles, they just don't go fast at all. It's just not safe to be in a hostile territory,'' said Patricia McCook, relaying her husband's words.

Other soldiers told their families the fuel they were supposed to deliver was contaminated and there was no point in undertaking the dangerous drive.

Amber McClenny left this message on her mother's answering machine.

"Hi Mom, this is Amber. This is a real, real big emergency. I need you to contact someone. I mean raise pure hell. We yesterday, we refused to go on a convoy to Taji. That is above Baghdad. We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners."

This is the first known incident of a unit refusing to carry out a mission in Iraq. The soldiers have now been released and told that depending on their attitude, they could either get off with a reprimand or be court-martialed for mutiny.

They belong to the 343rd Quartermasters Company, a reserve unit of 120 soldiers which deployed from its home base in Rock Hill, S.C. last December. The unit now operates out of Tallil.

An e-mail from the command which runs the resupply mission in Iraq says the soldiers had some valid concerns, which Sgt. McCook told his wife are are being fixed.

"Right now they are having the vehicles technically inspected and they're going to put bulletproof armor on the vehicles," said Patricia McCook.

The lack of armor on trucks and humvees to protect soldiers in Iraq has been a long simmering problem which for one unit came to a head this week. Their commander calls it a temporary breakdown in discipline.

But the troubling question remains: are soldiers in Iraq beginning to think the mission is not worth the risk?

The Clarion-Ledger of Mississippi reported that U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., planned to submit a Congressional inquiry on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an investigation into whether they are being treated improperly.

"I would not want any member of the military to be put in a dangerous situation ill-equipped," Thompson told the newspaper. "I have had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that weren't armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me because we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in Iraq.

©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This is a very strange occurence. It will be interesting to see if this type of behavior becomes more common or not. Punishing these people for not wanting to die needlessly doesn't seem right.

What do you think about their actions? Is Iraq turning into Vietnam? Are soldiers going to start to oppose the war?

filtherton · 10-15-2004, 06:46 PM

It's probably only because john kerry said, "wrong war, wrong time".

corpheous · 10-15-2004, 07:08 PM

This is probably because some people *COUGH* *COUGH* are tired of dying for the rich and powerful. Some people don't believe they're fighting for freedom anymore. Some people think Bush is an asshat for getting us stuck over there in the first place and are tired of his shit.

Some people should also keep their mouth shut in the rare case it gets them in trouble

Willravel · 10-15-2004, 08:35 PM

Having the balls to fight for what you believe in is what being 'free' is all about. Would you rather follow orders from a leader you know is wrong and be discharged, or follow the orders and kill innocent people? (those questions are both based on individual beliefs and opinions of some of the soldiers, and are not meant to necessarily represent the truth or a lie, they are simply asked because some of them are asking themselves those questions)

TheFu · 10-15-2004, 08:46 PM

I think it has more to do with driving a fuek tanker into a hotspot without having necessary support.

OFKU0 · 10-15-2004, 08:59 PM

We all have and continue to make choices in our lives. I've chosen my profession and those in the military have chosen theirs. If some don't believe in what they are doing and for their reasons, so be it. People make decisions and career changes all the time and the military is no different.

I would hate to see those who decide to leave the military (serving in Iraq) for their own reasons become chastised or seen as traitors. But for the others so judgemental if the matter is as such, the scope of evolutionary intelligence may have past them by. So in the end it doesn't matter except for those directly affected. Isn't that what is supposed to make America great? Freedom of choice for starters?

pan6467 · 10-15-2004, 09:08 PM

I am sorry, I cannot condemn a soldier if he doesn't want to fight in this war. It is not about the US's safety it is about the rich getting richer. If I were in and I saw Haliburton getting away with overcharging the gov't for fuel, taking money for supplies to our troops and the troops not recieving them and a president who lied and had numerous false excuses for this war, sorry, my dignity and respect of my fellow man whether he is "the enemy" or not will not allow me to kill or put myself in harm's way. I SUPPORT THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING, BUT I UNDERSTAND AND WILL NOT CONDEMN THOSE WHO GO AGAINST ORDERS THEY FEEL ARE ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL AND NOT NECESSARY.

We already have proof (Abu Gahraib, and I am sure others where they weren't made public) of illegal orders, malfeasence and immoral and "unAmerican" orders and behaviors. If I were active military I'd be disgusted. I'm honorably discharged military and I am disgusted and ashamed for those who have done that crap and embarassed for those who are moral and brave enough to stick to their beliefs and morals.

I won't die so that Halliburton can make millions. I'll fight to the death for my family and my rights but I wouldn't fight in a war in a country we have no right being in. AND I will not condemn a soldier who feels the same way.

djtestudo · 10-15-2004, 09:33 PM

Some people are reading WAY too much into this, I think.

Sounds to me like the soldiers disobeyed orders not because of ideological differences, but because their equipment was in poor condition.

I don't like the thing where they were being held as prisioners, but I think that's an exaggeration too.

Erlein · 10-15-2004, 09:42 PM

Persons in the military (and I am one) should understand the consequences (for lack of a better word) of their chosen occupation and accept that. When you choose to enlist you swear to uphold are valued ideology and to defend the United States. And call me crazy, but I do believe there is a "to obey the orders of those appointed over me" line. To refuse an order because of an objection to the war is absurd and is also considered treason. However, if these soldiers were disobeying because of not being properly equiped with the necessary weapons and supplies, then yes, this case should be brought to those appointed over them and dealt with accordingly.

Boo · 10-15-2004, 10:00 PM

Sounds like poor leadership to me. Only a moron would ask a soldier to deliver contaminated fuel anywhere (besides a ditch to burn it in). Soldiers get scared, poor leaders making bad decisions wil bring a head to a situation in a hurry.

Edit to add:

My guess is that their supervision will be missed at the next promotion board. Officers will retire early.

pan6467 · 10-15-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erlein

Persons in the military (and I am one) should understand the consequences (for lack of a better word) of their chosen occupation and accept that. When you choose to enlist you swear to uphold are valued ideology and to defend the United States. And call me crazy, but I do believe there is a "to obey the orders of those appointed over me" line. To refuse an order because of an objection to the war is absurd and is also considered treason. However, if these soldiers were disobeying because of not being properly equiped with the necessary weapons and supplies, then yes, this case should be brought to those appointed over them and dealt with accordingly.

However, you are also taught that you do not and should not have to follow illegal orders.

Plus you are sworn to defend the US. This war is not about defending our country or our way of life in anyway.

I look at it as.... Bush lied numerous times over why we went to war, so if you have a commander in chief that can't give an honest to God answer as to why I should kill others or die over there..... then I ain't going to kill others or die over there no matter what the military threatens me with.

I'm sure soldiers see Haliburton overcharging for fuel and selling us equipment tha never arrives for MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS and it's got to affect morale.

I will never condemn a soldier for following legal orders and doing what he believes to be best for his country. The soldiers that are over there fighting and doing it because they believe they are doing what is best... have my respect and gratitude.

However, I'm sorry, I will not condemn any soldier for not doing his "duty" and not going over there because it is not a war that is defnding us in any way. He also has my respect for he is doing what he believes in and what he believes in his heart to be right.

I will also say this, if a soldier does go over there and does decide to put a weapon in his hand then he has a duty to defend and help his fellow soldiers. I will condemn a soldier that "changes his mind" in the middle of a heated combat because then he has put good men's lives at risk by his actions.

DJ.... perhaps there is over reading but I have a feeling that as with ANY news source from the front, the truth is being withheld and only what the gov't wants us to know is being told. To have a source declare that there is even a slight case of soldiers disobeying or questioning means that something a little more serious is happening then we are being told.

irateplatypus · 10-15-2004, 10:20 PM

let's keep in mind that the soldiers disobeyed the order not based on political or ideological grounds, but that they were improperly equipped for the mission.

still, the military operates on very strict chain-of-command principles. to a certain extent, the right equipment for the job is the equipment your commanding officer signs off on. if the chain of command considers the equipment sufficient, then it is the soldier's duty to carry out the mission as best as he/she can. if the mission fails, the officers in charge will be put in the hotseat. as the case usually is in war, a failed mission often means dead soldiers... but sadly that is the stakes of such an enterprise.

my two cents: it sounds as if the whole platoon objected, this smacks of poor leadership more than cowardice or a lack of confidence in the lawfulness of their objective.

seretogis · 10-16-2004, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Some people are reading WAY too much into this, I think.

Sounds to me like the soldiers disobeyed orders not because of ideological differences, but because their equipment was in poor condition.

I don't like the thing where they were being held as prisioners, but I think that's an exaggeration too.

I agree -- although some people, "cough cough," would like to turn this into an issue of direct defiance of President Bush, it isn't. I think that refusing to obey their orders has probably saved us a lot of hassle and that as long as they exhausted normal channels to get the security situation for the trucks changed they should be praised, and their superior(s) questioned.

jimbob · 10-16-2004, 02:35 AM

I'd like to propose a 2-tier army where you can enlist either to fight abroad to win property rights for the administration's backers and cronies or you can enlist to stay home and defend your country against invasion and bravely learn to fly out-of-date aircraft in the Texas National Guard.

Lebell · 10-16-2004, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

I agree -- although some people, "cough cough," would like to turn this into an issue of direct defiance of President Bush, it isn't. I think that refusing to obey their orders has probably saved us a lot of hassle and that as long as they exhausted normal channels to get the security situation for the trucks changed they should be praised, and their superior(s) questioned.

Agreed on all points.

As it stands, not following legal orders of a superior == mutany.

There are ways to protest orders for concerns such as this and mutany is not one of them.

pan6467 · 10-16-2004, 09:11 AM

When you are told from the minute you enlist that you DO NOT have to follow illegal orders and IF you believe that the president lied NUMEROUS times about the reason why we needed to invade Iraq and that he has yet to come forward with the truth, then you believe the war to be illegal. Therefore, IF you believe the war is illegal any order given over there telling you to fight and kill would thus be illegal. It is not promoting defiance of the president, it is saying I support those who are in the military and do not believe this war is worth their lives. That they are not fighting to defend our country but to further the private lives of a president and his cronies.

IF you feel that is wrong, you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am mine.

As for the convoy "mutiny" that started this thread. First, before you start to charge 1 soldier over there you need to find out why they are not protected to the utmost of our ability, especially when we have paid for them to be. Secondly, you must ask why are they transporting "contaminated fuel", when it's of no use except as a large moving bomb.

To blame these soldiers for not carrying out orders that would have put themselves in harm's way, unnecessarily and foolheartedly is not only ridiculous but it shows no true concern for those who are over there. It shows me, that those who believe you should blindly follow any "legal" order would rather see mindless zombies who have no regard for their life, (and if they have no regard for their lives then they have no regard for human life, and that is what we saw in Abu Gahraib). Of course, I'm sure if you ran a poll showing that those who believe these soldiers were mutinous, are also going to say that Abu Gahraib was an overeaction on the "liberals part" and there was truly nothing wrong done there.

By the way, any of you who have argued that the soldiers were in the wrong, would YOU risk your life over there with bad equipment transporting a huge bomb? Would you expect or demand family members close to you to do it? And if they died would you say they were following orders and that the US and their commanding officers did all they could to make sure they didn't have to die?

I wouldn't, because from what I read, it sounds like the commanding officers saw these men and women as expendable and when you have commanders that do that, then you have the wrong people in charge and need to replace them. NOONE IS EXPENDABLE, THAT IS THE MOST SELFISH ATTITUDE I CAN THINK OF. Death happens in war, but it is our government's duty to our men/women to make sure that they are as well equipped and treated with as much respect as possible. This is a case where the soldiers were not treated with that respect.

Willravel · 10-16-2004, 10:00 AM

pan6467, you are a credit to America. I completly argee on all points. My brother, uncle, and 4 cousins are on AIM complaining about their equiptment right now. They can't even tell me why they are so pissed at Bush, becuase they could all be disshonorably discharged. This is not fair for them. They signed up to DEFEND AMERICA, NOT TO SECURE FOREIGN RESOURCES AND MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE.

james t kirk · 10-16-2004, 10:51 AM

Can't say that I blame these guys / girls.

I can't imagine what a whacked out place Iraq must be.

Here you are, some kid from North Carolina (or whereever) being told to climb in a fuel truck and drive it to some god forsaken place where you know you will encounter some nut job that doesn't like you, doesn't want you in his country and most probably will try to fire a rocket propelled grenade right up your ass.

You are in a FUEL truck, (hell, why not paint a bulls eye on the side of the thing) and you are driving it through an area where there is always trouble, the locals hate you, and the area is not secured. This is like a suicide mission to me with no justification for suicide. It's like, you're sitting there being told that this is your job to drive this truck to your pretty much assured death and you figure, "fuck it, I have no intention of being another statistic."

I have to wonder if Dick Cheney would want to sit in the driver's seat for a nice road trip.

I always figure that if the boss wouldn't be willing to do the job, then why the hell should I.

Ananas · 10-16-2004, 06:03 PM

What were the recipients of this "contaminated fuel" going to do with it?

Why don't these soldiers have the necessary equipment and support to do their jobs? Makes me wonder how many more are getting injured or killed because of poor equipment. Unacceptable on any level. Their commanders should be drummed out of the service for not doing their jobs, which is to take care of the people under them.

No boss should ask his employees to do anything he himself would not do.

martinguerre · 10-16-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Agreed on all points.

As it stands, not following legal orders of a superior == mutany.

There are ways to protest orders for concerns such as this and mutany is not one of them.

It seems to me that many experienced soliders felt the proper way of protesting was going to involve 6 foot long plastic bags. I dunno, but not having been in their boots, i'm likely to trust their gut judgement on it.

for other posters...i think its very wrong to read anti-bush feeling in to their actions. they showed up to their flights to iraq, and didn't just desert. they refused a very specific mission that doesn't appear to have any partisan ramifications.

Lebell · 10-16-2004, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

It seems to me that many experienced soliders felt the proper way of protesting was going to involve 6 foot long plastic bags. I dunno, but not having been in their boots, i'm likely to trust their gut judgement on it.

That is only speculation.

There are also soldiers that signed up for the money and education benefits and then refused to go. I would guess that neither of us would trust their judgment.

On the flip-side, I agree that there are spectacular snafus that do indeed result in the deaths of troops. The introduction of the M16 rifle and the resultant deaths spring immediately to mind. (People should have been sent to jail over that one, IMO.)

But again, out and out mutany cannot be the answer.

A miltary can only function effectively if soldiers obey the orders of their superiors (blantently illegal orders aside). If it comes down to a "judgement call", then a soldier MUST rely on his superior's judgement, at least until he can go up the chain of command with any serious reservations.

To just say "no, I won't do it" leads a unit down the path to where soldiers don't do what they need to do in order to win the battle and ultimately, the war.

pan6467 · 10-16-2004, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

That is only speculation.

There are also soldiers that signed up for the money and education benefits and then refused to go. I would guess that neither of us would trust their judgment.

On the flip-side, I agree that there are spectacular snafus that do indeed result in the deaths of troops. The introduction of the M16 rifle and the resultant deaths spring immediately to mind. (People should have been sent to jail over that one, IMO.)

But again, out and out mutany cannot be the answer.

A miltary can only function effectively if soldiers obey the orders of their superiors (blantently illegal orders aside). If it comes down to a "judgement call", then a soldier MUST rely on his superior's judgement, at least until he can go up the chain of command with any serious reservations.

To just say "no, I won't do it" leads a unit down the path to where soldiers don't do what they need to do in order to win the battle and ultimately, the war.

I respect what Martin and you are saying and I never said anything "partisan". But I will stick to my opinion that until Bush gives the true reason why we are there and how this war is truly defending our freedoms. I cannot condemn a soldier for not going or not obeying an order that is blatantly irresponsible. (I would have respected Bush far more had he and his administration picked a purpose for the war and stuck to it no matter how hot the fire got. Instead he's given so many different reasons and then denies the previous reasons.... and you say Kerry flip-flops? How can you instill dignity and honesty into troops when the administration isn't showing it?

Until our troops are as safely protected as possible, I can see why they would "mutiny".

Haliburton is ripping off the government (overcharging on fuel, selling us things then never giving the product bought out), yet obviously we aren't spending the money we need to on making sure our troops are safe.

Call it what you will, but this war is already a mess and will fast become the next Vietnam.

martinguerre · 10-16-2004, 09:04 PM

pan646-Like Lebell, i would say that not respecting the reasons for war is insufficient cause to disobey. they could get fellow soldiers killed that way.

but...Lebell. Why assume that they're green troops, in for the wrong reasons? what info is available doesn't point to that conclusion at all... i concede they are reservists, but i don't think that's enough to begin an assumption that it's cowardice.

They've driven that route before. They know their equipment. That, in and of it self, gives me cause to give them significant trust in making choices about what's a suicide mission or not. I'm the last one to support mutany...there are some folks i personally want to see come home safe...but it's not like they didn't take the order to storm an enemy position. This was a non-combat operation...

pan6467 · 10-16-2004, 09:23 PM

Like I said above, if a soldier goes over and takes his gun then, no I do not give him any leniency on obeying orders that are legal. Nor in a hostile zone would I forgive him if all of a sudden he decides to change his mind over the war. Unless you are told to do things blatantly illegal like Abu Gahraib or see illegal acts and nothing gets done. Then questioning the war would almost come naturally, especially if you are a moral person and know what you see and your commanders don't care.

A soldier pretty much knows if they are in true support of the war or not. If they aren't then they shouldn't be sent, but still respected. Because if they are vocal about their beliefs and they say they can't fight this war..... then by sending them over there you run the risk of putting them in a situation where people need them and they aren't there. It would be a death sentence for them and probably others. One reason for boot camp is to make sure you won't freeze under stress, that happens in war though but sending someone who's heart is already questioning the war amplifies that risk much much much more. (So you can say I'm being partisan or political but in all honesty, I am just looking out for the men/women on both sides of the issue.)

I can see how when you get there and that orders like take this contaminated fuel across a hostile zone and, sorry but we don't have the protection you need to help you out. That's a suicide mission and that is wrong and there is no excuse for it. (And I am going by what is written and quoted in the story for my reasoning I assume nothing more nor less when dealing with this particular story. Everything else is personal opinion from someone who has been in the military and knows that you need 100% unquestioned heart and desire to be in that situation, otherwise you put yourself and others at risk.)

10-15-2004, 08:59 PM	#6 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	We all have and continue to make choices in our lives. I've chosen my profession and those in the military have chosen theirs. If some don't believe in what they are doing and for their reasons, so be it. People make decisions and career changes all the time and the military is no different. I would hate to see those who decide to leave the military (serving in Iraq) for their own reasons become chastised or seen as traitors. But for the others so judgemental if the matter is as such, the scope of evolutionary intelligence may have past them by. So in the end it doesn't matter except for those directly affected. Isn't that what is supposed to make America great? Freedom of choice for starters? __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

10-15-2004, 09:08 PM	#7 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I am sorry, I cannot condemn a soldier if he doesn't want to fight in this war. It is not about the US's safety it is about the rich getting richer. If I were in and I saw Haliburton getting away with overcharging the gov't for fuel, taking money for supplies to our troops and the troops not recieving them and a president who lied and had numerous false excuses for this war, sorry, my dignity and respect of my fellow man whether he is "the enemy" or not will not allow me to kill or put myself in harm's way. I SUPPORT THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING, BUT I UNDERSTAND AND WILL NOT CONDEMN THOSE WHO GO AGAINST ORDERS THEY FEEL ARE ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL AND NOT NECESSARY. We already have proof (Abu Gahraib, and I am sure others where they weren't made public) of illegal orders, malfeasence and immoral and "unAmerican" orders and behaviors. If I were active military I'd be disgusted. I'm honorably discharged military and I am disgusted and ashamed for those who have done that crap and embarassed for those who are moral and brave enough to stick to their beliefs and morals. I won't die so that Halliburton can make millions. I'll fight to the death for my family and my rights but I wouldn't fight in a war in a country we have no right being in. AND I will not condemn a soldier who feels the same way. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-15-2004 at 09:14 PM..

10-15-2004, 09:33 PM	#8 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Some people are reading WAY too much into this, I think. Sounds to me like the soldiers disobeyed orders not because of ideological differences, but because their equipment was in poor condition. I don't like the thing where they were being held as prisioners, but I think that's an exaggeration too. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

10-15-2004, 09:42 PM	#9 (permalink)
Erlein Upright Location: Hawaii, at the moment..	Persons in the military (and I am one) should understand the consequences (for lack of a better word) of their chosen occupation and accept that. When you choose to enlist you swear to uphold are valued ideology and to defend the United States. And call me crazy, but I do believe there is a "to obey the orders of those appointed over me" line. To refuse an order because of an objection to the war is absurd and is also considered treason. However, if these soldiers were disobeying because of not being properly equiped with the necessary weapons and supplies, then yes, this case should be brought to those appointed over them and dealt with accordingly. __________________ That's Life: Trust and you are betrayed, don't trust and you betray yourself.

10-15-2004, 10:00 PM	#10 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	Sounds like poor leadership to me. Only a moron would ask a soldier to deliver contaminated fuel anywhere (besides a ditch to burn it in). Soldiers get scared, poor leaders making bad decisions wil bring a head to a situation in a hurry. Edit to add: My guess is that their supervision will be missed at the next promotion board. Officers will retire early. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

10-15-2004, 06:46 PM	#2 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	It's probably only because john kerry said, "wrong war, wrong time".

10-15-2004, 07:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
corpheous Upright	This is probably because some people COUGH COUGH are tired of dying for the rich and powerful. Some people don't believe they're fighting for freedom anymore. Some people think Bush is an asshat for getting us stuck over there in the first place and are tired of his shit. Some people should also keep their mouth shut in the rare case it gets them in trouble

10-15-2004, 08:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Having the balls to fight for what you believe in is what being 'free' is all about. Would you rather follow orders from a leader you know is wrong and be discharged, or follow the orders and kill innocent people? (those questions are both based on individual beliefs and opinions of some of the soldiers, and are not meant to necessarily represent the truth or a lie, they are simply asked because some of them are asking themselves those questions)

10-15-2004, 08:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
TheFu Crazy	I think it has more to do with driving a fuek tanker into a hotspot without having necessary support.

10-15-2004, 10:20 PM	#12 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	let's keep in mind that the soldiers disobeyed the order not based on political or ideological grounds, but that they were improperly equipped for the mission. still, the military operates on very strict chain-of-command principles. to a certain extent, the right equipment for the job is the equipment your commanding officer signs off on. if the chain of command considers the equipment sufficient, then it is the soldier's duty to carry out the mission as best as he/she can. if the mission fails, the officers in charge will be put in the hotseat. as the case usually is in war, a failed mission often means dead soldiers... but sadly that is the stakes of such an enterprise. my two cents: it sounds as if the whole platoon objected, this smacks of poor leadership more than cowardice or a lack of confidence in the lawfulness of their objective. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-16-2004, 02:35 AM	#14 (permalink)
jimbob Crazy Location: Liverpool UK	I'd like to propose a 2-tier army where you can enlist either to fight abroad to win property rights for the administration's backers and cronies or you can enlist to stay home and defend your country against invasion and bravely learn to fly out-of-date aircraft in the Texas National Guard. Last edited by jimbob; 10-16-2004 at 02:38 AM..

10-16-2004, 09:11 AM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	When you are told from the minute you enlist that you DO NOT have to follow illegal orders and IF you believe that the president lied NUMEROUS times about the reason why we needed to invade Iraq and that he has yet to come forward with the truth, then you believe the war to be illegal. Therefore, IF you believe the war is illegal any order given over there telling you to fight and kill would thus be illegal. It is not promoting defiance of the president, it is saying I support those who are in the military and do not believe this war is worth their lives. That they are not fighting to defend our country but to further the private lives of a president and his cronies. IF you feel that is wrong, you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am mine. As for the convoy "mutiny" that started this thread. First, before you start to charge 1 soldier over there you need to find out why they are not protected to the utmost of our ability, especially when we have paid for them to be. Secondly, you must ask why are they transporting "contaminated fuel", when it's of no use except as a large moving bomb. To blame these soldiers for not carrying out orders that would have put themselves in harm's way, unnecessarily and foolheartedly is not only ridiculous but it shows no true concern for those who are over there. It shows me, that those who believe you should blindly follow any "legal" order would rather see mindless zombies who have no regard for their life, (and if they have no regard for their lives then they have no regard for human life, and that is what we saw in Abu Gahraib). Of course, I'm sure if you ran a poll showing that those who believe these soldiers were mutinous, are also going to say that Abu Gahraib was an overeaction on the "liberals part" and there was truly nothing wrong done there. By the way, any of you who have argued that the soldiers were in the wrong, would YOU risk your life over there with bad equipment transporting a huge bomb? Would you expect or demand family members close to you to do it? And if they died would you say they were following orders and that the US and their commanding officers did all they could to make sure they didn't have to die? I wouldn't, because from what I read, it sounds like the commanding officers saw these men and women as expendable and when you have commanders that do that, then you have the wrong people in charge and need to replace them. NOONE IS EXPENDABLE, THAT IS THE MOST SELFISH ATTITUDE I CAN THINK OF. Death happens in war, but it is our government's duty to our men/women to make sure that they are as well equipped and treated with as much respect as possible. This is a case where the soldiers were not treated with that respect. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-16-2004 at 09:23 AM..

10-16-2004, 10:00 AM	#17 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	pan6467, you are a credit to America. I completly argee on all points. My brother, uncle, and 4 cousins are on AIM complaining about their equiptment right now. They can't even tell me why they are so pissed at Bush, becuase they could all be disshonorably discharged. This is not fair for them. They signed up to DEFEND AMERICA, NOT TO SECURE FOREIGN RESOURCES AND MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE.

10-16-2004, 10:51 AM	#18 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Can't say that I blame these guys / girls. I can't imagine what a whacked out place Iraq must be. Here you are, some kid from North Carolina (or whereever) being told to climb in a fuel truck and drive it to some god forsaken place where you know you will encounter some nut job that doesn't like you, doesn't want you in his country and most probably will try to fire a rocket propelled grenade right up your ass. You are in a FUEL truck, (hell, why not paint a bulls eye on the side of the thing) and you are driving it through an area where there is always trouble, the locals hate you, and the area is not secured. This is like a suicide mission to me with no justification for suicide. It's like, you're sitting there being told that this is your job to drive this truck to your pretty much assured death and you figure, "fuck it, I have no intention of being another statistic." I have to wonder if Dick Cheney would want to sit in the driver's seat for a nice road trip. I always figure that if the boss wouldn't be willing to do the job, then why the hell should I.

10-16-2004, 06:03 PM	#19 (permalink)
Ananas Still Crazy Location: In my own time	What were the recipients of this "contaminated fuel" going to do with it? Why don't these soldiers have the necessary equipment and support to do their jobs? Makes me wonder how many more are getting injured or killed because of poor equipment. Unacceptable on any level. Their commanders should be drummed out of the service for not doing their jobs, which is to take care of the people under them. No boss should ask his employees to do anything he himself would not do.

10-16-2004, 09:04 PM	#23 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	pan646-Like Lebell, i would say that not respecting the reasons for war is insufficient cause to disobey. they could get fellow soldiers killed that way. but...Lebell. Why assume that they're green troops, in for the wrong reasons? what info is available doesn't point to that conclusion at all... i concede they are reservists, but i don't think that's enough to begin an assumption that it's cowardice. They've driven that route before. They know their equipment. That, in and of it self, gives me cause to give them significant trust in making choices about what's a suicide mission or not. I'm the last one to support mutany...there are some folks i personally want to see come home safe...but it's not like they didn't take the order to storm an enemy position. This was a non-combat operation...

10-16-2004, 09:23 PM	#24 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Like I said above, if a soldier goes over and takes his gun then, no I do not give him any leniency on obeying orders that are legal. Nor in a hostile zone would I forgive him if all of a sudden he decides to change his mind over the war. Unless you are told to do things blatantly illegal like Abu Gahraib or see illegal acts and nothing gets done. Then questioning the war would almost come naturally, especially if you are a moral person and know what you see and your commanders don't care. A soldier pretty much knows if they are in true support of the war or not. If they aren't then they shouldn't be sent, but still respected. Because if they are vocal about their beliefs and they say they can't fight this war..... then by sending them over there you run the risk of putting them in a situation where people need them and they aren't there. It would be a death sentence for them and probably others. One reason for boot camp is to make sure you won't freeze under stress, that happens in war though but sending someone who's heart is already questioning the war amplifies that risk much much much more. (So you can say I'm being partisan or political but in all honesty, I am just looking out for the men/women on both sides of the issue.) I can see how when you get there and that orders like take this contaminated fuel across a hostile zone and, sorry but we don't have the protection you need to help you out. That's a suicide mission and that is wrong and there is no excuse for it. (And I am going by what is written and quoted in the story for my reasoning I assume nothing more nor less when dealing with this particular story. Everything else is personal opinion from someone who has been in the military and knows that you need 100% unquestioned heart and desire to be in that situation, otherwise you put yourself and others at risk.) __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-16-2004 at 09:31 PM..