penniless 0 #26 October 16, 2004 Quote 2. Where is this reserve unit from? It wouldn't be some part of the US like Louisiana, where there's a tendency to speak French? . Louisiana is a "red" state. What are you implying about Bush supporters? (Actually the platoon has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, ALL RED STATES.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #27 October 17, 2004 ***It's just not safe to be in a hostile territory,*** Well, no shit soldier! BBC and all the broadsheets had this story in the UK today.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #28 October 17, 2004 What makes you think you have all the information to make the decision that a mission is pointless? hell Rhino, and you a Marine! I'm shocked.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #29 October 17, 2004 QuoteI'm shocked. That's normal... Re-read my posts... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #30 October 17, 2004 Errr, Like this one?....................***Hypocritical my ass... Whining idiots like those mentioned GET PEOPLE KILLED in combat... They hesitate to do their jobs. You follow fucking orders PERIOD or your buddies die... Rhino ***When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #31 October 17, 2004 Still don't get your point... I can take out small pieces of things you have said to make no point also? What is your point? You post this piece of my post but no context... Sorry... Try again... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #32 October 18, 2004 QuoteHowever, it is a soldier's obligation to refuse to follow UNLAWFUL orders, and in my opinion it is a soldier's right to refuse to follow stupid or suicidal orders. So your opinion makes the law? Read the UCMJ first, then weigh in. Because quite simply, well, you're wrong in black and white. It's not within soldiers' discretion to try to determine whether or not an order is "stupid". He has neither the duty, nor the authority, nor even all of the information needed to attempt to make such judgments. A "suicidal" mission is personally unfortunate, but, like "stupid", is absolutely unconnected to whether or not that order is lawful. Opinions like yours are most probably formulated from deep within the haze created by a generation or two of american cultural affluence and what appears to be a complete misunderstanding of what service, duty, and sacrifice mean. One tool for defending a nation is a strong military. A military works by functioning as a unit, not as a collection of individuals. But, the more free and more affluent a society becomes, the more distant these "me first" progeny drift away from truly understanding this. And you get responses such as "How dare you tell me to do something I think is stupid. How dare you send me on that suicide task that helps accomplish the unit's mission. And if I don't like what you're doing, that must make it unlawful." QuoteLooks like the leadership has failed here, not the troops. The British military has a saying: "There are no bad troops - only bad officers." When soldiers do what they're told, that saying is correct. But it's funny that somehow you applied it in an opposite context. And yes, I've been a soldier, and an officer, and in harm's way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #33 October 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey don't have bulletproof protection on the vehicles And my home DZ doesn't have trampolines everywhere - get over it. You signed up for a dangerous job and you knew it at the time. You can't now bitch that your job includes dangers. That was the point! QuoteIt's just not safe to be in a hostile territory Of course it's fucking not you moron - that's why it's called "hostile territory". Christ - if ever there was a reason why someone remains a private. QuoteThey are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners. No they're not - you're in the fucking army - you signed a CONTRACT that said they're allowed to do that. I don't fucking care what shit storm they told you to go into - you're a grunt and that's what you signed up to do. You go where they tell you, body armour or not. If there are policital questions to be put by all means, make the public aware of those doubts and the public will pursue a policial or at least logistical solution... Yes, we should pay for our troops to have body armour where possible, lives are worth more than metal... but you are not imbued with the authority to question your orders. You do NOT vote with your feet in the military! A soldier does what they are ordered to do. They do not question their orders, they do what they are told regardless of the risk to themselves. That is their job. That is the single thing they signed up to do. That is what they are paid (well) for. "Ours is not to reason why but to do or die." Hi Mr2 This is SC so go for it! Your attitude is very old school and was used in warfare over the ages and always resluted in massive loss of life that was acceptable to the powers to be. The purpose of smart bombs is to minimize the loss of life. The life of our soldiers is sacred and not to be wasted because some officer doesn't have the courage to say NO! because it might hurt their career. IMO The chain of command failed, not the soliders. After all else fails the soldiers got to do what they got to do. If you do sober up and get to join the army for queen and country even though you over qualified. I hope your man enough to lead your men by being with your soliders on their mission and not from a position of a REMF. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #34 October 18, 2004 I disagree with you, its not the old fashioned way is the disciplined way, its the British way. Jim Barry put it into word better than I could and I totaly agree with all that he wrote. Its the difference between cold quiet professionalism and gungho loudmouthed bravado.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InflightSupv 0 #35 October 18, 2004 QuoteThis unit will surely be made an example of. I expect them to be charged in the worst way for this. I could be wrong. And they ought to. Just a few years ago, you would be shot for this or hung. Letting a soldier deny an order because he feels it unsafe, news flash-------ITS WAR. That is the funniest thing I've heard lately. Well, if soldiers have the right to not accept an order, considering the beach at D-day and any other "suicidal" mission, then they would still be speaking German along the coast of France today. Its utterly amazing to me that people's opinions can't separate politics with what is right and wrong. The same ones who think these soldiers have rights are the ones always blasting Bush. Its also utterly amazing to me that we have not been taken over by some enterprising third world because of all the stupid/cowardly soldiers that are in todays military. To those of you who aren't, disregard above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #36 October 18, 2004 It is hard to motivate the troops when the reason for that war has changed 3 or 4 times in a year. They need to be positive about what they are going to die for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #37 October 18, 2004 Quote I don't fucking care what shit storm they told you to go into - you're a grunt and that's what you signed up to do. You go where they tell you, body armour or not. So throw enough troops at a problem and it should solve it, right? So, they are there to catch bullets without protection? Maybe we wouldn't have over 1000 dead troops if they had the proper armor? Yes, they signed the contract, and yes it is a war. But the chain of command should have sent our troops in prepared. This wasn't a war that came out of the blue - we decided when it started!! Therefore, the supply chain should have taken care of them. Once again, poor planning by the part of this administration. The troops are expected to do their end and die while no one else does their side of the deal?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #38 October 18, 2004 If the chain of command is sending troops in unprepared that is a matter for the chain of command – NOT an excuse for the troops on the ground to start voting with their feet, disobeying orders and mutinying. Dangerous orders are not necessarily illegal orders and the only order a soldier can refuse is an illegal order. This was mutiny, pure and simple. The reason behind it may condemn their superiors, but does not excuse their actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #39 October 18, 2004 QuoteIf the chain of command is sending troops in unprepared that is a matter for the chain of command – NOT an excuse for the troops on the ground to start voting with their feet, disobeying orders and mutinying. Dangerous orders are not necessarily illegal orders and the only order a soldier can refuse is an illegal order. This was mutiny, pure and simple. The reason behind it may condemn their superiors, but does not excuse their actions. But in the long run it may save more lives. I bet the armor shows up there now. These 18 troops may end up in jail, but in the end run they may have helped other troops over there. Also, how is it that the troops are supposed to trust the chain of command when they do not provide the proper gear to do their job and stay alive? Mutiny starts at the top with inaction or negligence._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #40 October 18, 2004 It may well save more lives in the end. But mutiny is mutiny. The British Army had the same issue last year where combat troops went in without the proper armour. No one took the step of mutinying simply because it was dangerous. War is dangerous. A tank commander was sadly killed after he lent his armour to an infantryman as he felt that he needed it more. No one mutinied, but we heard about it all the same. The shit hit the fan and our troops are now in a much better supply situation while heads roll up the chain of command. Mutiny, even in a situation where it is entirely laudable sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. What if the troops were delivering ammunition to a surrounded garrison? The entire garrison just gets massacred because 18 troops didn't do as ordered? It's ok - those 18 with the possibly tainted fuel were let off so we don't need to deliver this ammo… after all, we haven't got the armour the combat manual said we should have. It's about setting a very very dangerous precedent. Acts of mutiny cannot be allowed under any circumstances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #41 October 18, 2004 "Lions led by donkeys" The Iraq misadventure has been hopelessly mismanaged from the beginning. This is just corroborating evidence. The blame lies in the White House. Mission Accomplished my a$$.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #42 October 18, 2004 From what I understand, another unit - from the same group - did the "suicide" mission with no casualties and no problems. I wonder how that will change the situation...if at all. 'Twould seem to me that the accomplishment of the mission with no problems would make it "less" than a suicide mission, and thus negate the soldiers' claim that it was such. It will be interesting to see how things progress. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #43 October 18, 2004 ***Maybe we wouldn't have over 1000 dead troops if they had the proper armor? *** I think thats pretty naieve, body armour while improving your overall chance of survival is not much protection against IEDs. I also don't think that this mutiny will change a thing for anyone except the mutineers.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #44 October 18, 2004 QuoteI think thats pretty naieve, body armour while improving your overall chance of survival is not much protection against IEDs. I also don't think that this mutiny will change a thing for anyone except the mutineers. I realize that armor will not stop everything. But how many troops would still be alive if they had the right armor? If it saves just one troop, then it was worth the effort._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #45 October 18, 2004 QuoteFrom what I understand, another unit - from the same group - did the "suicide" mission with no casualties and no problems. It will be interesting to see how things progress. From my understanding, the route was to be only in the Green Zone - right through the area that was bombed last week. What these troops realized is that there is no longer a safe zone or an easy mission and that we are in reverse when it comes to making progress (bombs in the green zone prove that). Don't you like to stack the deck in your favor while jumping? I'm sure they would like to do the same as well. However, those in charge have failed in doing what was necessary to give our troops what is needed to do their job and come back home in one piece. This entire war has been mismanaged. Here is something to think about - if this is the sort of thing that was traditional from draft troops in previous wars....maybe that says a lot about the morale and beliefs our current troops have. Maybe its not as rosey and perfect as Bush claims it to be. Maybe that book of letters from troops in Iraq tells the truth?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #46 October 18, 2004 QuoteFrom what I understand, another unit - from the same group - did the "suicide" mission with no casualties and no problems. I wonder how that will change the situation...if at all. 'Twould seem to me that the accomplishment of the mission with no problems would make it "less" than a suicide mission, and thus negate the soldiers' claim that it was such. We're discussing a incident based on info from a NEWS Report! We know what happens when the media reports on skydiving incidents so why do we think this is any different. We weren't there As far as the second convoy completing the misson sucessfully without incident , we will never know under what conditions this was carried out. The army needed a sucess story did they use the same trucks? (I don't think so) supply armored escort? (Maybe) helicoptor's (Maybe) I suspect that we'll never know the truth. as long as the soldiers who used their right to not die keep their mouths shut this whole thing will get swept under the rug and be forgoten by the public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,174 #47 October 18, 2004 QuoteFrom what I understand, another unit - from the same group - did the "suicide" mission with no casualties and no problems. I wonder how that will change the situation...if at all. 'Twould seem to me that the accomplishment of the mission with no problems would make it "less" than a suicide mission, and thus negate the soldiers' claim that it was such. It will be interesting to see how things progress. Ciels- Michele If past is prologue, not very well: Clicky Washington -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now. The lack of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, such as tanks and helicopters, was causing problems so severe, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials, that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #48 October 18, 2004 ***What these troops realized is that there is no longer a safe zone or an easy mission*** True, which is why its important that these mutineers are punished and seen to be punished as a deterent to others who feel they have the right to disobey legal orders.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #49 October 18, 2004 His letter of concern has surfaced after repeated statements by President Bush (news - web sites) that he is determined to ensure that U.S. troops fighting in Iraq have all that they need to execute their missions. "I have pledged, as has the secretary of defense, to give our troops everything that is necessary to complete their mission with the utmost safety," he said in May. Earlier this month in Manchester, N.H., he said, "When America puts our troops in combat, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, the full support of our government_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #50 October 19, 2004 QuoteWashington -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now. The lack of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, such as tanks and helicopters, was causing problems so severe, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials, that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low." That letter was written just before the $87 billion was approved, was it not? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,174 #47 October 18, 2004 QuoteFrom what I understand, another unit - from the same group - did the "suicide" mission with no casualties and no problems. I wonder how that will change the situation...if at all. 'Twould seem to me that the accomplishment of the mission with no problems would make it "less" than a suicide mission, and thus negate the soldiers' claim that it was such. It will be interesting to see how things progress. Ciels- Michele If past is prologue, not very well: Clicky Washington -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now. The lack of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, such as tanks and helicopters, was causing problems so severe, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials, that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #48 October 18, 2004 ***What these troops realized is that there is no longer a safe zone or an easy mission*** True, which is why its important that these mutineers are punished and seen to be punished as a deterent to others who feel they have the right to disobey legal orders.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #49 October 18, 2004 His letter of concern has surfaced after repeated statements by President Bush (news - web sites) that he is determined to ensure that U.S. troops fighting in Iraq have all that they need to execute their missions. "I have pledged, as has the secretary of defense, to give our troops everything that is necessary to complete their mission with the utmost safety," he said in May. Earlier this month in Manchester, N.H., he said, "When America puts our troops in combat, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, the full support of our government_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #50 October 19, 2004 QuoteWashington -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now. The lack of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, such as tanks and helicopters, was causing problems so severe, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials, that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low." That letter was written just before the $87 billion was approved, was it not? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
