NEWS: 17 U.S Reservists Arrested In Iraq. U.S Military Deny Arrests.

I heard it on an AP report. The anti-war broadcast network. A soldier running into the line of fire is a hero. The soldier that turns and runs, is a coward. Now you libs have 17 cowards to come home and make comercials for you.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by snagltooth]

Originally posted by snagltooth
I heard it on an AP report. The anti-war broadcast network. A soldier running into the line of fire is a hero. The soldier that turns and runs, is a coward. Now you libs have 17 cowards to come home and make comercials for you.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by snagltooth]

Go go, you tough combat typist. Aaarrgh! You're really tough typing, facing that HTML and keyboard with absolute bravery.

Maybe you should be in that unit to assess whether or not their orders were justified given the situation, or whether their orders were not.

Originally posted by NightStalker
I also thank you Cypher for the sanity.

This is a Reserve QUARTERMASTER unit. They deliver food, water and fuel. They are supposed to be escorted.

The story from the link says that the NCO, a Staff Sergeant, with 20+ years stood up to the Chain of Command because the vehicles and the mission was unsafe. The vehicles were 'deadlined' [that means they do not work properly], equate that to you being told to drive a car that should not be on the road, not safe, good way to get in a accident.

Sometimes an NCO just has to speak out and tell the Chain that what they want done is not safe, sane and could get soldiers killed.

If their vehicles were in good shape and they had an escort, like they were supposed to, you would never have heard of this because it would not have happened.

The NCO's in this platoon have earned the respect that they deserve.
I know that they have this NCO's respect. Any NCO worthy enough to wear the stripes would have done the same.

This is not politics, just fact.

Let me be clear, in case anyone misinterprets my statement regarding that particular NCO. I stated that I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. I sure don't want to disparage the man, just stating that I imagine that due to his actions, he will be in for some uncomfortable attention from many angles. Just making sure no one misunderstands

Having said that, and continuing farther, I wonder where the platoon LT. stands on this matter. ( Aren't army platoons still organized that way? I served in another service years ago, and don't have firsthand knowledge of that )

Unfortunately, I imagine this will be politicized till it's beat to death. I can see it shading some of the discussion here already.

My take on this is that they weren't happy with going alone without escort in a dangerous area. The issue of the "deadlined" trucks was probably that they didn't want to breakdown in the middle of a warzone without back up.

I doubt they'd have worried about driving the trucks in the U.S.

The other safety issue is in the event of a crash while carrying fuel but I'd imagine that wasn't the primary concern but it probably was the best pretence of refusing to go.

I think they were arrested.If they were read their rights and isolated then they were.Why the US military are denying it is possibly because as was said earlier the NCO was right to refuse and they've realised it and are hoping it will go away.

They'd be better off just admitting they were arrested but that they realised it was a mistake.

What gets me is that they had the opportunity to call home before and after their arrest.

Nightstalker, excellent point, and well expressed. Anyone who's been in the service or close to someone who has, knows that the NCOs are the backbone of the Armed Forces.

John Bulll, it is possible that the soldiers in question were confined to quarters, and not actually arrested, pending an investigation. That would explain why they were allowed to call home, but still not free to move about as they pleased.

However, until the incident is fully investigated one can not use this incident as an indictment of the whole war, or to condemn all of the arrested troopers as cowards. This COULD very well be a case of ONE glory driven, chairborne ranger who demanded his troops go on a mission despite the warnings of his NCOs and/or intelligence. Or on the other hand, it COULD just as easily be a problem with ONE particular platoon that for reasons unknown, decided to refuse a perfectly valid order to attempt a dangerous but needed operation.

The question is whether or not the order was a valid order, and without KNOWING the situation in detail there is no way for those of us outside the theatre of combat to assess that. So give it a break people, and please don't turn this thread into another, "The Iraq war is BAD vs The Iraq war is GOOD" BS fest.

P.S. Shouldn't Matt (here's a picture from Iraq that has nothing to do with this thread) Marriot recieve a warning for posting that B.S.?

www.cnn.com...

The Army is investigating reports that several members of a reservist supply unit in Iraq refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous.

The reservists are from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, which is based in Rock Hill, South Carolina. The unit delivers food and water in combat zones.

According to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi, a platoon of 17 soldiers refused to go on a fuel supply mission Wednesday because their vehicles were in poor shape and they did not have a capable armed escort.

However this turns out, the fact that it happened is a very bad indicator! The Army = Fuel. Without fuel they cannot do much except foot patrols. The fire support (tanks, bradleys, hummers, strykers, helicopters) cannot go anywhere without fuel. Fire support is a huge difference between our forces and the insurgents.

But if security for the fuel is too low that troops can't or won't conduct refueling missions, then that fire support cannot roll and fly, and you end up in a tight situation where those cordons of resupply must be re-established, but with limited fuel.

Of course insurgents know that hitting refueling convoys is a bigger priority than hitting armed patrols.

This is not a good sign. My prayers are with those troops over there.

The quoted source said there was a 150 billion dollar fund that is used to equip our guys over there with the best in protection and supplies...

if the contractor in charge of that is halliburton, then that makes sense...
they probably went thru 100billion just planning the logistics... then of course the remainder was used to feed and clothe them, so no more money left to fix the damn trucks...

sorry for those poor bastards over there... but there is always the option of being a conscientious objector when they sign up... but obviously they didn't choose that option... so they need to get there butts in those deathtraps/trucks and get to dieing for their country...
THAT is the only reason i never signed up...
when you do, you become as powerless as a guinea pig... and the army can do whatever it wants to ya...
A REAL SiTUATION...happened to a good friend of mine...went into a military hospital for a simple outpatient procedure, came out without a womb...papers got mixed up and she is the victim... oops so sorry, nope not even an official apology... if the army wants new recruits for foreign wars, then they better start caring about the situations that they send their troops into...
watcha bet those guys don't sign up for another tour....

Originally posted by taibunsuu
However this turns out, the fact that it happened is a very bad indicator! The Army = Fuel. Without fuel they cannot do much except foot patrols. The fire support (tanks, bradleys, hummers, strykers, helicopters) cannot go anywhere without fuel. Fire support is a huge difference between our forces and the insurgents.

An earlier post stated that the fuel was contaminated and therefore useless (which begs the question...?).

As if it would have mattered to the terrorists, had they known.

Originally posted by snagltooth
I heard it on an AP report. The anti-war broadcast network. A soldier running into the line of fire is a hero. The soldier that turns and runs, is a coward. Now you libs have 17 cowards to come home and make comercials for you.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by snagltooth]

They are not cowards they are realistic they know what is going on in the ground in that country you don't, I suggest that you may trade places with these "coward" soldiers and do the job as a hero you may die a hero also.

Soldiers in Iraq should refuse to do the dirty job of bushes war in that country.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by marg6043]

Good for them. Why would they want to die for George? Its time our brave soldiers took a stand.

I just started a thread, didnt know this one was up.

Arrested? at least they're being held and safer than being out there waiting to be blown up or beheaded.

Time to take a stand

Cant wait till Grady gets a hold of this thread.

Originally posted by snagltooth
I heard it on an AP report. The anti-war broadcast network. A soldier running into the line of fire is a hero. The soldier that turns and runs, is a coward. Now you libs have 17 cowards to come home and make comercials for you.

A soldier who agrees to drive a fuel laden truck with no support at 40mph, is an idiot. A soldier who turns and says "fugg dat", is smart.

It's his life, not yours.

Originally posted by cargo

Originally posted by snagltooth
I heard it on an AP report. The anti-war broadcast network. A soldier running into the line of fire is a hero. The soldier that turns and runs, is a coward. Now you libs have 17 cowards to come home and make comercials for you.

A soldier who agrees to drive a fuel laden truck with no support at 40mph, is an idiot. A soldier who turns and says "fugg dat", is smart.

It's his life, not yours.

Exactly. These men have families, these men want to live and see their children grow up, I dont care what Republicans say about them being cowards. They're the true heroes.

"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."

www.cbsnews.com...
This makes me wonder if we truly have the will it will take to finish the job in Iraq. It could very well be that we have to increase the troops on the ground there if we want to make it a stable place.
The only other option is cut and run.

If the US doesn't have the will to do the job including recruiting soldiers [draft?] and the taxes needed to do the job We have no business being there.

Question to America: Is this truly important to you/us? When bite-the-bullet-time comes does this project matter to you?

This concurs with reports from correspondants in Baghdad. They used to be able to go around Iraq for a time after the war and make reports on outlying areas. Now they report that due to constant violence they are now virtual prisoners in their hotel. All the roads are too unsafe to travel.

The situation there is obviously deteriorating.
.

Originally posted by moxyone
Aren't they there own "escort"?

No, they're not. Logistics people have to be defended by combat operations troops, or, at least someone. True, they're soldiers, but I suppose its rather hard to drive an oil tanker and fight off guerilla insurgents. If they weren't being escorted properly that would mean a heck of a lot.

ronan
I bet it was something like the soldiers were trying to follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) and their officer was telling them to do it anyway.

From some of what i've heard, that'd make some sense.

nightstalker
This is a Reserve QUARTERMASTER unit

Oh jeez, what nit wit was making them go out into north baghdad in trucks filled with explosive fuel with not security? This is absurd.

The story from the link says that the NCO, a Staff Sergeant, with 20+ years stood up to the Chain of Command because the vehicles and the mission was unsafe.

Good for him. Someone should make him a candidate or something.ha.

This is what is going on at our local base, our base is mostly civilian workers and contractors.

The situation is so bad with the need to get troops that the command has made mandatory that any marine personnel in the base that has more than three years station aboard will be reassign only personal with lest that a year tour will be able to finish.

My husband said that they are scraping soldiers from any where they can.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by dgtempe
Exactly. These men have families, these men want to live and see their children grow up, I dont care what Republicans say about them being cowards. They're the true heroes.

Never mind.

by marg
My husband said that they are scraping soldiers from any where they can't.

marg, reading your posts almost always brings a smile to my face. Don't ever change.


[EDIT typos]

[edit on 15-10-2004 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky

by marg
My husband said that they are scraping soldiers from any where they can.

marg, reading your posts almost always brings a smile to my face.

Don't ever change.

ha, ha, ha, I made another mistake didn't I, I get that when I type to fast and when I don't too.

as a former 76Y, i understand thier apprehenstion..it is bad enough that we run around the battle field, mostly unescorted, but to think we, they, would be able to defend themselves.......well...a former well known pfc that was captured comes to mind. some has said repeatedly that we have enough boots on the ground to accomplish the mission....oh wait..it was already accomplished..so why would they need an escort.............................................

Reservists delivering supplies or not, they are soldiers - MERCENARIES -paid for risking their lives, period.