Originally posted by dh
"Wars will end when men refuse to fight" said some anarchist theorist or other. This is one of the best bits of news to come out of Iraq
Let them all refuse their satanically-assigned duties
Mutiny on the Desert Plain
Support the mutineers

This is both nieve and demoralizing to the other troops isnt it none of these guys and gals wanted to go kill or be killed they may say they do but deep down how can any human kill another with a righteous and pure heart


but unfortunately wars wont stop if people refuse to fight because it is in human nature to be hostile leaving your duties over fear doesnt solve the problem but intensifies it

[edit on 17/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Duty is one thing, but one of the first rules of leadership in ANYTHING is that you never order someone to do something that you would not be prepared do yourself. That does not mean the risk is zero, but that the risks are acceptable.

In an extremely high risk situation, it might be prudent to ask for volunteers. Only those individuals with the confidence of success are worth having on the mission. Anyone else is a liability.

In the military it is a leaders job to lead by example and strength of character. His men will have faith in his judgments if carried out in an honest, capable, and professional manner.

Where you have a mutiny, and this would appear to be a mutiny, it is because leadership has broken down. That is an extremely serious situation.

from what i read it was contaminated fuel that wouldnt work anyway. why risk your life delivering fuel that dont even the work.as i understand it that was the reason,it was a mission without purpose.

warspeed


would the fact this was a supply convoy put that risk at acceptable I know those who are in the feild and need those materials would think it was cause it may have been something like ammo so you mean to tell me that the ammo shouldnt be delivered cause people were scared .....granted GP dictates that this ammo convoy would be realistically covered with better armor, guns and air cover but if those were not available right when needed should we not deliver cause of the lack of cover the boys in the field dying would say yes Ill bet you that

Originally posted by donquad2001
from what i read it was contaminated fuel that wouldnt work anyway. why risk your life delivering fuel that dont even the work.as i understand it that was the reason,it was a mission without purpose.

these materials as I was trained make it possible to make and IED such as napalm maybe it had a ballistic application now its illegal to do here in the US so I wont give the recipe here but I was trained that there are no useless items in combat

maybe they wanted to burn out some enemy in tunnels or fortified buildings .....but those troops didnt know that was not the case they flat didnt do the job they didnt know it could have been a weapon

[edit on 17/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

[edit on 17/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

I agree,the fuel could have been used for improvised reasons.I had not thought of that one,thanks for pointing that out.

I think there are too many unknown facts for people to be condeming them already. This is the same mentality that the Bush administration has that has already gotten us into trouble. We don't know allthe facts, we just assume they were cowards. How do you know there wasn't good reason?

Let's go to an extreme and say a soldier was ordered to enter an enemy camp at night with bright lights and sirens so as to attract all the enemy fire to him. Would that be fair? I mean if he took the pay he should question knowingly killing himself. So where do you draw the line?

Someone brought up that it is wrong for them not to deliver fuel that is needed. But I read one of the news articles where one of the soldiers said the feul was contaminated. So they are asked to drive in unprotected vehicals that are too slow to take defensive manuvers, with no means of fighting, to deliver unusable fuel?

Now the facts are not all in so this may be proven untrue, but my point is that untilwe know everything, how can you justdge them and call them criminals (again with the pre-emptive theme). What happened to innocent until proven guilty (except OJ j/k)?

i wonder if thats the reason that the us have asked that the black watch move north to take over from us forces?,uk troops are used to fighting with no equipment,and no ammo,not to mention the significantly higher chance of coming under friendly fire.ive got a feeling this could get messy.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Remember Vietnam?

Do you remember Vietnam? I do and repeatedly bringing it up in these instances is unwarranted and irrelevant.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, when traitors are running the show, and the show is beyond corrupt, bad shyte happens. Remember Vietnam?

Bush must have been too messed up (boose & who knows what else) when he was in the Guard to remember Vietnam. Bush won't remember how his family got him in the Guard to save his butt. He will condemn these young people for trying to save theirs. Most people in the National Guard don't claim to be professional soldiers. Most are poor or middle class looking for away to get a little extra money to feed their family or go to college.

If these soldiers had legitimate concerns about the safety of the mission, based upon poor equipment that is ultimately substantiated, they may have a legal leg to stand on, if their primary concern was the mission. That other soldiers within the same unit completed the mission, presumably with the equipment in question, undermines that position.

No soldier is under obligation to obey unlawful orders and if the success of mission was actually jeopardized, it would have been the duty of the members of the unit to bring that to the attention of the command, through the chain of command.

I don't know any more details than are in the article, but I am going to say that it appears to me that the members of the platoon did not have the mission at heart and were more concerned with their personal safety and that this will not be looked upon favorably by the Army.

The soldier who called her mother claiming to be held like a prisoner calls into question how she was able to make a call to her mother if this was true. I once called my father asking him to contact his Congressman when I felt my command was singling out certain members of my unit, including myself, for disciplinary action without due process. We were able to remedy our problem within the chain of command, without Congressional intervention. This is well within the rights of any servicemember, but she did not help her cause by having this call aired in the media, in my opinion.

dgtempe is anti-war, anti-military, and as far as I can tell, has never had a good thing to say about America, so it is not surprising that she would be taking up the cause of these soldiers without sufficient information.

[edit on 04/10/17 by GradyPhilpott]

There is absolutely no reason for anyone, soldier, sailor, tinkerman or tailor, to risk their lives in Iraq on behalf of political or military/industrial and bloodline dwarves, who seek to capture the whole of the world's remaining wealth to their own ends, and who regard the majority of the world's population as cullable or enslaveable cattle
To Hell with them
May the military personnel continue to step back and say NO!

Originally posted by dh
There is absolutely no reason for anyone, soldier, sailor, tinkerman or tailor, to risk their lives in Iraq on behalf of political or military/industrial and bloodline dwarves, who seek to capture the whole of the world's remaining wealth to their own ends, and who regard the majority of the world's population as cullable or enslaveable cattle
To Hell with them
May the military personnel continue to step back and say NO!

In America service members swear an oath. We also have an all-volunteer force, so your argument is without merit.

[edit on 04/10/17 by GradyPhilpott]

[edit on 04/10/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by craigandrew
True, but in the meantime who are these supply guy Reservists letting down in the line?

If I was in the heat of Iraqi desert, dehydrating and waiting for a water resup or low on ammo in a firefight......I'd want to pummel the buggers for letting me down, and maybe getting some of my mates killed.

Right or wrong politically. If you signed up for the dough, you don't let your brothers and sisters down by refusing to do the job in the field.

Its like saying "I let my mates get blown away cause I decided I didnt want to shoot anyone"

Thats the bottom line.

Ex Australian ARes. Thank God I didnt have to make the call.

It could be either situation:

A: The troops are freaked out and refused orders.
B: The troops have experience that showed them they cannot possibly do the resupply run without escort, and the person ordering the escort didn't know that it was impossible. Units have to be resupplied, but if it's way more likely that those supplies will end up in the enemy's hands or burning away on a road than getting to allies, then it's unwise to send them.

Either way, it shows a troubling situation and lack of leadership.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

but unfortunately wars wont stop if people refuse to fight because it is in human nature to be hostile leaving your duties over fear doesnt solve the problem but intensifies it

[edit on 17/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Show me a war in the last 2,500 years where the guys who order it are leading the charge, and I'll believe that.

Alexander was the last leader who lead, literally, from the front.

These days we have all the means necessary to live without mass murder, aka warfare. The problem lies in society, not the individual. It can be corrected. Will it be, is another matter.

To hell with your rituals and your Oaths
You cannot swear allegiance to psychopathic killers and genocidal maniacs
And that is what is at the center of this drive
Bush and his entourage.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton, Kissinger, Project for the New American Century, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bloodline blue blood families - exterminators one and all
The cannon-fodder have the absolute right to say no to these mentally sick hoohas and deserve our utmost solidarity if they do

Originally posted by dh
There is absolutely no reason for anyone, soldier, sailor, tinkerman or tailor, to risk their lives in Iraq on behalf of political or military/industrial and bloodline dwarves, who seek to capture the whole of the world's remaining wealth to their own ends, and who regard the majority of the world's population as cullable or enslaveable cattle
To Hell with them
May the military personnel continue to step back and say NO!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

In America sevice members swear an oath. We also have an all-volunteer force, so your argument is without merit.

[edit on 04/10/17 by GradyPhilpott]

[edit on 17-10-2004 by dh]

[edit on 17-10-2004 by dh]

Darn Grady, How did your narrow mind slip in here, guess it was inevitable just as my out the box mind got in

These guy's and all the reservists and are not professional soldiers. They are weekend, I think I wanna be, maybe soldiers. Once a month they drive around the country side while children wave at the convoy. They are well versed in the rules of the road, safety, and Department of Transportation requirements. And still think they matter. There is no DOT over there, only mass confusion and death. They no longer have rights, they are now Government Issue. As far as whining about contaminated fuel, you throw some ethanol or methanol in your fuel tank and take a lot of filters with you.
The fault lies with this Administration and it's incredible manipulation of the common man to even believe in this stupid action. I mean even the premise and current rationale is absurd. You can not take the battle to a non-existent battlefield You can pursue and ensnare a small group of guerrilla warriors as the CIA did with Che. But were not allowed to with Osama. Why.
Instead we sent a bunch of weekend warriors to their Custer's Last Stand do be picked off one by one by the united tribes of the Middle East.
Yes the Army and the CIA are upset. They were lied to and ignored in that order. And they are the largest shareholders in the Military Industrial Complex. I have stated my thoughts and theories and perceptions on this elsewhere. I see a severe internal conflict around the corner.
Who declares Martial law first. The Administration with the support of the Air Force and Navy. Or the CIA and the Army [the Grunts are all out of Country].
Who and How and When? I do not feel If is in the equation.

TUT

OK - these guys refused to undertake a task on grounds of personal security
But that's fair enough
In the face of contiuing atrocities in an illegal war
Why should they take orders in the middle of an atrocious war crime equal to, and imitative of, what Adolf Hitler did?

Originally posted by dh

Why should they take orders in the middle of an atrocious war crime equal to, and imitative of, what Adolf Hitler did?

There's no comparison between this war and Hitler's expansionism of WWII except in your twisted mind, but beyond that, they should obey lawful orders because they have a sworn duty to do so and they will face prosecution if they don't.

We can thank God and his infininte wisdom that we don't have you in Iraq defending the cause of freedom.

George W-wise I'd do anything in my power to avoid being involved in Iraq in the cause of creating World Fascism