blzrul Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 According to the reports, these guys are reservists. I wonder if they think about it as a career they care to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 According to the reports, these guys are reservists. I wonder if they think about it as a career they care to lose. 72669[/snapback] Yeah and when they have to repay the military 25K for all the free schooling/college that they got, I am sure they will care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 What a bunch of friggin' cowards! If I were in Iraq, I'd be mowing down ragheads left and right til the friggin' streets ran red with infidel/muslim blood! I might even stomp a few liberals and queers (lol, even though they're the same thing). 72754[/snapback] Ok, that's enough now. You can go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 No matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members who dont particularly like their orders can go blabbing to mommy or the media about it? How many cell phone calls would have been made on June 6, 1944? Or when the Allies were ordered to hold the line in the Ardennes Forest despite being surrounded and outnumbered/outgunned? Any cellphone calls to mommy from Mogadishu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 18, 2004 Author Share Posted October 18, 2004 Update -- GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks Says Gen. James E. Chambers. They'll still probably be charged, tho. Thurman, no matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members can't be sure their commanders won't send them out in unequipped vehicles? No matter the facts, what does this incident say to kids who are thinking about enlisting? How much money is spent on each Humvee, each Deuce-and-a-half, each fuel transport truck, etc. and they DON'T have armor coming out of the factory? It's not the Boy Scouts we're talking about.... In this day and age, with our so-called technological superiority, there's an expectation that we don't send our troops into battle with equipment that will get them killed (Rosen Hawks in Mogadishu, don't get me started...). The equivalent of this would be docking a mile off Omaha Beach, ordering the troops to swim to shore and when they get there, jump up and down yelling "I'm your target; shoot me, please!" Or when surrounded in the Ardennes and requesting support, the OIC telling them, Now we've got them where we want them! Did ANY of you ever read "All My Sons"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Update -- GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks Says Gen. James E. Chambers. They'll still probably be charged, tho. Thurman, no matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members can't be sure their commanders won't send them out in unequipped vehicles? No matter the facts, what does this incident say to kids who are thinking about enlisting? How much money is spent on each Humvee, each Deuce-and-a-half, each fuel transport truck, etc. and they DON'T have armor coming out of the factory? It's not the Boy Scouts we're talking about.... In this day and age, with our so-called technological superiority, there's an expectation that we don't send our troops into battle with equipment that will get them killed (Rosen Hawks in Mogadishu, don't get me started...). The equivalent of this would be docking a mile off Omaha Beach, ordering the troops to swim to shore and when they get there, jump up and down yelling "I'm your target; shoot me, please!" Or when surrounded in the Ardennes and requesting support, the OIC telling them, Now we've got them where we want them! Did ANY of you ever read "All My Sons"? 73807[/snapback] "Sorry, General Eisenhower. 101st Airborne can't go to Bastogne...we don't have any winter gear." - General Tony McAuliffe, December 17, 1944. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Update -- GIs Who Refused Job Had Unarmored Trucks Says Gen. James E. Chambers. They'll still probably be charged, tho. Thurman, no matter the facts, can such a precedent be set where military members can't be sure their commanders won't send them out in unequipped vehicles? No matter the facts, what does this incident say to kids who are thinking about enlisting? How much money is spent on each Humvee, each Deuce-and-a-half, each fuel transport truck, etc. and they DON'T have armor coming out of the factory? It's not the Boy Scouts we're talking about.... In this day and age, with our so-called technological superiority, there's an expectation that we don't send our troops into battle with equipment that will get them killed (Rosen Hawks in Mogadishu, don't get me started...). The equivalent of this would be docking a mile off Omaha Beach, ordering the troops to swim to shore and when they get there, jump up and down yelling "I'm your target; shoot me, please!" Or when surrounded in the Ardennes and requesting support, the OIC telling them, Now we've got them where we want them! Did ANY of you ever read "All My Sons"? 73807[/snapback] Yeah, explain that to Chesty Puller and his men. How's about Lt. O'Bannan who was outnumbered and out gunned in Tripoli. Oh thats right you're the moron who felt that the government owes the youngsters of this country everything they want even if they haven't worked for it, because the potential is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 According to the reports, these guys are reservists. I wonder if they think about it as a career they care to lose. 72669[/snapback] Considering what they did goes on their civilian criminal record (as a felony, I believe)...yeah, they probably do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Considering what they did goes on their civilian criminal record (as a felony, I believe)...yeah, they probably do. 74087[/snapback] You're right, I forgot about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 18, 2004 Author Share Posted October 18, 2004 Yeah, explain that to Chesty Puller and his men. How's about Lt. O'Bannan who was outnumbered and out gunned in Tripoli. Oh thats right you're the moron who felt that the government owes the youngsters of this country everything they want even if they haven't worked for it, because the potential is there. 73950[/snapback] The point being, of course, that the objective is to not put your troops in such a place where courage beyond courage is the strongest or only weapon they have. It makes for spine-tingling and proud stories and examples, but in the course of human history, it's also made for a lot of dead soldiers. So, the soldiers have to work to earn their armor b/c you don't want to pay for it? In terms of issues, you're comparing apples to polar bears. I got a whopping $1600 from Pell Grant and I'm done with college, but I can still see the value of the program, as does MOST EVERY American. I'm sorry if other people tend to look at the macrocosm and the good that program provides rather than the relatively petty microcosm of their own wallet, having to pay their $2 share of the program over the course of a year.... Oh, wait. I'm not sorry for that, b/c it's my opinion. You're welcome to your own opinion, VA, and you can vote to effect change as you see fit. But in that booth, you compete against 250 million other people. Are you going to drop another F-bomb now? "Son, when I first joined the Mounties, they gave you a paper bag and a stick. The paper bag was for boiling tea and the stick was for killing big game, and if you lost either of them, they charged you for it...." -- The ghost of Bob Fraser in "Due South" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 18, 2004 Author Share Posted October 18, 2004 Considering what they did goes on their civilian criminal record (as a felony, I believe)...yeah, they probably do. 74087[/snapback] They haven't been charged with anything yet. I'll concede they likely will be, but I don't think they'll get a dishonorable discharge. That'd be raking up a lot of political muck the brass would likely rather keep settled at the bottom. No one seems to be absolutely right in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Bastard Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 The point being, of course, that the objective is to not put your troops in such a place where courage beyond courage is the strongest or only weapon they have. It makes for spine-tingling and proud stories and examples, but in the course of human history, it's also made for a lot of dead soldiers. 74160[/snapback] Yeah. Putting troops in a war zone. F'ing military people can't do anything right. Now, do you want to go into detail on how this operation is any different from any other military operation, regarding convoy security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 No it's something who has never had responsibility would never understand. Sometimes you just do it. Granted it is best if everyone could in theory have armor plated everything, but reality doesn't work that way. Did you fail to forget that another group did the run and had no problem. This was a setup by this group intended to get the effect that they did. In the military you don't say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 18, 2004 Author Share Posted October 18, 2004 In the military you don't say no. 74180[/snapback] Yaknow, my father said No quite a bit in the Army. And it was followed up with "According to Article _, section _...." Just because someone has one more stripe than you doesn't mean they're not pulling orders out their a$$. I liken it to Gilbride calling a HB Pass on 3&1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Yaknow, my father said No quite a bit in the Army. And it was followed up with "According to Article _, section _...." Just because someone has one more stripe than you doesn't mean they're not pulling orders out their a$$. I liken it to Gilbride calling a HB Pass on 3&1. 74199[/snapback] He would have lasted about 5 minutes in the Corps. What did he do reach the rank of PFC after 10 years with that attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 The point being, of course, that the objective is to not put your troops in such a place where courage beyond courage is the strongest or only weapon they have. It makes for spine-tingling and proud stories and examples, but in the course of human history, it's also made for a lot of dead soldiers. 74160[/snapback] "I'm sorry, General Westmoreland. We can't fly into Khe San, because our C-130s are unarmored." Commander, VMGR-152, Feb. 9, 1968 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 "I'm sorry, General Westmoreland. We can't fly into Khe San, because our C-130s are unarmored." Commander, VMGR-152, Feb. 9, 1968 74209[/snapback] Oh, I know, "Go to hell General Washington, I am not rowing this boat across the river, it isn't armored. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Does anyone know whether the fuel trucks are even supposed to be armored? My understanding is no. Can someone shed more light on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 They haven't been charged with anything yet. I'll concede they likely will be, but I don't think they'll get a dishonorable discharge. That'd be raking up a lot of political muck the brass would likely rather keep settled at the bottom. No one seems to be absolutely right in this case. 74174[/snapback] Someone will be...and they should allget dishonorable discharges at a minimum. This isn't My Lai, where disobedience of illegal orders would have been a vitrue...these people's unwillingness to do their job is the kind of thing that puts lives in jeopardy. As much as people creeb about "supporting the troops" over here, that's precisely what they [/i]didn't[/i] do. Really, whoever organized and led this little circus needs to spend some time in Leavenworth. And in virtually any other country in the world, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Most other western nations would have these people locked up; any non-western nation would have already had them shot for dereliction of duty. Only in modern America is disobedience and irresponsiblity a virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 18, 2004 Author Share Posted October 18, 2004 Yeah. Putting troops in a war zone. F'ing military people can't do anything right. Now, do you want to go into detail on how this operation is any different from any other military operation, regarding convoy security? 74177[/snapback] It's about equally effed up. Like my brother who was in AF Raven Team in a C-130 whose landing gears wouldn't deploy. The pilot turned circles for a hour while the crew cranked the manual override/release and that didn't work either. Rosen landing in "a place we shouldn't have been." Survived b/c the pilot was good and extremely lucky. Point being that taxpayers spend a billion dollars on a plane; maybe something should actually work when they use it. If you're on the plane and the landing gears don't work and they tell you to go anyway, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts