Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/17/2004 10:59:16 AM EST
I've been away from the site since Friday, so I don't know how much has been said about the Reservists refusing to drive the convoy in Iraq.

Here's the part that bugs me. They were given a job to do and refused to do it. This meant that SOMEBODY ELSE had to do it. In my value system you don't do that to a fellow soldier.

Why isn't CBS, et al, reporting that other drivers from that unit drove the convoy and arrived safely at their destination??????

I know if I was in that outfit, those 19 malcontents would be on my list. Their refusal put others at risk.

On the issue of whether the fuel was actually useless as they claim, that will come out in the investigation. If it was indeed useless, then somebody needs to be spanked. If it is powering Abrams and Bradleys today, that raises more questions regarding the drivers.

Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:00:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 11:02:37 AM EST by DK-Prof]
There's a big thread about it around here somewhere:



Ooops - I guess it got locked, lots of good reading, though www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=284445&page=16



My OPINION in a nutshell: Disgraceful cowards who should have the book thrown at them.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:03:06 AM EST
Thats an interesting point. I would like to hear how that convoy went.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:05:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

On the issue of whether the fuel was actually useless as they claim, that will come out in the investigation. If it was indeed useless, then somebody needs to be spanked. If it is powering Abrams and Bradleys today, that raises more questions regarding the drivers.




I saw the news conference with the guy in charge (a general I think) this morning - and he unequivocally answered that question and said the fuel was NOT contaminated !!!!
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:06:45 AM EST
Anyone seen 'paths to glory' or are familiar with WWI?? This same thing happened in the French army. General Insurrection by the troops. This does not bode well for the Admin. Either they have a choice of Firing squad, or long prison term. This will go a long way for the Bush admin I'm sure.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:08:41 AM EST
What the media fails to grasp is that they must go EVERY time they are ordered, regardless of how they feel about the mission. If they refuse, if military discipline breaks down, it hurts the service badly. I hate to say it, but soldiers must obey, regardless of the consequences (illegal orders are different, but thats for another thread). When they start to question orders, the military can't perform at its best. This is one reason why I won't join the service, because I understand this, and its not for me. But they signed, so they are wrong to refuse.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:10:31 AM EST
The article I read in yesterday's paper said other drivers from the unit performed the mission. No incidents.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:16:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
The article I read in yesterday's paper said other drivers from the unit performed the mission. No incidents.




yeah, no kidding - what a "suicide mission" that turned out to be
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:18:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

On the issue of whether the fuel was actually useless as they claim, that will come out in the investigation. If it was indeed useless, then somebody needs to be spanked. If it is powering Abrams and Bradleys today, that raises more questions regarding the drivers.




I saw the news conference with the guy in charge (a general I think) this morning - and he unequivocally answered that question and said the fuel was NOT contaminated !!!!



Probably one of the stupid rumors that gets passed around in any large group of people. I hear rumors like this are very common in the service. Nobody knows exactly whats going on, but everyone has a theory.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:22:55 AM EST
Some folks were starting to call for a Congressional investigation. This morning Barry McCaffery said, "Congress needs to stay out of this. This is a job for a Lieutenant Colonel, a Colonel, and a Command Sergeant Major."

I concur.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:49:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
I've been away from the site since Friday, so I don't know how much has been said about the Reservists refusing to drive the convoy in Iraq.

Here's the part that bugs me. They were given a job to do and refused to do it. This meant that SOMEBODY ELSE had to do it. In my value system you don't do that to a fellow soldier.

Why isn't CBS, et al, reporting that other drivers from that unit drove the convoy and arrived safely at their destination??????

I know if I was in that outfit, those 19 malcontents would be on my list. Their refusal put others at risk.

On the issue of whether the fuel was actually useless as they claim, that will come out in the investigation. If it was indeed useless, then somebody needs to be spanked. If it is powering Abrams and Bradleys today, that raises more questions regarding the drivers.




They've been arrested and will be court martialed...
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 12:54:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

They've been arrested and will be court martialed...




Is that a recent development?

Because at the news conference earlier today, the guy said they were back on duty with their unit, and there was an investigation of WHETHER OR NOT charges would be filed, etc.



I assume they will be ourt-martialed, simply because it would damage overall discipline too much to NOT court martial them, because it would be such a bad precedent.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 12:56:16 PM EST
I dont know but I noticed many of these "soldiers" were inner city minorities.

Link Posted: 10/17/2004 12:56:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Why isn't CBS, et al, reporting that other drivers from that unit drove the convoy and arrived safely at their destination??????


b/c that would put the fault on the reservists who disobeyed orders, instead of making it President Bush's fault.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 1:11:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mak762:
I dont know but I noticed many of these "soldiers" were inner city minorities.




What difference does that make? Just curious.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 1:16:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By DOA:

Originally Posted By Mak762:
I dont know but I noticed many of these "soldiers" were inner city minorities.




What difference does that make? Just curious.



Just a pattern I am seeing here in America, The majority of blacks seem to think they are constantly being screwed and believed they deserve something for nothing from America.

We want reparatoins, we want welfare, we want our own city, Bush did this Bush did that BLAH BLAH.

anyone in this country can make it if they want to I think blacks in general are poor because they are lazy.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 1:18:18 PM EST
IBTL

Link Posted: 10/17/2004 1:18:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By DOA:

Originally Posted By Mak762:
I dont know but I noticed many of these "soldiers" were inner city minorities.




What difference does that make? Just curious.



Minority troops (black/hispanic) have a lot more problems then regular troops. Two/thirds of my apprehensions and arrests as an MP where black or hispanic troops or family members.
Take off drunken fights related to clubs and bars and domestics (which is where most of the whites entered the system, not that the b/h weren't at least half that total) and it would be more like 90%.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 1:21:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:

Originally Posted By DOA:

Originally Posted By Mak762:
I dont know but I noticed many of these "soldiers" were inner city minorities.




What difference does that make? Just curious.



Minority troops (black/hispanic) have a lot more problems then regular troops. Two/thirds of my apprehensions and arrests as an MP where black or hispanic troops or family members.
Take off drunken fights related to clubs and bars and domestics (which is where most of the whites entered the system, not that the b/h weren't at least half that total) and it would be more like 90%.



not to mention attitude, they have this I'm too cool of a gangta to listen to you.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 1:30:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By t-stox:
Anyone seen 'paths to glory' or are familiar with WWI?? This same thing happened in the French army. General Insurrection by the troops. This does not bode well for the Admin. Either they have a choice of Firing squad, or long prison term. This will go a long way for the Bush admin I'm sure.



Kirk Douglas. Awesome movie. If they shot every 10th soldier for "cowardice in the face of the enemy" the others would learn real quick. Thank God 99.999% of U.S. soldiers do their job without being asked twice.


Originally Posted By Brohawk:
I know if I was in that outfit, those 19 malcontents would be on my list.



How do you know they aren't. There may be a few grenades rolled into tents before it's all said and done with.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 1:33:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 4:05:14 PM EST
The UCMJ Article 32 proceedings will coninue until a case can be made for taking the accused to courts martial.

Based on the limited info now available to use, the accused could be charged under the following articles, depending on their level of involvement:

Article 77, Principals: Any person punishable under this chapter who--
(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission or,
(2) causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him would be punishable by this chapter, is a principal.

Article 81, Conspiracy: Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 82: Solicitation: (a) Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another or others to desert in violation of section 885 of this title (article 85) or mutiny in violation of section 894 of this title (article 94) shall, if the offense solicited or advised is attempted or committed, be punished with the punishment provided for the commission of the offense, but, if the offense solicited or advised is not committed or attempted, he shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another or others to commit an act or misbehavior before the enemy in violation of section 899 of this title (article 99) or sedition in violation of section 894 of this title (article 94) shall, if the offense solicited or advised is committed, be punished with the punishment provided for the commission of the offense, but, if the offense solicited or advised is not committed, he shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 90: Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer. Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Article 92: Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation. Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

Article 94: Mutiny or Sedition. (a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Depending on the circumstances, they might be charged with more...or less of the aggregate of the charges listed above.

One should note: At least two of the charges above carry with them the ultimate penalty if convicted in a time of war. Since the "legal" definition of war has not been put into place here by a formal declaration of war, the death penalty is probably not on the table. That said...the ringleaders could be looking at long prison terms...unless Monsieur Kerry wins, then they'll all get medals and a triumphant parade, followed by a fast pardon.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 5:13:09 PM EST
Top Top