Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 123
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    But there's still no excuse for avoiding danger at the expense of a fellow soldier.
    If your protest involves sending someone else into harm's way, that is not right, regardless of the vaildity of the protest - other people had to go in to do what the protesters would not.

    However that action showed a second example of leadership incompetence, sending others to repeat the same mistake.

    I view it as a micro-analogy of the entire war in Iraq. People are being sent into harms way through a misguided policy that is not achieving what it was supposed to achieve.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/21/2004 at 01:04 PM.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    However that action showed a second example of leadership incompetence, sending others to repeat the same mistake.
    What mistake, and what leadership incompetence? The other soldiers who carried out the mission later in the day did so with no problems.

    I'm with mrjoec and claire on this: Soldiers need to follow all orders which are not facially illegal or immoral. That includes running into enemy fire and driving supply trucks into dangerous territory.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  3. #83  
    Or, did sending in the second team indicate that they didn't feel as strongly about their safety during the mission. Maybe the second team felt it was reasonable?

    Just suggesting that it SOUNDS like there is room for disagreement even among the foot soldiers. ?
    RJuhl
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    What mistake, and what leadership incompetence?.
    The commander involved has been relieved of duty due to questions of his leadership competence, per the CNN article quoted above.

    The mistake was sending troops into a dangerous situation using non-armored vehicles, when they should have obtained armored vehicles.

    I am not excusing the troops who refused the order, they were wrong and their refusal resulted in other troops who were not so outspoken, having to undergo this needless risk.

    But the story does not end there. The cause of this problem is poor leadership. And to me, this is how I view the entire Iraq situation, there is a poorly defined mission and poor implementation.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/21/2004 at 02:55 PM.
  5. #85  
    What I read was they were being sent in with end of life vehicles (vehicles that were deemed non battle worthy and in need of maintenance). Furthermore they were denied their usual escorts (Apaches and Bradleys).
  6. #86  
    Hackworth wrote about a Brigadier General above 343rd Quartermaster (13th COSCOM). Someone might want this story to go away; a Captain was relieved of duty while the problem could be higher up the food chain.

    On 09-13-2004 "Balad's Gen. Jimmie" http://www.sftt.org/hackstarget.html "[Hack writes he] previously blistered Chambersí command ...[for] failing to ensure that truckers had sufficient armor on their vehicles to protect them from guerrilla attacks."
    "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly Proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their Nation" - Geo. Washington
  7. #87  
    So, if I am a soldier and I see a problem, I do the following: (1) Make a written complaint beforehand about the equipment, etc; (2) express my opinions beforehand that traveling without protection or armour is dangerous, unnecessary, etc.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  8. #88  
    Agreed. A soldier has no military value if he can disobey an order because he might get killed. This would essentially legalize desertion.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    So, if I am a soldier and I see a problem, I do the following: (1) Make a written complaint beforehand about the equipment, etc; (2) express my opinions beforehand that traveling without protection or armour is dangerous, unnecessary, etc.
    So you want to just talk about the soldiers being wrong not to follow orders (I agree) over and over and over and just ignore the larger issue of why the orders were questioned in the first place? Sounds just like the Bush admin reacting to the first news leakage of Abu Girabe - denegrate the soldiers at the bottom level and distract attention from anything that might be happening higher up.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    No, Claire. He's actually comparing our position on the matter to Nazi Germany, and suggesting that what the American soldiers did was right. But I still don't think it's a fair comparison.
    You allmost got it right, all I'm saying that there is danger of you guys heading to a nazi germany situations if there is no debate over these issues.

    I agree with you that it is wrong to refuse an order to get yourself out of danger but bring somebody else in danger.

    This is not a for of against issue. you actually can agree with multiple facets of the issue. That is what philosophical debate is all about, but I am afraid it is a lost art in 2004 America if people look at things from both sides they are labeled flip-floppers, their leader uses retoric like 'if you are not with us you are against us'. This is why I brought in the danger of heading nazi germany. I am not calling anybody a nazi, just pointing you out to the danger so you may learn from our mistakes..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    This is not a for of against issue. you actually can agree with multiple facets of the issue. That is what philosophical debate is all about, but I am afraid it is a lost art in 2004 America if people look at things from both sides they are labeled flip-floppers, their leader uses retoric like 'if you are not with us you are against us'. This is why I brought in the danger of heading nazi germany. I am not calling anybody a nazi, just pointing you out to the danger so you may learn from our mistakes..
    This is an excellent point.

    It is also the crux of this year's political elections.

    Speaking as a veteran having lost two friends in terrorist related incidents -- one in Lebanon (the Marine Corps barracks bombing) and one in Somalia (make no mistake, the warlords here were terrorizing people) -- fear of losing one's life is a tremendous motivator. Most soldiers I had the opportunity to serve with were good people. Not one of them would question an order, unless he felt it was not in the best interest of his unit.

    Yes, we did things that perhaps were not appropriate in the civilian world. But that was our job. Heck, one time we were called out and my unit commander came to me and simply said, "XO, it's time to go get the nukes." Not an order I particularly relished, but did anyway. Another time we were called on to prepare to repel civilian protesters with bayonets if our perimeter was breached. No one refused. But if an order to perform a mission that was patently wrong, we may have had problems.

    It's one thing to say it's different because the invasion of Normandy put everyone in harm's way. Yet these brave soldiers had all the tools available to them to have a reasonable expectation they would be safe.

    In Iraq the situation is different. The vehicles they were to use were not properly maintained, had little armor protection and they had little, or no, combat support to effectively complete their mission -- delivering contaminated fuel. Looking back at my experiences, I can say that I would have carried out these orders, but woe be it to those in higher command that needlessly placed the lives of their troops in danger. Part of being a responsible commander is that you can order men into a potentially lethal situation, but not needlessly waste their lives. It really is too bad that a lowly captain will pay the price for this ... where is the responsibility up the line?

    OMT, clairegrrl, I appreciate your comments on issues such as these. But you aren't in the situation the troops are. We get to live in the relative comfort and safety here in the US and can make judgements without having to risk our lives. Perhaps you should enlist so you can get a better feel for what it is like to defend your country by actually being in harm's way. It is not an easy task and it is better, imo, to support the troops and to put pressure on the leadership to make sure that as many of them as possible return to enjoy the freedoms they chose to protect.

    Just my .02.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  12. #92  
    Tj, as a fellow veteran who served a three year active duty enlistment I certainly identify with your post. Although I served during peacetime I worked with many who served in Vietnam. Their experiences I would not want to wish on anyone except for a very good reason. Also, I think that it really does make a difference to have a commander in chief and staff to have some combat experience. That way, if someone has a whim to do something that involves war, the knowledge firsthand what they actually are sending men and women into can help guide them in their decisions. I think that Colin powell, the only reasonable voice in the Bush war cabinet was not coincidentally the only person with combat experience.

    It saddens me to hear people who on one hand are so pro war and on the other hand have no experience with it and do not understand its full implications.

    It upsets me when people are on one hand so easy to agree we should send people to war, but too priviliged to participate in it themseves.
  13. #93  
    Everybody knows that if you have too much water in your fuel, the only remedy is to put de lime in de coconut, and shake dem both up.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    A very interesting article. My question is why is the reponsibility for incidents like this (as well as the prison incidents) always having the lowest ranking guy/girls taking the fall?
    I agree 100%. Unfortunately, is always the low ranking members the ones that pay the price for the mistakes from above.
    Me = Nokia 5170/Palm III > Kyocera 6035 > Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 700p > Treo 755p > Treo Pro > Palm Pre

    Wife = Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 755p > Palm Centro > Palm Pixi
  15. #95  
    I love how the left continually tries to drone this claim over and over and over.

    I also love how they claim bush will institute the draft again.

    that's very, very funny to me.

    you know why guys?

    because democrat charlie rengel is the one who proposed the draft to be reinstated.

    now the dems blame the repubs for problems which they set up for them.

    reminds me of the healthcare plan which was put in place by clinton and voted for by kerry and took effect as bush entered office. now kerry expounds that its bush's fault for the high premiums.

    this is also very, very funny to me guys.

    you know why?

    because kerry and clinton were the ones who voted the healthcare problem into place.

    setup artists. how long will you continue to buy the bullsh@t from this party everyone?

    are we interested in working together and making progress in the 21st century? or are we just content to watch hypocrits b"tch and moan at one party for the very problems they instituted.

    FOLKS, THEY ARE COUNTING ON THE FACT THAT YOU DONT KNOW ANY BETTER. THEY COUNT ON YOUR IGNORANCE.

    I would be insulted if I were a democrat today. they insult the intelligence of their own party supporters - how pathetically sad.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    because democrat charlie rengel is the one who proposed the draft to be reinstated.
    And he voted against it in congress, typical flip floper demo
  17. #97  
    wow. what blatant circus clowns these people are!!!

    dems, doesn't this behavior make you want to wake up and ask, "wait a minute, what are we doing here?!"

    can we afford to play stupid little games with each other while the world is as dangerous as it is and while every move we make is critical to our future?

    can we afford this smoke in mirrors? or should we wake up and get it done?
  18. #98  
    treoblk
    I do not see a problem with a draft. It might make the young hawks and the old hawks with children think twice about going to war. Nowadays many of them feel like they can just send someone else out there to do their bidding.
  19. #99  
    you don't see the contradiction here?!!

    dems blame bush for bringing the draft into effect. they say he is the one proposing it, he is the one voting for it.

    NO! THEY are the liars here, cell, not bush.

    DEMOCRATS are the ones proposing the draft, voting for the draft, and then turning around to blame bush for proposing it.

    cell, please tell me you are not telling me you think this is not blatant lying, misleading and completely wrong!!!!!!
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    you don't see the contradiction here?!!

    dems blame bush for bringing the draft into effect. they say he is the one proposing it, he is the one voting for it.

    NO! THEY are the liars here, cell, not bush.

    DEMOCRATS are the ones proposing the draft, voting for the draft, and then turning around to blame bush for proposing it.

    cell, please tell me you are not telling me you think this is not blatant lying, misleading and completely wrong!!!!!!
    I believe there is more to this than is known, or this would have been brought up by the Bush camp at the debate -and would have been used more effectively.
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions