Should this guy be strung up?

Cowboy1600 · 12-09-2004, 1:37 AM

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/

Seeing as a lot of you believe that thoses soliders who refused to go on a "suicide mission" should get the book thrown at them, do you think this guy should be court-marshalled?

Heavy-Dee · 12-09-2004, 9:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/

Seeing as a lot of you believe that thoses soliders who refused to go on a "suicide mission" should get the book thrown at them, do you think this guy should be court-marshalled?

Why should he be court-marshalled? He asked a legit question.

HD

firedawgon929 · 12-09-2004, 10:58 AM

Strung up? For asking for better equipment? Are you smoking crack?

EDDIE110171 · 12-09-2004, 11:01 AM

Give them the equipment they need to fight the war.

rocket · 12-09-2004, 11:17 AM

No. Rumsfeld said as much

Read up on Iwa Jima, Battle of the Bulge. Those soldiers had serious equipment issues to complain about.. agreed it was a different kind of war.

luvtolean · 12-09-2004, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/

Seeing as a lot of you believe that thoses soliders who refused to go on a "suicide mission" should get the book thrown at them, do you think this guy should be court-marshalled?

No, he is asking a question, not disobeying an order.

The soldiers that refused to move out are what happens in "citizen armies", and it's why politicians always fight to have standing, professional armies.

sheepofblue · 12-09-2004, 2:40 PM

No. Rumsfeld should address 2 issues.
1) is the complaint valid
2) was the complaint aired via the chain of cammand, is so why did it fail (could be answer #1 is FALSE)

Also read further and the press hand picked the questions they wanted and rigged the interview. The issue might still be valid but beware the biased press.

Cowboy1600 · 12-09-2004, 4:15 PM

Im not sure of the whole story, just what Ive seen on our news and read online. I figured putting someone high up in the chain of command (thats of course assuming Rumsfeld is on the chain of command) on the spot like that would be a bit of a fopar.

If what the soldier said is true does this change any opinions about the last lot that refused the mission? If I remember correctly their greatest concern was the lack of adequate vehicles.

sheepofblue · 12-09-2004, 4:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Im not sure of the whole story, just what Ive seen on our news and read online. I figured putting someone high up in the chain of command (thats of course assuming Rumsfeld is on the chain of command) on the spot like that would be a bit of a fopar.

If what the soldier said is true does this change any opinions about the last lot that refused the mission? If I remember correctly their greatest concern was the lack of adequate vehicles.

No bringing something to the attention of your superiors is a duty. Also that is part of what he was there for.

No they failed to comply with a lawful order from what I know. Also equipment is never perfect. Think of how your job works. While we want them to have what they need there is always tradeoffs.

cbr99xx · 12-09-2004, 7:06 PM

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

luvtolean · 12-09-2004, 7:31 PM

They're soldiers, they defend the Constitution, but don't live under its rules (or protection).

cbr99xx · 12-09-2004, 7:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

They're soldiers, they defend the Constitution, but don't live under its rules (or protection).

Surely you jest... but there are some limitations, and justifiably so.

http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/a.../27-1/Ch10.htm

sheepofblue · 12-09-2004, 7:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbr99xx

Surely you jest... but there are some limitations, and justifiably so.

http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/a.../27-1/Ch10.htm

No actually he is close to correct. Being active duty military changes/negates a lot of your constitutional protections. For instance access to the courts. Equal protection is also somewhat limited. Public criticism of the president can be insubornaton. Someone more knowledgable than me could probably enumerate the differences. In essence you belong to the military. Yet another sacrifice they make for our good

cbr99xx · 12-09-2004, 7:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

No actually he is close to correct. Being active duty military changes/negates a lot of your constitutional protections. For instance access to the courts. Equal protection is also somewhat limited. Public criticism of the president can be insubornaton. Someone more knowledgable than me could probably enumerate the differences. In essence you belong to the military. Yet another sacrifice they make for our good

Hmmm... Thought I covered that in my post you quoted, maybe not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbr99xx

but there are some limitations, and justifiably so.

Quote:

Freedom Of Expression
The right of all citizens to express their feelings freely and openly has only those limitations necessary to protect the rights of society. Soldiers have the same basic rights. These rights must, however, be consistent with good order and discipline and national security.

CORRESPONDING WITH A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Soldiers may write or petition any member of Congress about a complaint. You should not interfere with or try to dissuade a soldier from exercising this right. UCMJ, Article 138 (Chapter 13), protects a soldier's right to complain and request correction of a grievance against his commander.

rocket · 12-09-2004, 8:07 PM

Funny thing - The soldier didn't think this up on his own at all...a reporter who wasn't allowed to question Rumsfeld at this particular conference coached the guy with the question. Even made sure the guy picking the people with questions would pick his guy.

Not that the question loses any of it's validity but it makes you question whether the lefties want the truth or more ammo against this administration. Rummy could have made up some BS but he told it like it was. Not to point any fingers but it was the prior administration that cut our military down to sub standard imho. And before some of you get your panties in a bunch I do not agree with alot of things that the DOD is doing but I understand that this administration is all about taking care of the military.

sheepofblue · 12-09-2004, 8:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbr99xx

Hmmm... Thought I covered that in my post you quoted, maybe not.

D'oh!!! I didn't read your link sorry. I was trying to give examples and you already had

Sorry I am still trying to recover from having my will to live challenged by UPS and now I am taping survivor

Cowboy1600 · 12-09-2004, 11:41 PM

It would seem to me that a soliders obligations to fulfil orders may circumvent certain rights that the ordinary citizen may have. Was that pep talk the place to raise such concerns? This is where I thought that some of you guys may think hes out of line. There is a time and a place to voice opinions, was this it?

You cant blame Clinton for this. Bush has been in power for 4 years. Buch is also the one that ordered troops over there knowing that they are short on equipment. If he was truly concerned maybe he should have held off until they were better equiped

Would anyone here refuse an order if they knew it was a suicide mission?

"Up to 19 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were detained at gunpoint for nearly two days after disobeying orders to drive trucks that they said had not been serviced and were not being escorted by armed vehicles to Taji, about 15 miles north of Baghdad, relatives said after speaking to some of the soldiers."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG0D9B5JS1.DTL

Does this new situation with the solider complaining about the vehicles vindicate these 19 soldiers?

Zeeman · 12-10-2004, 8:54 AM

"If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country,"

Sorry, but this gets to me... The soldier is not defending his country. He is trying to defend someone elses from insurgents, militants etc.

I know it's a simple thing, but man it bugs me when politicians spew out crap like that...
/rantoff

Z...

sheepofblue · 12-10-2004, 9:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

It would seem to me that a soliders obligations to fulfil orders may circumvent certain rights that the ordinary citizen may have. Was that pep talk the place to raise such concerns? This is where I thought that some of you guys may think hes out of line. There is a time and a place to voice opinions, was this it?...

Would anyone here refuse an order if they knew it was a suicide mission?

"Up to 19 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were detained at gunpoint for nearly two days after disobeying orders to drive trucks that they said had not been serviced and were not being escorted by armed vehicles to Taji, about 15 miles north of Baghdad, relatives said after speaking to some of the soldiers."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG0D9B5JS1.DTL

Does this new situation with the solider complaining about the vehicles vindicate these 19 soldiers?

Yes this was it. After all he brought them in for a Q&A. However something of this magnitude if real should already have been brought up you local chain of command (or attempted)

There is a difference between thinking it is a suicide mission and knowing. It appears to me that they were heavily speculating.

Also i believe the being held at gunpoint allegation was proven wrong. They were confined to base though.

No it does not vindicate them at all, the complaint has not been validated. And more importantly there is functional reasons that all vehicles do not have the armor of a tank. The problem might exist or it might be a misunderstanding of purpose. However, to ask the question is certainly valid.

cbr99xx · 12-10-2004, 9:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

It would seem to me that a soliders obligations to fulfil orders may circumvent certain rights that the ordinary citizen may have. Was that pep talk the place to raise such concerns? This is where I thought that some of you guys may think hes out of line. There is a time and a place to voice opinions, was this it?

Sounds like the proper place to me

... From your link.

Quote:

Those complaints, and others, were aired Wednesday when Rumsfeld held a “town hall”-style meeting with about 2,300 soldiers at Camp Buehring in northern Kuwait, a transit camp for troops heading into Iraq.

nhfirefighter13 · 12-10-2004, 9:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

This is where I thought that some of you guys may think hes out of line. There is a time and a place to voice opinions, was this it?

Any place is good for voicing opinions. It's a free country...whether it's done in good taste, however, is a different matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

You cant blame Clinton for this. Bush has been in power for 4 years. Buch is also the one that ordered troops over there knowing that they are short on equipment. If he was truly concerned maybe he should have held off until they were better equiped

People will always complain about wanting more...get over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Would anyone here refuse an order if they knew it was a suicide mission?

Apparently, I need to work on my ESP a bit more. The question to ask is what hardships did these cowards place on OTHERS by not completing their duty? They were delivering supplies. They're members of the US Armed Forces and I'm sure that somewhere they were trained how to SHOOT THINGS. Now, if they were not provided with weapons with which to shoot back (if shot at) that's a different matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Does this new situation with the solider complaining about the vehicles vindicate these 19 soldiers?

No. They should all be court martialed and dishonorably discharged.

Nice job at fishing though.