http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6255918/

WASHINGTON - The Army is investigating reports that several members of a reservist supply unit in Iraq refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous.

advertisement
Click Here!
The reservists are from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, which is based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food and water in combat zones.

According to The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss., a platoon of 17 soldiers refused to go on a fuel supply mission Wednesday because their vehicles were in poor shape and they did not have a capable armed escort. The paper cited interviews with family members of some of the soldiers, who said the soldiers had been confined after their refusals.

Pentagon officials denied that, telling NBC News that "no soldiers have been arrested, detained or restricted" while the investigation into the incident is continuing.

Frequent ambushes, bombings
Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings.

A whole unit refusing to go on a mission in a war zone would be a significant breach of military discipline. A statement from the military’s press center in Baghdad called the incident “isolated," and said the mission was later carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers.

“The investigating team is currently in Tallil taking statements and interviewing those involved. This is an isolated incident and it is far too early in the investigation to speculate as to what happened, why it happened or any action that might be taken,” the coalition press information center said in the statement, sent to the Associated Press in Washington.

In the statement, U.S. military officials said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command had appointed his deputy commander to investigate the incident.

The statement did not confirm several aspects of the relatives’ stories, including the number of soldiers involved and the reason they refused the mission.

Vehicles unsafe, relative says
The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq — north of Baghdad — because their vehicles were considered extremely unsafe, Patricia McCook of Jackson, Miss., told the Clarion-Ledger newspaper. Her husband, Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was among those detained, she said, saying her husband had telephoned her from Iraq.

The platoon being held has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, said Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who told the newspaper her daughter Amber McClenny is among those being detained.

Patricia McCook said her husband told her he did not feel comfortable taking his soldiers on another trip.

“He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were ’deadlines’ ... not safe to go in a hotbed like that,” she said, according to the newspaper.
NBC News producer Scott Foster and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

This is quite significant news! The first time American troops in the field have refused to do their duty. We may be on the cusp of a rapid breakdown in U.S. military morale and discipline.

I guess it finally clicked in that what they're doing is total bullshit!

Hmm... regardless of the cause of their defiance, it will be interesting to see how ZOG responds if a large chunk of the army loses their will to fight as these guys have.

Humm, unserviceable vehicles and no escort to protect them.
I would have told my superiors to shove the order too. I used to be an officer in the Austalian Light Horse (armoured corps mounted infantry).
I do not know what they teach at West Point, but in the Australian Army an officer can refuse to follow an order that he considers to be illegal, unwise or suicidal. He had better be prepared to put up a good case for refusing to follow the order, though.
That ruling came about because of the stupid and suicidal orders given by idiot British general staff officers during World War One.
Today, if some Sandhurst (I am convinced that one has to be a certified idiot to be accepted by Sandhurst, the British army's officer training school) wacker told Aussies to go 'over the top' and charge into machinegun fire the aforementioned Australians would probably shoot him.
At the very least the response would be: "Get fucked . . . Sir."
I am 100% behind the American soldiers who refused the order to take an unescorted convoy of unservicable vehicles through enemy territory. Talk about suicidal!
This affair is another indication that the wheels are falling off the American military machine, in particular the army, because it is being overstretched in the ZOG's attempt to be the world's policeman.
I shall watch future developments with interest.

[QUOTE=Australianrage]Humm, unserviceable vehicles and no escort to protect them.
I would have told my superiors to shove the order too. I used to be an officer in the Austalian Light Horse (armoured corps mounted infantry).
I do not know what they teach at West Point, but in the Australian Army an officer can refuse to follow an order that he considers to be illegal, unwise or suicidal. He had better be prepared to put up a good case for refusing to follow the order, though.
That ruling came about because of the stupid and suicidal orders given by idiot British general staff officers during World War One.
Today, if some Sandhurst (I am convinced that one has to be a certified idiot to be accepted by Sandhurst, the British army's officer training school) wacker told Aussies to go 'over the top' and charge into machinegun fire the aforementioned Australians would probably shoot him.
At the very least the response would be: "Get fucked . . . Sir."
I am 100% behind the American soldiers who refused the order to take an unescorted convoy of unservicable vehicles through enemy territory. Talk about suicidal!
This affair is another indication that the wheels are falling off the American military machine, in particular the army, because it is being overstretched in the ZOG's attempt to be the world's policeman.
I shall watch future developments with interest.[/QUOTE]

Of course the decision is probably justified. It was a virtual suicide mission, as is the whole Iraq war.

But refusing orders like this is very, very bad for a soldier to do. This unit was assigned to carry fuel to other troops in the field. Who knows how badly some other unit needed that fuel? There's the old poem,


For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of the shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of the horse, the rider was lost;
For want of the rider, the battle was lost;
For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost;
And all for the want of a nail.


What might have been lost for the want of this fuel? Probably not much in this particular case, but the point stands regardless. War is a complex undertaking, and if even the most insignificant of orders are not carried out, the whole effort quickly collapses.

It is too bad that our modern officers, commanders, and commanders-in-chief have become careless and unthinking and callous. If we had better men in charge, these soldiers would not have had to refuse their duty. If we had better men in charge, the war would be justified, as would all of the actions that comprise the war; the soldiers would be proud to carry out their orders, even in a virtual suicide mission scenario, because such orders would undoubtedly be given only in dire circumstances.

It is too bad that we have no such leaders, and that common soldiers are actually justified in refusing orders from above.

I wonder if Israel will court-martial them for refusing a direct order?

[QUOTE=bizmark]Of course the decision is probably justified. It was a virtual suicide mission, as is the whole Iraq war.

But refusing orders like this is very, very bad for a soldier to do. This unit was assigned to carry fuel to other troops in the field. Who knows how badly some other unit needed that fuel? [/QUOTE]

A good point and one with which I agree, but the correct course of action would have been for the field commanders (those who were in need of the fuel) to withdraw to a position in which resupply was possible.
An army that has outreached its supply capability is incapable of fighting.
If the supply unit was unable to supply, the fighting men should have withdrawn . . . if necessary to the perimiter of the supply unit's position.
Then they would be in a position to operate as functional units.
This applies in particular to armoured units. Those Abrahams tanks are gas guzzling white elephants that require way too much in the way of supply and support to remain operational.
If field units had to withdraw enmasse to positions close to the supply depot that would give a long-overdue wake-up call to the general staff and that idiot Rumsfeld.

The reservists are from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, which is based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food and water in combat zones.

Don't jump for joy. SC quartermaster unit is likely to be mostly Black.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041015/capt.jx10410152356.iraq_unit_investigation_jx104.jpgArmy Reserve Sgt. Larry O. McCook, of Jackson, Miss., shown in this 2004 handout photograph taken at the Hinds County Detention Center in Raymond, Miss., where he is a deputy, is one of several soldiers said to be part of a reservist supply unit in Iraq (news - web sites) that refused to go on a convoy mission. According to his wife, Patricia McCook, her husband and other reservists refused to go on a 'suicide mission' to deliver fuel, to Taji, Iraq, north of Baghdad, because they considered their vehicles unsafe. (AP Photo/Hinds County Sheriff's Office, File)



DIVERSITY IS STRENTH. :rolleyes:

The report continues. One of the soldiers was reported as saying "hell no Sarge, I ain't gonna go put my neck on the line for Israel and that bloated serpent Sharon. Let the Israelis go on their own goddamned convoys."

[QUOTE=NorWind]Don't jump for joy. SC quartermaster unit is likely to be mostly Black.[/QUOTE]

This begs the question, did the breach of discipline occur primarily because the order to deliver the fuel was truly suicidal, or because the order was merely dangerous and the Blacks refused out of relative cowardice?

My concern is that worthless nigger hides will be routinely shifted to safer duties while a greater proportion of Whites will suffer casualties.

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of sabotage on their vehicles to make their case of ‘unsafe’ vehicles.[/size][/font]

[QUOTE=King_Tiger]Hmm... regardless of the cause of their defiance, it will be interesting to see how ZOG responds if a large chunk of the army loses their will to fight as these guys have.[/QUOTE]

Losing their will to be sitting ducks provided for target practice for Mahmoud.

Well, the nigger thing certainly adds a new aspect to the story, although I'm not quite sure what to make of it. In any case, it can work for our propaganda purposes :D

[QUOTE=bizmark]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6255918/



This is quite significant news! The first time American troops in the field have refused to do their duty. We may be on the cusp of a rapid breakdown in U.S. military morale and discipline.[/QUOTE]

I think it is here, they are just keeping it quiet. Remember the nigger that fragged the officers?

No way a bunch of Mexicans and Niggers are going to hang around.

What do you expect for an institution whose slogan is "I am an army of one." Fucking puke.

[QUOTE=torcher88]This begs the question, did the breach of discipline occur primarily because the order to deliver the fuel was truly suicidal, or because the order was merely dangerous and the Blacks refused out of relative cowardice?

My concern is that worthless nigger hides will be routinely shifted to safer duties while a greater proportion of Whites will suffer casualties.[/QUOTE]

Well said. The upside however is what Dr A refered to-- increased racism among combat units.

Not that this isnt already the case......... LOL!

....and how the fuck does the government antiracist utopian fanatic dickhead wonks plan to deal with that fact, long term?

combat units: OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE AND RACIST, GETTING MORE SO ALL THE TIME.

ohh friends, we live in interesting times indeed!

[QUOTE=Antiochus Epiphanes]What do you expect for an institution whose slogan is "I am an army of one." Fucking puke.[/QUOTE]Yeah those commercials really are sickening. They weren't as bad when they had the uplifting "Be All That You Can Be" slogan, but these new commercials all feature one of the following: either a spic, nigger, or a little miss private jessica lynch either refilling a helicopter, climbing a mountain, hitting the books, or doing something else totally radical and/or eXtreme for ZOG's army propaganda purposes. I dunno why they wanna recruit more shitskins; ZOG prides itself on killing whites.

[QUOTE=King_Tiger]Yeah those commercials really are sickening. They weren't as bad when they had the uplifting "Be All That You Can Be" slogan, but these new commercials all feature one of the following: either a spic, nigger, or a little miss private jessica lynch either refilling a helicopter, climbing a mountain, hitting the books, or doing something else totally radical and/or eXtreme for ZOG's army propaganda purposes. I dunno why they wanna recruit more shitskins; ZOG prides itself on killing whites.[/QUOTE]
Have you noticed that the military has increased its advertisement campaign at the same time the iraq war is waging, like a rabid dog? Back door draft indeed!

They showed pictures of the "rebellious" soldiers on the news and many of them are white! Apparently they were afraid of transporting "contaminated fuel". What are the dangers of that?

They also called/e-mailed their family members and begged them to get the word out; one of them even said "raise hell". Were they afraid of a possible cover-up? Maybe they were afraid of becoming the next "be-headed casualty"?

[QUOTE=Auschwitz_Part_II]They showed pictures of the "rebellious" soldiers on the news and many of them are white! Apparently they were afraid of transporting "contaminated fuel". What are the dangers of that?

They also called/e-mailed their family members and begged them to get the word out; one of them even said "raise hell". Were they afraid of a possible cover-up? Maybe they were afraid of becoming the next "be-headed casualty"?[/QUOTE]

Well, here's the latest article on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6255918/

On Monday, Ricky Shealey of Quinton, Ala., father of one of the soldiers involved, told The Associated Press that his son, Spc. Scott Shealey, said the trucks earmarked for the mission had hauled jet fuel and were then loaded with diesel fuel without purging the tanks.

“The fuel was mixed and he wasn’t going on a mission to deliver fuel that could harm those with the helicopters,” Ricky Shealey told the AP.

Shealey said his son refused to go on the mission because the fuel they were to haul was tainted and he feared it would be put in a helicopter that would later crash.

So it seems like they actually were dealing with a contaminated fuel problem. *shrug*

Considerably different than the original story of bad equipment and no escort. Wonder how the story evolved? Started out looking like refusing orders. Now just looks like they were trying to prevent a terrible accident. Most likely the original story is genuine, and the evolved story is whole-cloth spin.

Breakdown of discipline in any army is very serious, so I am monitoring developments with interest. Was the mutiny justified or cowardly? Here is an update:

Commander relieved of duty in Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/20/iraq.reservist/index.html

I don't think necessarily this answers the question though, because the army could be just looking for a scapegoat while sweeping the thing under the rug.


[QUOTE=torcher88]This begs the question, did the breach of discipline occur primarily because the order to deliver the fuel was truly suicidal, or because the order was merely dangerous and the Blacks refused out of relative cowardice?

My concern is that worthless nigger hides will be routinely shifted to safer duties while a greater proportion of Whites will suffer casualties.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=King_Tiger]Yeah those commercials really are sickening. They weren't as bad when they had the uplifting "Be All That You Can Be" slogan, but these new commercials all feature one of the following: either a spic, nigger, or a little miss private jessica lynch either refilling a helicopter, climbing a mountain, hitting the books, or doing something else totally radical and/or eXtreme for ZOG's army propaganda purposes. I dunno why they wanna recruit more shitskins; ZOG prides itself on killing whites.[/QUOTE]

I remember when my dad talked me out of joining ROTC. He said you want some fucking moron telling you to clip the lawn with a pair of scissors? He said you think you're going to be doing all that exciting heroic shit dont you? He said do you know how many support personnel there are for every one combat person? He said, do you know how much money I pay in taxes, and how much money those motherfuckers spend on bombs that will never be used but only gather dust in warehouses? He said, if you want to make your life difficult for the next 4 years and hell for two years after that, go right ahead. Well folks I was a little surprised because my dad was republican and liked Ron Reagan and loved nothing more than to fire up a stogie and watch the German nazi army kick ass on old history programs.

But those were legitimate questions, and, I reconsidered. Today, I wonder what else he might have said to me if he wasnt keeping certain viewpoints to himself. Thanks dad!

interesting, this story sports a picture of two negresses, who are wives of soldiers involved:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041021/480/jx10110210246