Disobey unlawful orders? Military is taught to do that, from bootcamp onwards and in annual "Military Rights" classes with mandatory attendance.
It's all about viewpoint, and odds are that military will not accept the interpretation of someone who _wants_ them involved in Somalia and Kosovo but does _not_ want them chasing El Queduh, or in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Some comments on the below:
At 03:20 AM 3/18/2003 -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>At 10:22 PM -0500 3/17/03, Alan Jacobson wrote:
>>I am sure there is a lot of gung-ho shit going on in the combat
>>units right now.
Irrelevant, that "shit" goes on everywhere, all the time. To different degrees, whatever. It goes on, everywhere, all the time.
>>However it is important to understand that most of
>>the military units we have over there are not frontline combat units
>>but them PLUS all the supporting units thats required for a 21st
>>century army to function.
So what? Were there not any rear echelon and support troops in earlier combat actions?
>>Many of those units are mobilized reservists and NG units, because
>>the US military has downsized those functions to the part time
>>forces.
Under 42, that downsizing continues under 43.
>>These are not warrior types--they are the guy from the mail
>>room who fixes trucks or the guidence counselor from the high school
>>whos a Army nurse on the side.
Point of order:
Those "not warrior types" receive the exact same training as the active duty types, with one weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer for refresher - so if the reservists are not qualified, the active duty troops are not qualified much better. Is that your contention Alan?
>One of the students in one of the classes I taught this winter got
>called up and shipped to Kuwait. I understand that he will be in the
>rear with gear. He was not at all happy about having to go.
Too bad so sad, he shouldn't have signed the contract (it's called "Life Happening"). You'd rather he went to the front instead?
>>BTW when I went through Army basic training in 1985, they instructed
>>us on rules of engagement and the Geneva conventions and proper
>>conduct in combat re civilians, etc. Its not like they spent tons of
>>time on it, but it was brought up.
Alan, what _your_ instructors did in _your_ classes does not speak to the official Army position, or what is taught in other classes, before or since yours.
>I agree.
You agree with what, Yoshie? You can offer your _qualified_ opinion but you cannot corroborate fact, especially as poorly presented as that anecdote from Alan was.
>GIs are not as ignorant as some LBO-talkers make them out
>to be, nor are they conscienceless killing machines.
Wow, I'm momentarily impressed.
>_Far from it_,
>in fact -- if the decision were left up to them, there probably would
>be no war on Iraq now:
Similarly, if the "GIs" you speak of made the decisions, eventually there would be no military uniforms, no grooming standards, no discipline of any sort to distinguish military from any other group of civilians, and then where would we be?
>***** Uneasy G.I.s speak their peace
>By RICHARD SISK
>DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Paste queen, break your paste machine. Tell it in your own words or don't say it at all. Don't use someone else's words to emphasize the point you only made poorly, or didn't make at all.
Reese