Lack of Equipment, Supprt in Iraq?

[Alastor]

From here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041015/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_unit_investigation).

The point of the story is that a supply unit commander refused (along with his troops) to run a mission because he wasn't given properly functional equipment and the units needed to protect the fuel convoy were not available to provide support.

Both of these issues indicates that there are not enough troops nor supplies in the region still today.

Comments?

Alastor.

[PAINTERDAVE]

Dude, when those troops refused to move, other troops were ordered to and did, with the same conditions available to the first group. Guess what? The group that moved completed the assignment with no problems or casualties! So, here is one more post where Alastor reveals who he is. And big surprise, no one else jumped on his leftist bandwagon! Alastor, will you be working for the dismissal of charges against troops disobeying a direct order? Hell, it is only a military tradition since, I don't know, say Alexander the Great! Troops do not have the luxury of choosing orders to follow. It gives dishonest leftists like you fodder for your left wing agenda. No, that is incorrect, it is desctructive to military discipline which is the foundation of the service. But it also gives you guys fodder. So, not incorrect, just a side deficit.

[Alastor]

Dave, you make this too easy for me.

Dude, when those troops refused to move, other troops were ordered to and did, with the same conditions available to the first group. Guess what? The group that moved completed the assignment with no problems or casualties!

And because we got lucky that makes it okay how? Also, are you certain the other group had the same bad equipment, tainted fuel, no military escort? Where'd you get that information and can you link me, or are you talking out your ass again? Link me please.

So, here is one more post where Alastor reveals who he is. And big surprise, no one else jumped on his leftist bandwagon! Alastor...

First, leftist is not a bad word. Second, it's the left that wants to make sure the troops are well taken care of? Nice to know, Dave. Thanks.

will you be working for the dismissal of charges against troops disobeying a direct order?

To be honest I'm not certain where I stand on that. Being a soldier in the first Gulf War, I'm kind of frustrated by the entire issue. If I were their commander and I knew I had inadequately prepared them for a situation (by my fault or because of circumstance) I'd have a hard time bringing myself to do more than reprimand them.

It gives dishonest leftists like you fodder for your left wing agenda.

I'm not a leftist. The fact that you're a zealot doesn't make me one. Grow up.

No, that is incorrect, it is desctructive to military discipline which is the foundation of the service. But it also gives you guys fodder. So, not incorrect, just a side deficit.

Someone disobeying orders is nowhere near as destrcutive to our military as being under-manned, under-trained, poorly equiped and mis-managed.

Alastor.

[MtRushmore]

Dave, you make this too easy for me.



And because we got lucky that makes it okay how? Also, are you certain the other group had the same bad equipment, tainted fuel, no military escort? Where'd you get that information and can you link me, or are you talking out your ass again? Link me please.
Alastor.


Like you do? You constantly cite 'facts' like they're in your pants pocket.
Another fact is that the fuel was NOT tainted.

What'd one butt say to the other?

"Can I ass you a question?" :)

[Alastor]

Like you do? You constantly cite 'facts' like they're in your pants pocket.
Another fact is that the fuel was NOT tainted.

It's a bad thing to have a lot of facts on hand when evaluating situations? Okay, maybe in your world...

The fuel wasn't tainted? You have an article or something on that, because I never heard about that one. Further, did the crew have good reason to believe it was tainted even if it was pure?

Alastor.