GUNWOUNDS Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 USA orders Aussie's to drop bombs, Aussie's decline and throw shrimps on the barbie. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/13/1078594618101.html :P
ordos45 Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 I've heard it said that it isn't the place of a soldier to question orders, but I've also heard it said that it is a soldier's duty to protect civilian lives. I guess it depends on your ethics and morals on whether you think these pilots did right or wrong.Since it seems they didn't cause any Coalition casualties by refusing to bomb, I don't think they did wrong.
VigilVirus Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 It sure says a lot about where US military wanted to drop the bombs.
nemafakei Posted March 22, 2004 Posted March 22, 2004 "each of the 14 RAAF Hornet pilots aborted three to four bombing runs because intelligence given at pre-flight briefings did not concur with what they found at the target."I'm glad they did! If intelligence is wrong, caution is most definitely in order, lest chaos occurs
SurlyPIG Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Good for them for using their eyes and their brains. I hope to see this trend continue in the military forces in Iraq.
danielsh Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 It's about time that we saw some dissent in the ranks.
Wolf Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 I disagree completely, Dan. Civilian dissent you can have all you want, but military dissent? Once military dissent occurs, there exists a situation in which no one -- but those who the military is fighting -- should take joy in. In losing military discipline, we have not simply expereinced political dissent, we have experienced pure obedience. This, in a military organization is wrong.However, military dissent, NOT FOR POLITICAL REASONS, but because of a justifiable desire to save civilian lives, is acceptable.
danielsh Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 However, military dissent, NOT FOR POLITICAL REASONS, but because of a justifiable desire to save civilian lives, is acceptable.That's what I'm talking about. The mentality that orders should be followed no matter what seems dangerous to me. I'm happy to see some people putting their common sense above their superiors' commands. It warms the cockles of my heart.
filecore Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 Squadron Leader Pudney said he did not believe the US Air Force was more trigger happy, but they operated under different laws of engagement.I agree, I think it's right that armed forces should obey commands (you have people dedicated to the task of command/intelligence/transportation etc for a reason - why get a mechanic to repair a hairdryer when you have an electrician?) but I think that human error should be respected. If the military follow orders BLINDLY it opens the door for incompetence and deliberate misdeed to be allowed.No member of the armed forces should follow orders without thinking, for more reasons than just this, but the degree of freedom allowed should be proportional to the amount of support and the type of mission, obviously. And if 'our' side isn't fighting by the same rules of engagement as itself, this leads to all sorts of things happening...
Dante Posted March 23, 2004 Posted March 23, 2004 It's about time that we saw some dissent in the ranks.Well I agree with that. The military's purpose is all very well but these are (mostly) thinking beings that are there. Besides which, if intelligence looks faulty then better safe than sorry, leave it alone.
Recommended Posts