Aussie forces exploit loophole to avoid service...

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-14 08:37pm

Questioning orders is one think, not wanting to carry them out is another.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-14 11:43pm

Oops double post.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-14 11:44pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:How is that irrelevent? Your premise is that a soldier should bend over to be arse raped if need be because he signed away his life and all self-interests when he joined.
I never said that you homo.

So what exactly did you mean by this in response to my severing of arms analogy? You said: 'Alot of soldiers don't even come back from missions you dumb shit. Many men have sacrificed much more than what you're asking. Think about that before you post such crap again. '

Did I misinterpret what you said? Or are you merely counting on the short memories of some posters here?

Wicked Pilot wrote: Comparing getting your arms chopped off and taking a vaccine is so down right absurd, it's not worth discussing. Tell me, do you also think that parents shouldn't innoculate their children?

That was in response to someone else who believes that you should take whatever the military throws at you regardless of its absurdity. Read the posts in their proper context before you butt in mate. Makes you really dumb.

As for innoculating children, it really depends because there have been cases of severe side effects, but the difference with those vaccines is that they are tried and tested for decades and they are not taken with anything else to accelerate its effectiveness like the Anthrax Vaccine. If there is a way to ascertain whether or not a child will react adversely to a vaccine, then it should be taken and if the reaction would be severe, then the child should not be innoculated.

Wicked Pilot wrote:[
Fine,
Boarding parties can be covertly exposed when inspecting ships in the Gulf. They then track the stuff back on board.
There could be an incident similiar to the USS Cole, but with Anthrax thrown in.
Sailors on shore leave are easy targets. You don't have to be on the ship to be targeted.
Shall I list more?

So they can't take sniffer devices when boarding ships to LOOK for anthrax? If I were them I'd be in full MOPP gear if I were boarding a suspect ship than rely on a vaccine. Secondly, as happened to the USS Cole, explosives are far more effective, why risk using anthrax? The ship is out of commission anyway if you blew a hole in the side.

If they were serious about the threat levels, they'd be issued with the proper protective gear even on shoreleave, sure the people with the vaccines may fair better, but who says the vaccine will work 100% effectively? The anthrax vaccine on its own takes about 8 months to have an effect, but it can be accelerated to 4 weeks with a combination of other drugs or vaccines and it is that combination that have caused concern over its safety and you cannot ignore that.

Wicked Pilot wrote: Just like he used on SCUDS on advancing troops in the last war. Oops, that didn't happen. And your assertion that Saddam will fight fair is down right stupid. He will go after whoever he can however he can.

That's because he knew he had a chance of destabilising the coalition if he provoked Israel into joining militarily. Conventional Scuds are pretty useless against advancing troops, chem and bio loaded Scuds are very effective on the other hand and it is on exposed infantry that it will do the most damage, not ships that have extensive NBC systems and decontamination proceedures. He's not a mad man, he's not an idiot, he will use whatever forces he has to his full advantage, wasting Scuds or his stocks of WMD on a few ships when he could use it on allied troops and its rear supply areas is a stupid thing that only you seem to be capable of.

Wicked Pilot wrote:[
And here are the other possible causes
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=733
(unranium poisioning)
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=492
(Archaea Microbials)
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=231
(chemical exposures)
http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=226
(sarin gas)
Excellent, you know what you have just proven? That there COULD be other causes but you haven't ruled out that the vaccine is not a possibility as the evidence I've provided suggests. Therefore the sailors were well within their rights to refuse as defined by the brass themselves that the vaccines should be voluntary.

Wicked Pilot wrote: And once again you repeated your arguement from ignorance. Now that I have listed examples, what logical fallacy will you follow next time?

Ah I see that your comprehension skills are a bit lacking, allow me to rephrase. You stated in the last post that you can list SEVERAL sources that says that it is in the job description of being a sailor in the Australian Navy, to accept any and all vaccinations that may screw you over.

Since you haven't done that, I can only assume that you are blowing hot air out of your arse and you shall receive a bit fat CONCESSION ACCEPTED sticker to mend the leak.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-14 11:52pm

Wicked Pilot wrote: He was replying scarcasticly to a false analogy. Why do you even care about this stupid "taking a vaccine is akin to severing one's arms" arguement? It is so absurd that it amazes me that it is still being brought up. Do we need to start a whole new thread titled "Does vaccine = loss of limb?"

The purpose that analogy as I have clarified earlier is to find out how far Hemlock's belief that 'you should do whatever the military requires of you' goes, even to absurd extremes like having your arms cut off. You sir, missed that context entirely.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-15 02:53am

HemlockGrey wrote:
I bet thats what conviceted Nazis were talking about at Nuremburg.
It is also the posisition of the United States Armed Forces. Unless you recieve an illegal order, such as one that violates or does harm to the US or the Consitution, you follow it.

This situation with Aussie is a bit more than that, their nation dissagree's with the position of the government, and so do they. If there is alegitimate way out, I rather suspect that they will take it. No one wants to fight a war they do not beleive in, this is something that Americans should be intimatly aware of.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-15 02:59am

theski wrote:Wicked Pilot and Hemlock Grey have it right! You sign the papers, you lose the abiltity to choose your actions. In a volunteer army you know upfront what you are signing up for, if you agree with your government or not.

Bullshit. If you think that sighning a few papers denies you your independence of choice then you really need to think a bit more.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-15 03:02am

theski wrote:Questioning orders is one think, not wanting to carry them out is another.

Ahh, so If your officer told you to shoot 20 unarmed prisoners you would think about it and then shoot them anyway?

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2003-02-15 04:09am

There is a huge difference between taking a vaccine that may enable you to fight more effectively on a battelfield and killing 20 unarmed prisoners...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-15 04:12am

StimNeuro wrote:There is a huge difference between taking a vaccine that may enable you to fight more effectively on a battelfield and killing 20 unarmed prisoners...

Thats not exactly what I was talking about.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-15 04:18am

StimNeuro wrote:There is a huge difference between taking a vaccine that may enable you to fight more effectively on a battelfield and killing 20 unarmed prisoners...

Just as there is a difference between denying a VOLUNTARY injection and having your arms lopped off by the military.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-15 10:25am

Stuart, You can look at this another way. If you refuse to get a shot, what will stop you from refusing to fight or anything else. This is a slippery slope they are on. The armed forces are not a democracy. You do not get to a vote on what is to happen to you. If you do not like it go AWOL and find out what happens..[/quote]

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-15 03:07pm

CyberianKnight wrote:Ah I see that your comprehension skills are a bit lacking, allow me to rephrase. You stated in the last post that you can list SEVERAL sources that says that it is in the job description of being a sailor in the Australian Navy, to accept any and all vaccinations that may screw you over.

I listed several ways sailors could be exposed. You ignored all of them. I hope you never become a military officer because your sheer incompetence would get your men killed.

And if you want a specific job description, here is an obvious one you ignorant little shit:

SAILORS GO TO WAR

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-15 05:07pm

Well done WP

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-15 06:29pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
I listed several ways sailors could be exposed. You ignored all of them. I hope you never become a military officer because your sheer incompetence would get your men killed.

And if you want a specific job description, here is an obvious one you ignorant little shit:

SAILORS GO TO WAR

Yes, sailors go to war. And many of the sailors that refused their VOLUNTARY shots WANTED to stay "at the front" so to speak, but were sent home anyway.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-15 06:38pm

weemadando wrote: Yes, sailors go to war. And many of the sailors that refused their VOLUNTARY shots WANTED to stay "at the front" so to speak, but were sent home anyway.

That's because they are a liability. They are a danger to themselves and their shipmates, and a hinder to the mission. This whole issue of making vaccines voluntary is down right stupid and should be gotten rid of. But hey, if the Australian Navy doesn't want to take their job seriousily, then that's not my problem.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-02-15 06:39pm

theski wrote:Well done WP

No cheerleading please.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-15 09:27pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:Ah I see that your comprehension skills are a bit lacking, allow me to rephrase. You stated in the last post that you can list SEVERAL sources that says that it is in the job description of being a sailor in the Australian Navy, to accept any and all vaccinations that may screw you over.
I listed several ways sailors could be exposed. You ignored all of them. I hope you never become a military officer because your sheer incompetence would get your men killed.

And if you want a specific job description, here is an obvious one you ignorant little shit:

SAILORS GO TO WAR

LOL! Obviously your inability to READ goes further than I thought. I asked you to list sources that says that it is part of the job description of an Australian Naval member to accept any and all VACCINATIONS that may screw you over.

NOT ways they can be exposed, we've already covered that. You're either feigning ignorance or there is something seriously wrong with your reading abilities.

And 'Sailors Go To War' says nothing about your own military giving you an injection that can mess you up for life. There is a BIG difference in getting messed up by enemy action and getting messed up because of an injection your OWN forces gave you. I don't think the military brass wants that on their consciences and neither would the people administering it.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-15 09:45pm

theski wrote:Stuart, You can look at this another way. If you refuse to get a shot, what will stop you from refusing to fight or anything else. This is a slippery slope they are on. The armed forces are not a democracy. You do not get to a vote on what is to happen to you. If you do not like it go AWOL and find out what happens..

[/quote]

That's a ridiculous slippery slope. They joined to fight, not get done over by their military's own injections that is marred by a history of severe side-effects. This is not a black and white issue as you are trying to make it out to be, it is never a you either obey or get shipped out affair because as history have shown not all orders are ethical nor legal and the Australian brass in this situation knows what the troops feel is right knowing the history of the vaccine themselves, have decided to spare the red tape and make it voluntary in this particular case as it should be.

I'm not sure what the policy on other vaccinations are though.

Also, the Australia military command have also just stated that Australian forces under US command have every right to ignore US orders that they believe will place civilians in the firing line.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/ ... 54330.html

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-15 11:31pm

CyberianKnight wrote:
Also, the Australia military command have also just stated that Australian forces under US command have every right to ignore US orders that they believe will place civilians in the firing line.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/ ... 54330.html

Yes! Insubordination endorsed by the brass.

Australian military - leading the way into the 21st century.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-02-16 01:18am

When deciding to enoculate troops from region specific ailments and for that matter, bio and chemical dangers, the command structure has to weigh the saftey of the troops next to the ability of the unit to accomplish its mission. Now you can throw out all sorts of BS about chopping off arms and other stupid examples, but they do not contribute to completing the mission. Having the correct amount and the correctly trained personel, in theater DOES contribute to completing the mission. If you do not because of a plauge of some sort, you can not complete your mission.

Yes, alot of the shots are voluntary and that is a stupid political decision made by dumb ass politicians. Unfortunately the situation also creates a back door for soldiers to end around the mission by exempting him/herself from the mission. You had a choice to oppose war in general by not signing the dotted line on a contract that said that you might be called on to go fight a war. If you think you might have a problem with any war or action that might be initiated durring your term of service, DON'T SIGN the contract. Alot of people who do not abvocate the coming war will say that the people doing the end around on the mission are protesting, or to a lesser extent, speaking out against a war that the majority of the people of their country and the majority of their parliment disagree's with.

That is a dangerous idea to pursue with a military unit. You as a person might agree with their position now, but to defy orders from the chain of command and to purposely subvert the mission due to your personal political views will lead you to question all orders and all missions. Yes you should question all illegal orders, but an order to deploy for a possible legal mission is not one you should question. What happens next time when the mission is one that you agree with, but the military now knows that it can turn a deaf ear to the chain of command and get away with it. All views are encouraged in modern day militaries, but they are encouraged in the planning phase. Once you get marching orders, thats it, you go and do your job.

Remember, troop welfare means taking care of all the troops and having alot of holes in your formations because people got scared and took a loophole out, means the saftey and the ability of the ones left are now dimenished. What the fuck did they expect to happen in a war zone? Cookies and milk? The whole reason we are over there is because of that shithead Saddam and his WMD which include chemical and biological weapons.

Did they not think that they might get all the protection that the goverments could provide in case that maniac used his WMD. We know that mustard gass kills you, we think that there might be some side effects to some of these shots. We know that nerve, blood, and lung agents will kill you. There might be some evidence that some of the shots will have long term effects. Are they going to protest against using the atrapine shots if nerve agent is used? That shit will fuck you up too if you don't use the second shot or if you use too many.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-02-16 08:20am

This situation only exists because the Brass are allowing it to. The ordinary sailors and soldiers are not contravening orders, they are probably following suggestions from above. By the sounds of it, the Top Brass don't think they should be involved in the current war and are using this to remove the troops without the Government being able to do a damned thing about it. The problem therefore is with the commanding Oficers not the soldiers (it's a volunteer injection and therefore no orders given there, but it will be strongly hinted that anyone not wanting to take them will face no problems on thier records and other hints.)

Now onto the seperate issue of following orders. It is a soldiers duty to ignore illegal orders and report the officer issuing them. An illegal order would be to shoot captured civilians for instance. While it is not the ordinary soldiers job to second guess his superiors, the instance of clearly illegal orders is something that is covered in training and they know what they should do.

In the ludicrous example offered earlier about having to chop off your arms, then there would have to be a clearly demonstrated need to do so - however as there is rarely a fullytrained amputation unit in the field with a squad during a mission there is no way you could remove the arms and save the life of the soldier. As to doing it pre-mission - there is no role an armless soldier could usefully play in a mission therefore it would be an illegal order and the issuing officer would face courts-martial after being reported by the soldiers.

So once more, on the issue of following orders; A soldier is only bound to follow legal and correct orders.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-02-16 09:29am

The top brass are clearly using this "out" as a political tool. To that extent, I think it is they who are wrong and the individual sailors are doing what they think is right. Bear in mind in the US there are a lot of people who are wary of taking the smallpox vaccine due to potentially dangerous side effects. These are civilians who have the luxury of second-guessing, however, not the soldiers.

I am issued a gas mask. It interferes with how fast I can breathe and it restricts my vision. It also makes it harder to aim my weapon. But the Army tells me I must carry it and carry it I do, but if I think the order to pack it around all day at the expense of extra ammo, food, or water I will still carry it now and question the validity of it later in a rational way. It seems to me that the RAN brass is not doing this-- they are making a political protest out of a life or death issue.

Now it seems to me that the sailors are all wanting to be in the Gulf and wanting to serve on their ships. They are being taken, against their will, by the brass to make a political statement. Are these sailors not recruited from the Australian people who "do not want the war"? Where did these sailors come from if they want to fight but the Australian people does not?

The populace does not want a war without UN backing. The problem is, the UN has made several resolutions regarding Iraqi weapons and their non-compliance with a number of issues yet for some reason the UN refuses to step up to the plte and back their own words up. What hapens when the cop decides he doesn't want to enforce the law? Does that mean thtat the citizens should just accept this and allow criminals to do as they please? No, find a better cop. Here the UN made a valid, legal order and the tyrant refused to follow it, and the UN is saying, "Okay, whatever". Does this make it right?

Now I am not questioning the courage of the Australian military; I know better than that. They are hard-core bastards and a preferred ally. They kicked ass in WW 1 and went out on a limb to support us in Vietnam. They faced some ugly shit at Kibeho in Rwanda and dove into a vicious peacekeeping op in East Timor. That is not the question.

The question is-- will the Australian people really see it as a "heroic act of conscience" to play political games like this? Terrorism has been on or near Aussie shores far longer than US ones: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka... Is a US invasion and replacement of Saddam really, truly a greater evil than allowing Saddam to do as he pleases and continue his weapons programs?

I know Australia and NZ are countries that adhere to the non-proliferation pacts of WMDs. You don't even like the "stable Western nations" having nukes (turning away a US carrier with nuclear power, and I was there when the French tested their nukes in the islands in '96-- lots of protest). So is Auz and NZ really all about some craphound like Saddam having nukes with no objections? What are these vaunted "principles" supposedly being stood up for? They sound conveniently disposable when it comes time to stop further proliferation and take a stand. Do you really hate GW Bush so much that you find this an honorable alternative course of action?

That's sad and scary.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-16 10:38pm

Coyote wrote:The top brass are clearly using this "out" as a political tool. To that extent, I think it is they who are wrong and the individual sailors are doing what they think is right. Bear in mind in the US there are a lot of people who are wary of taking the smallpox vaccine due to potentially dangerous side effects. These are civilians who have the luxury of second-guessing, however, not the soldiers.

Perhaps, however, you must remember that it isn't only the top brass who oppose this war, the bulk of the military does so its not like it is they who are playing political games and exploiting the troops. Far from it, they are taking responsibility for the long term well being of the sailors under their command because what sucks more than to sustain injury from enemy action is to sustain it as a result of friendly action.

Coyote wrote: I am issued a gas mask. It interferes with how fast I can breathe and it restricts my vision. It also makes it harder to aim my weapon. But the Army tells me I must carry it and carry it I do, but if I think the order to pack it around all day at the expense of extra ammo, food, or water I will still carry it now and question the validity of it later in a rational way. It seems to me that the RAN brass is not doing this-- they are making a political protest out of a life or death issue.

A gas mask does not impart irreversible health side effects. It is also interesting that you should use the example of a gas mask as it is also used in response to anthrax attacks without the need for a vaccine to be used.

Coyote wrote: Now it seems to me that the sailors are all wanting to be in the Gulf and wanting to serve on their ships. They are being taken, against their will, by the brass to make a political statement. Are these sailors not recruited from the Australian people who "do not want the war"? Where did these sailors come from if they want to fight but the Australian people does not?

People in the Australian military are not shirkers, they are highly motivated people who will stick by their mates in combat even if they are opposed to the war itself, as a result, the brass's actions under these circumstances creates less of a precedant that will allow troops in the future to just go home simply because of the widespread sense of commaraderie (sp?) as evidenced throughout history wherever Australian forces were deployed.

Coyote wrote: The populace does not want a war without UN backing. The problem is, the UN has made several resolutions regarding Iraqi weapons and their non-compliance with a number of issues yet for some reason the UN refuses to step up to the plte and back their own words up. What hapens when the cop decides he doesn't want to enforce the law? Does that mean thtat the citizens should just accept this and allow criminals to do as they please? No, find a better cop. Here the UN made a valid, legal order and the tyrant refused to follow it, and the UN is saying, "Okay, whatever". Does this make it right?

The public is very cynical as to the timing and the stated reasons for war in Iraq. It also does not believe in getting rid of Saddam at the cost of thousands of civilians killed in 'collateral damage'. Them saying that they need UN support is merely a means for them to reconcile two facts, a) That they see the removal of Saddam as important in the long run because of his own human rights abuses and b) Have some pretense of an ethical execution of a terrible war rather than to set a globally recognised precedent whereby great powers can simply go to war regardless of world opinion on its consequences. It is a mental threshold that millions in the world do not wish to breach.

Coyote wrote: The question is-- will the Australian people really see it as a "heroic act of conscience" to play political games like this? Terrorism has been on or near Aussie shores far longer than US ones: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka... Is a US invasion and replacement of Saddam really, truly a greater evil than allowing Saddam to do as he pleases and continue his weapons programs?

I can't speak for the Australian people on whether or not this is a heroic act of conscience. I don't see it as heroic, rather I see that it brings hope that in the face of such adversity that conpels us to withdraw to the shelter of basic instincts, we can still find the courage to object to something that we'd normally feel is not right. I do not see it as a political game but for objectivism's sake I cannot completely rule it out.

Coyote wrote: So is Auz and NZ really all about some craphound like Saddam having nukes with no objections? What are these vaunted "principles" supposedly being stood up for? They sound conveniently disposable when it comes time to stop further proliferation and take a stand. Do you really hate GW Bush so much that you find this an honorable alternative course of action?
That's sad and scary.

Saddam doesn't hold that much power, if he used WMD on any allied country he knows he's toast. Therefore he will not use them. Saddam doesn't fight for some silly twisted Islamic ideal, he fights for his personal power and that is how he can be contained and he can wither or be assasinated if need be. As for Bush, quite frankly he is not trustworthy. He, like Saddam, is a political animal with the same aspirations only Bush can do far more damage and gain more power than Saddam ever could. I don not believe that the Australian people will support the idea of America gaining even more power to do as it pleased, nor does the vast majority of the world.

I thank you for a well thought out reply, I've been waiting for one since this thread started.

CyberianKnight · Post by **CyberianKnight** » 2003-02-16 10:42pm

weemadando wrote:
CyberianKnight wrote:
Also, the Australia military command have also just stated that Australian forces under US command have every right to ignore US orders that they believe will place civilians in the firing line.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/ ... 54330.html
Yes! Insubordination endorsed by the brass.

Australian military - leading the way into the 21st century.

It is called the Australian military no longer trusts the US to make ethical war time decisions especially those relating to targets.

If were going to be forced in this war, we will do it as true to our consciences as possible.

I oppose the war but I have never had more faith in the Australian military than now. Good on them I say.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-02-16 10:44pm

I've heard that the anthrax vaccine they're giving troops isn't for the
specific strain that Saddam has.....

Also, take a look at the case of those pilots who're in deep
doo-doo now for bombing the PPCL in the Stan.

The USAF put out a press release stating that the pilots' taking
of Speed to help them stay awake was "purely voluntary"
and that no actions would be taken against them if they
refused the speed....

While at the trial, the pilots said that they were told to
take the speed...or ELSE...

Now, I don't mind our troops being sent into harms way, but I draw
the line at them being used as chemical guinea pigs for whatever
hot new drug the military wants to use....