American valour? All hogwash, say Indian truckers

[floda]

Indian truck drivers who returned after working in Iraq have a poor impression of American soldiers and their valour.

According to their accounts, whenever armed militants attacked a convoy of trucks ferrying supplies to US troops in Iraq, the escort vehicles carrying American soldiers, instead of protecting the convoy, would be the first to flee leaving the unarmed and hapless truck drivers to fend for themselves.

Over 50 persons who returned to India from Iraq a couple of months back are thanking their stars for having escaped the fate that befell the three Indians who were abducted by terrorists in Iraq.

"We feel sorry for Antaryami, Sukhdev Singh and Tilak Raj. Wahe Guru di kirpa naal asi thee thak vapas aagye han (By the grace of the Almighty, we managed to return home safe and sound). We hope they too would return soon. We would never go back to Iraq," truck driver Harnek Singh (30) told rediff.com over phone from his residence in Jalandhar district of Punjab.

more...

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/02iraq2.htm

[jpgray]

1. It might be ordered that way, though, for political reasons

The media scarcely report on soldier deaths, and they certinaly wouldn't report on the deaths of Indian truck drivers.

[ClintonTyree]

2. I'm not going to.............

take their word on this. Our fighting men and women don't have to prove their bravery to me. Just being in that hell hole shows me what they're made of.

[atreides1]

24. Following Orders Does Not Always require Courage

First off they are not there because of courage, they are there because they were ordered to be there. This has very little to do with being courageous, there are several factors at play here.

1. It's a sense of duty
2. It's my job
3. I want to kill ragheads
4. If I don't go I'll go to prison
5. I was ordered to go

These are some of the reasons that our troops are over there, I'm sure there are others, but as I have already stated being in a dangerous place doesn't make you brave or a coward. That I'm afraid is something that is in each individual.

Who is more courageous the soldier with a gun, or Doctors Without Borders? Interesting question isn't it.

Soldiers go where they are ordered to go, Doctors without Borders go because it's the right thing to do.

And what would these Indian truck drivers have to gain by lying about what they saw, perhaps someone wise could answer that question.

As to whether the orders are to run in the case of an attack exist, well there were no orders in existence to torture prisoners, at least none in writing.

And for those that say that some soldiers would leak an order like this, guess again. The threat of a court martial for failing to obey a lawful order can be a big incentive. That and getting all the s**t details that your chain of command can think of.

Add to that, the current trial going on for those soldiers who were responsible for the drowning of an Iraqi civilian, the troops are going to be screwed while the officers are getting immunity for their
testimony. Under this kind of military "leadership" would you let it leak that you were under orders to run at the first sign of an ambush.

If you say yes then you're the courageous one, but then again it would be empty rhetoric because you're not there. No one can know how they will react in every situation, you can only hope that you do the right thing, but there is always the chance that you won't.

One last point, those troops in Iraq are like you and me they are made of flesh and blood, they can die from a bullet just like you can be killed by a car. And when you take into consideration that there are 43,548 deaths per year on our roads every time you get behind the wheel you're showing how brave you are.

Now this does not mean that I'm going to believe one story on this subject, but if more starts to come out then we'll have to look at the whole picture and try to do it without our own personal prejudices. Think you can do that?

[Voltaire99]

47. Guess you're one of the "Send me!" clones, eh?

You may be able to get somewhere spouting those lines at a NASCAR track, but your right wing rhetoric doesn't impress me.

Just being in that hell hole shows me what they're made of.

Unfortunately, it shows everyone. From Abu Ghraib to the more than 10,000 dead civilians, your brave heroes have obviously made Iraq a hell hole.

[Redleg]

69. Your attack is hardly fair.

You assume the poster is a right-winger. Perhaps he/she is a regular Dem who is sick and fucking tired of seeing some DUers trashing the military personnel.

[Caution]

3. This isn't really LBN material

it's more for general discussion. And for that matter why is it even discussion worthy?

I for one am not going to sit here and debate the valour of American soldiers who are under fire thousands of miles from home while i'm sitting in an air-conditioned room eating a meatball sandwich and drinking a pepsi. American soldiers have my utmost respect and while this story may be true in a few instances, it is my experience that Americans will always stand and fight when the circumstances warrant it

[jpgray]

6. Don't dismiss it yet, think for a minute--these may well be their orders

If the orders come down from the top that casualties have to be minimized to avoid negative coverage, this sort of thing may be exactly what happens as a result.

[Caution]

8. so what you are telling me is that there are standing orders

for american military to provide escorts for civilian transports for security reasons but to turn tail an run and leave their charge if engaged by the enemy?

Considering that more than half of our forces are engaged in some form of guard duty in Iraq right now I find it very hard to believe that an order like this would be given, that strict instructions wouldnt be given to the convoy being escorted as well and finally that no soldier would have mentioned this policy in a letter home and that no one of the 40,000 or so DU'ers would have heard of this.

Couple this with the fact that military leaders don't take kindly to being ordered specifically to act in a cowardly manner and I will really find it hard to believe.

I know that it's easy to find fault in every possible detail or smidgeon of news we get that might possibly paint the Bush administration in a negative light but there are plenty of times when there really is "nothing to see here"

[jpgray]

9. The escort is a deterrent regardless of whether they stick around to fight

If there is a serious assault on a convoy, I could imagine the orders being to withdraw and leave the convoy.

[Caution]

15. imagine away

but the military does not operate in this manner, and if it did we would hear about it through first hand contact with soldiers on the ground, not from some truck driver trying to make himself look tough.

The military takes it as a sign of triumph when a convoy is protected through hostile ground and makes its way sucessfully. When a convoy is lost, military personnel take this as a personal failure.

this story makes no sense and serves to do nothing but provide more ammunition to those who would say that Democrats have no respect for the military and for those who would say that we "hate American and Americans"

I for one, do not believe that such an order would be given. An order not to engage may be and often is given, but that order extends down to the convoy as well, the military will ALWAYS provide cover and support for their civilian charges in a situation like this, being the last to leave the scene and working to ensure that a convoy makes it home safely. Notice that these truck drivers lived to tell their tale? How did they manage to survive an organized, coordinated attack on a known route with the military turning and running and leaving them stuck there? The story makes no sense.

[jpgray]

16. The military also 'doesn't rape or torture people in its prisons'

Oh, wait a minute. Don't be too quick to dismiss something here. I haven't seen any argument that would wholly dismiss these claims, and someone ought to play devil's advocate and point that out.

[Caution]

18. That doesn't make the point

seems to me that those atrocities have come out thanks to whistle blowers and to letters home. Rather than refuting my point you are making it. I stated quite clearly that if orders like this were in fact given we would hear about it just like we heard abotu Abu Ghraib, in fact it would be much more likely that we would hear about it because there are only a small portion of soldiers at detention facilities whereas the vast majority are involved in security details.

The military grates under bad orders and soldiers write home and gripe about them when they get them and people like Michael Moore make a living off exposing them. If these orders existed we would hear about them from someone other than some tough guy truck driver.

And if you look at Abu Ghraib you will see that this kind of thing was done in a knowing manner, with an out plan built into it, utilizing a bare minimum of personell, that isnt possible in the scenario you are suggesting this article shows.

(edit my subject)

[jpgray]

19. Abu Ghraib was not a few 'bad apples'--it was systemic

The orders came from the WH on down that torture was now acceptable for 'enemy combatants'. This torture went on for months without anything coming out, and the raping of children, reported in several reputable sources to have been documented, will probably NEVER come out. There may well be folks dissatisfied with orders, but how do you expect to ever hear of it if no one will report on it? Your arguments still are not sufficient to totally dismiss this article.

[Caution]

20. I never stated it was a few bad apples

I stated that it involved personel were kep to a minimum in order to keep the whole thing under wraps. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

[jpgray]

21. My larger point about the media reporting on this remains

You can have unhappy soldiers who complain, but you can't guarantee that anyone will ever get to hear about it.

[Caution]

22. Are you trying to tell me that some angry mom who gets mail from her

son or daughter *ordering* them to act like cowards, that one of these of out 135,000 or so, isnt goint to send a note to Michael Moore? Or Howard Stern, or Al Franken, or Bill Maher, or etc etc

The fact is that almost all of these stories hit the media, but they then simply fade down the memory hole without getting the massive attention that say something like Abu Ghraib might get.

This one would be a big story, but even if it weren't, soemone at DU would have posted about it don't you think? For bob's sake we post stories that originate in the most whacked out conspiracy nut fringe websites that exist (like Faux news for example).

I'm not willing to take the word of a couple of truck drivers on this one.

There is no sensible reason for this type of activity to occur. If they were trying to minimize casualties then why send them in the first place? In an ambush most casualties inflicted upon those being ambushed are inflicted in the initial attack. If you just wanted to provide some kind of smokescreen so as to make the attackers think twice you might be effective...the first time...maybe the second time...but the third time? not a chance. if you KNEW the enemy was going to turn tail and flee, you would set up a small initial ambush to cause the retreat and then you would flank the retreating army and inflict massive casualties upon them.

[jpgray]

23. The child rape is out there--yet no one knows a damn thing about it

No matter how shocking the crime, it can be covered up if the media orgs are willing to play ball, as they have been with the true story of Abu Ghraib.

[Caution]

25. wrong.

you know about it. I know about it. Pretty much everyone on DU knows about it. I tell people about it all the time. The news is out there if you look for it and you can point people to it.

I'm not saying the media is doing a good job reporting this stuff (though they are if you pay attention). I'm saying the media does a terrible job PUSHING the issue. They'll report something in a brief segment or it'll get reported overseas, or a blogger will post a letter he received, etc etc. The fact is that the news gets out there. Whether or not a story has legs is where the media falls down. The Laci f'n Petersen story has been ongoing for the better part of a year, yet even Abu Ghraib has disappeared.

I stand by what I say, if American soldiers were abandoning convoys to their own devices en masse and were ordered to do so, we would know about it from someone other than a truck driver.

additionally I challenge anyone to give me one good reason for this order to be issued. The *only* possible reason would be to minimize casualties and as I already stated this reason makes no sense because if this were standard operating procedure, the ambushers would be able to take advantage of it with simple changes in tactics, and the best way to avoid casualties would be to not send soldiers in the first place.

[jpgray]

26. My only argument is that it is possible for this account to be correct

I don't argue that it is correct. Still, from what you've given me, that possibility exists. As you say, the media do a great job of burying stories when they wish to--for example, the latest awful revelations about Abu Ghraib do not have the same coverage as the original burst. Why? There's no ready explanation--they should be at least as newsworthy, since the acts are even more shocking and horrible. No one had to be pointed to the original Abu Ghraib.

There could exist such an order, and many soldiers may have acted on such an order, without our ever hearing about it. Remember that they have National Guard soldiers driving the trucks of contractors and they are awarding mercenaries medals--this is not a normal situation.

[Caution]

30. do you seriously think that somehow what I said validates this possibility

????

The abu ghraib story IS out there. Both the original and the later details. Search on it and you'll find it. In a TON of news outlets, both credible and non-credible. The media covers this stuff. It just doesnt cover it ENOUGH.

now search on this asinine truck driver piece of crap. whoa. look one story. a couple of truck drivers saying "those americans arent tough. they turned and ran, but I was brave and i survived without them." Wow that's credible. This is one of the biggest piles of garbage I have ever seen on DU (thankfully DU has an ignore feature so I don't see most of the hardcore conspiracy crap anymore...there are about 20 people who start 95% of those threads). Since it is pretty much down to me and you going back on this thing, if you really feel the point is worth pursuing on this crap let's take it private because I don't want to give this garbage any further exposure and won't respond in this thread.

[jpgray]

31. I don't believe it has anything to do with cowardice

Americans aren't any more brave or cowardly than the average human. My point is that the story can't be completely disproven simply by what is displayed here. But yes, let's leave it at that--we don't disagree on whether this story has the possiblity of having some truth to it.

[Caution]

32. I hate to do this

but you cannot prove a negative. I say the story isnt true. the only way to prove it IS true is for someone to come forward. if anyone comes forward saying it isnt true everyone yells "COVERUP!!!!!"

Common sense has to come into play here. There is absolutely no good reason for American troops to be ordered to behave in this manner. If there is no reason to order this behavior than it wasn't ordered and if it wasnt ordered this story either reflects an isolated incident or it is completely the mascho fantasy of some truck driver. Either way it does not reflect in any way on the bravery of our military.

Why are people so quick to buy into any form of conspiracy? Especially one which is absurd on the face of it? ok, i've said mine and I do not need to get in the last word no matter how much the refusal to look at this thing logically may make me wish to do so. So go ahead and say "so we agree." when in fact we do nothing of the sort.

[jpgray]

33. I'm sorry, but I won't admit that it's impossible for this to be true

We'll just agree to disagree at this point.

[Caution]

39. Well we can agree that it IS possible

anythig is possible. i just think it is very highly improbable.

[heidler1]

52. If the U.S. soldiers have decided that Bush put them in harms way

for no reason that seems valid then the game is all but over. Most men will not die for nothing. This is the biggest problem with stupid wars. When Russia did it in Afaganistan, it caused the fall of the Communists. We did it in Vietnam and here we are again.

[Dhalgren]

36. Maybe they weren't ordered to do it.

Maybe they did it so as not to get killed or wounded for nothing.

[Caution]

38. the point is im arguing against the orders

the other person is arguing that there may be orders. (I believe he is stating it "could" be true in the tradition of all conspiracy theorists everywhere. If it is possibly true and the media isnt reporting it, it is MORE likely to be true. my argument is that there is no way in hell this is true because there is NO media reporting it anywhere and that common sense would show that his type of tactic would quickly backfire and there would be MORE casualties if it because known to ambushers that this was the policy).

[grob]

51. me too...

Thats right! Bombing wedding parties and people sleeping in their homes is bravery..

See the problem with a lot of hot air is, The more of it there is, The more interested people get in to look into things... That great victory in 1991... Bombing people after telling them to leave... Shooting them in the back etc...

We seen lots of American bravery.. Wounded knee.. Philippines.. Vietnam... Korea... Grenada, Panama.. Bombing churches in Serbia.. Real American bravery shows up in Falluja and Ramidi... Which are occupation free zones.. I am sure you can bomb the places to dust and declare bravery... But many of us know the truth...

Most of the time americans get in my face and want to know where I live.. My question now is, So you can run if its close by? Get your mother and sister to come beat me up?

[Veggie Meathead]

35. There is another angle to the story that may not have anything to

do with courage or lack of it.It is simply that the American soldiers
may have decided that it is not worth their lives to protect Indian truck drivers.So they may have just walked away from the scene.The Indian truck drivers would be correct to interpret this as cowardice while American racism may have been the motivator.

[Dhalgren]

34. In the last years of Vietnam

whole companies of of US troops refused orders to go on "sweeps" through contested areas (which meant almost everywhere). They simply sat down and wouldn't go. Were they "cowards" or were they just fed up and knew they were being asked to die for shit? I think that US soldiers are just like all other soldiers, they are as good as their training and as brave as their discipline. Our troops over there have got to know that they are being asked to die in a stupid, pointless clusterfuck not of their own making. I wouldn't hold it against any soldier for trying to live through this idiocy. If some people think that makes them cowards, I say fuck you.


US Army - 1972-75

[Caution]

37. absolutely

but that wasn't the point of the argument. the argument was that there may be actual orders to turn tail and run at the first sign of trouble when performing escort duty.

I say this is patently absurd. for reasoning see the thread.

[saigon68]

65. I agree with you- Every Death in this CLUSTERFUCK = for nothing

There is no reason to die in Iraq-Nam. These volunteers are crazy idiots who either love to kill or are fools

They die for nothing and in ten years NO ONE WILL CARE

HELL THE CHIMP and CHENEY don't care now.

[Dhalgren]

68. Right!

I am waiting for the massive "failures to report" that are more than likely happening right now in small numbers. These "volunteers" didn't sign up for this shit - no one does! I see these returning "heroes" on the local tee vee and they are all proud of the "service we have given", but in private they are broken, dis-spirited shells and they do not ever want to go back (the ones who do want to go back are idiots and should by all means go).

[Career Prole]

64. "I'm not willing to take the word of a couple of truck drivers on this one

on this one"

Just out of curiosity, would the story have more credibility to you if it were American truck drivers making this complaint instead of Indians?
Abu Ghraib came so close to being successfully covered up.
If it hadn't been for one moral soldier handing over those pictures there's a good chance we would have never known about it.
The Iraqis had complained of abuse at the prison long before the pictures ever came to light and no one believed them at the time...because they were Iraqis.
Perhaps convoy drivers should start carrying video cameras.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

44. I would have though pilots prefered to bomb the right targets too...

but seemingly protect US aircraft is more important than protecting civillian lives like in Kosovo.

Tell me, how do these truck drivers keep getting captured if they HAVEN'T been left behind by their escorts? Are their escorts being captured or killed too?

[Dhalgren]

46. Excellent question!

How are all of these truck drivers being taken? We don't hear of any "firefights", just "oops some truckers got kidnapped!" How is that happening if the convoys are escorted? Good damned question!

[kymar57]

63. I'm with ya on this one Caution.

I really have trouble with a "cut and run" directive from the brass.

[aneerkoinos]

13. Woot woot woot!

Rah rah rah!

[LivingInTheBubble]

40. Why isnt it LBN?

Because you dont like it?

"I for one am not going to sit here and debate the valour of American soldiers"

And then you go on to do exactly that in an amusing bit of irony.

[oneighty]

48. I wonder.

Our fighting men and women are protecting civilian convoys? Why, pray tell? I would run too damn-it. Our soldiers protecting civilians on a mission for profit is not right. Screw them. Screw Haliburton too.

180

[Goldmund]

4. I absolutely believe it

and I believe that those are their orders. Bush loses many more political points from deaths of US soldiers than from deaths of Indian truck drivers. And as far as "valor", American soldiers are just like any other soldiers -- they'll fight if they believe in the battle.

[0007]

67. Absolutely, and aren't most the drivers civilians?

Why would these two drivers make up a story like that? They don't like Americans? I don't buy it!!

[doctorbombeigh]

5. They must have orders to abandon those drivers if attacked, no?

I can't think of any other reason they'd do it because I don't believe they are cowards. I don't believe they'd abandon civilians under attack unless ordered to do so. I think our soldiers, in fact any "coalition" forces there, are brave people being grotesquely misused by this administration.

Actually, the driver's story doesn't make sense to me.

[demoman123]

7. Then what would be the point of guarding the convoy? n/t

[doctorbombeigh]

10. That's why the driver's story makes no sense.

[jpgray]

11. The presence of an escort is still a deterrent to attacking the convoy

that's true whether or not the escort actually plans to stick around and fight off a serious attack.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Not if the reputation of the escort is to run. eom

[jpgray]

14. Take two convoys

One with an escort, one without. No matter what the reputation of the escort is, you're going to attack the one without an escort every time.

[reprobate]

29. It's apparent that the "unbelievers" have never seen combat.

By the time a convoy is attacked it's too late. Just like convoys in the atlantic in WWII were attacked by U boats, the purpose of the escort is to PREVENT the attack.

Also, look at the equipment they are using. Unless they are using Abrams M1 tanks for escort duty, (which is very doubtful considering the fact that they are fuel hog, their engines self destruct in desert conditions, and they can't keep enough tracks in stock to keep them running) our troops are sitting ducks on convoy duty.

What they are using I believe, is APCs (armored personell carriers) which will be opened like a tin can by an RPG. You've now lost a squad of troops, not something you really want to happen, and surely not to make it into the media.

Aside from APCs the only other thing we have is the HUMMV. Most are not armored and can be penetrated by a rifle bullet. Even the ones that are armored will be destroyed by an RPG.

Come on, folks. This is not a movie. It's reality. To stand and fight when you don't know who your enemy is, where he is, or when and where he will attack is not bravery. It's stupidity.

Our poor guys and gals over there are not superheroes. They are stuck in a meatgrinder and bravery in their case is just waking up and doing their job every day.

DOES NOBODY REMEMBER VIET NAM?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

45. It is standard tacitics - you get out of the "kill zone".

No matter whether you are infantry or armoured, if you walk into an ambush the VERY first thing you do is get out of the "kill zone".

That means if you are driving along and you start getting fired on, YOU DON'T STOP - in fact you run like hell, otherwise you will ALL die.

Now if the truckers can't keep up, it seems the US soldiers in Iraq have decided it is their own bad luck.

Of course I have no doubt that as soon as they have escaped the "kill zone" the US soldiers will then turn around and perform a deliberate assault on the ambush site under their own terms. But by then it could be too late for the truck drivers.

[shadu]

17. what if they are cowards?

Certainly not impossible.
We know they are killing women and children.
We know they are turning a blind eye in Iraqi prisons.
Much of what we don't know would surely be shocking.

Jingoistic nationalism is good for nothing.
The fact is, these particular soldiers may be cowards.

[demoman123]

27. This is a possibility.

Hard to tell from this one story how widespread the practice is.

[doctorbombeigh]

28. Assuming soldiers aren't cowards isn't jingoistic, it's common sense.

I would never assume that a soldier from any nation is a coward, nor that a soldier would willingly abandon civilians to an armed attack. Having known some military folks, it doesn't make a lick of sense to me to assume such a thing.

You wrote: "The fact is, these particular soldiers may be cowards." Could you give me an actual fact in there? The fact that some soldiers are cowards is true, but this is not factual in relation to these particular soldiers at all.

Certainly, this allegation has not been investigated and proven as fact to my satisfaction. You will apply your own standards, of course.

[DrWeird]

41. It was a cowardly act.

If they abandoned a convoy that came under attack then they are quite clearly cowards.

Now if whether the convoy came under attack is a subject of debate, frankly I'd sooner believe the Indian truck drivers.

[LivingInTheBubble]

42. Fair comment many soldiers must be brave (or foolish) but..

when you only joined so you could get through college would you give up your life for some foreigners?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

43. The American military has lacked valour for decades.

It's whole structure is based around doing whatever it takes to stay alive - even if that means killing tens of thousand of innocents, including children.

Take Kosovo for example. American pilots were ordered not to fly low enough to be able to accurately identify targets, thereby saving their own skin from being shot down. Thousands of innocents died, inlcuding hundreds of the Kosovo Albanians they were supposedly there to protect!

I have NO DOUBT that US troops are ordered to abandon trucks when they are ambushed - in fact it is a pretty much stardard tactic (except for the leaving people behind part) - Any soldier will tell you you DO NOT stand and fight in an ambush "kill zone" you either fight through as fast as possible, or back out as fast as possible.

Too bad that taking Indian truckers with them isn't high on the priority list.

Now for those people who say they don't believe this report, tell me this - how do all these truck drivers keep getting captured? Are the US military units supposedly protecting them getting wiped out?

Or are some convoys being left unprotected?

Either way, it doesn't look good for the US military.

[varun]

50. Why is it that lately...

only foreign truck drivers are being captured? Indian, Turkish, Philipino...

There might be some truth behind the theory that US military does not care about defending foreigners.

[number6]

49. this may just show how weak and spread out..or ..

just spread thin our military is...if you will

or how much we've lost control in Iraq..-nam :(

[wurzel]

53. American soldiers are no more nor less brave than other soldiers

Everything depends on whether a soldier really believes in what he is doing. If American soldiers are now less "brave" than they were it simply shows they are losing faith in their mission. They no longer have the drive to win. They only have the desire to survive.

[WOJG]

54. I'm new here, but can offer some insight

I found this site surfing looking for info on Kerry after watching the convention, I am a soldier with 12 years in the USAR and headed to Afganistan shortly.

When a convoy is ambushed, rule # 1 is get out of the area.... if you in the kill zone or ahead of it, you go foward to the next rally point, if your behind it you go to the last one. Unless a vehicle is disabled then you fight just long enough to get those on board into other vehicles, then you get out. Period. When you do escort duty, your job is to get the convoy through, not to find and kill the enemy.

Odds are the Indians were expecting a movie style shootout where they stopped and fought it out... thats not reality. Unless the Indians were idiots they got out as quick as they could too, they should have been right along with the rest of them. HMMWV's are not fast and tracked vehicles are even slower, so they wouldn't be passing and outrunning the trucks who could easily keep up or outrunn them. I can't see soldiers leaving a vehicle that was disabled civilian or not. I can see them giving up on trying to protect them if the Indians didn't get with the program and bug out of the area like they were supposed to when they recieved fire, or failed to do what was required by the escort and as a result put those protecting them in graeter danger, but otherwise I see no reason to do so.

Keep in mind we only have half the story.

[daleo]

55. In naval convoys in WWII merchant ships could be left behind

Escort ships didn't always stick around to pick up survivors during an engagement either. If a merchant ship couldn't keep up, either because it was hit or because of mechanical problems, the convoy would go on ahead. Perhaps something like that is going on here.

It also does seem likely that trucks driven by foreigners might be deemed most expendable - not necessarily because of racism. For example, they may be hauling the least vital cargo - of course that may in itself be a reflection of institutional racism.

[saigon68]

56. No one wants to be killed for CHIMPANZEE

A natural reaction. "Screw the dot-heads driving those trucks boys---lets get the hell out of here" </SARCASM>

[daleo]

58. I can't blame anyone for that

Nobody wants to be the last one to die for a mistake, or for a lie told by a warmonger.

[saigon68]

61. You forgot a lying Awol Draft Dodger.

A/K/A THE CHIMPANZEE

[WOJG]

57. Institutional racism?

I see much, much less racism in the military than anywhere else.... of any kind.

[htuttle]

59. Except where 'the enemy' is involved.

Sure, if you are talking about racism inside the military itself, as the old saying goes, 'everyone is olive drab'.

However, looking back over the last 100 years of US conflicts, against the 'Huns', the 'Krauts', the 'Japs', the 'Gooks', and now the 'Hajis', you can't honestly believe that the military doesn't show a racism toward the places they are occupying (and toward those who sort of look like those they are occupying).

[saigon68]

62. THEY WERE CALLED ZIPPERHEADS AND SLOPES in the Nam

The troops used to love killing them

Ask Rusty Calley of the Metrocal for Lunch Bunch.

[daleo]

60. I meant that in the most abstract sense

Indians, for example, might be given certain types of cargo that are deemed less important, while American contractors (black or white) might be given the more important stuff. So it wouldn't be racism by the military in the black/white sense - more like deeply ingrained ethnocentrism or nationalism. All nations, not just the U.S., have some tendency this way, I think.

Anyway, it is just speculation.

[tlcandie]

66. We trust them with the outsourcing of our jobs...

all that secret information, etc., but we can't trust them with SPECIAL cargo. We are defending India and the outsourcing of our jobs, can we not defend them when they are in harms way?

Not knocking you daleo. Just an observation.