Life Sentences for Desertion... [Archive]

tonkatechie

23rd May 2006, 08:14

Quote:
Defence minister Tom Watson said there would only be a maximum sentence of life where desertion was "to avoid relevant service".

That would exclude things like military occupation of a foreign country.

Relevant service operations would be "the ones which every member of the force needs to have complete confidence in the other members of his unit,"
:confused:
Let me get this right, relevent service is not the occupation of a foreign country, but it is when you need to be completely confident in your work mates (like when they're your safety man on a functional test, keeping an eye on you on the line, not taxying over you on the pan, getting your pay right so you don't lose your house, going to war etc).
Politicians, what a waste of oxygen.:D

SidHolding

23rd May 2006, 08:21

Way over the top!! Especially in a time when a soldier (probably) hesitates more than he should before opening fire incase he finds himself in court for doing his job!!

nigegilb

23rd May 2006, 08:28

Why not go back to 1914 and bring back the firing squad? We have politicians behaving like Great War Generals, they may as well go the whole hog.

One point could it be argued that this is a change to terms of service?

I was sent the draft legislation a few days ago...

Clause 8: Desertion
60. Under this clause desertion is committed if a person subject to service law is absent without permission and either intends:

not to return at all, or
to avoid service on operations against an enemy, service abroad on operations to protect life or property or service on military occupation of a foreign country or territory.
61. It is an offence whether the person has the necessary intention at the time of going absent or develops the intention later.

62. The maximum sentence for desertion is generally two years' imprisonmentin the second bullet above, or if his intention is to avoid such service.. But the maximum is life imprisonment if the offender deserts when on service, or under orders to go on service, of the types described

8 Desertion

(1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if he deserts.

(2) For the purposes of this Act a person deserts if he is absent without leave and—

(a) he intends to remain permanently absent without leave; or
5
(b) he intends to avoid any particular service or kind of service, and that

service or kind of service is relevant service.

(3) In this section “relevant service” means—

(a) actions or operations against an enemy;

(b) operations outside the British Islands for the protection of life or
10
property; or

(c) military occupation of a foreign country or territory.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to any punishment

mentioned in the Table in section 163, and any sentence of imprisonment

imposed in respect of the offence—
15
(a) if subsection (5) applies, may be for life;

(b) otherwise, must not exceed two years.

(5) This subsection applies if—

(a) the offender was on relevant service or under orders for such service

when he became absent without leave; or
20
(b) subsection (2)(b) applied to him in relation to the offence.

Clause 2: Misconduct on operations
45. When persons subject to service law are taking part, or under orders to take part, in operations against an enemy certain misconduct may be more serious than in other circumstances. Under this clause service personnel are guilty of an offence if in such circumstances they commit specified types of misconduct. These are:

surrendering or abandoning a place when under a duty to defend it (subsection (1))
failing to do their utmost to carry out lawful commands (subsection (3))
when carrying out certain important duties (such as guard duty) sleeping or leaving their place of duty (subsection (4))
making statements (or other communications) likely to cause alarm or despondency among our or allied forces, or among accompanying civilians who are subject to service discipline (subsection (5))
46. In most cases no offence is committed if the person has a reasonable excuse for his actions.
47. The maximum penalty under this clause is life imprisonment.

mbga9pgf

23rd May 2006, 14:50

making statements (or other communications) likely to cause alarm or despondency among our or allied forces, or among accompanying civilians who are subject to service discipline (subsection (5))
46. In most cases no offence is committed if the person has a reasonable excuse for his actions.
47. The maximum penalty under this clause is life imprisonment.

Hmm, does that include stuff that we post on here then? B*ggers are trying o clamp down on our blessed PPRUNE!!!! :mad: :8

nigegilb

23rd May 2006, 15:23

Scotsman carried a good article on this;

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=742682006

Something is spooking MoD. Can't figure out if it is a knee jerk reaction to Ben Griffin and the Doctor in the trench coat, future ops, or the general malaise concerning occupation of Iraq. Thankfully legislation did not include PPRUNE-yet!!

The Gorilla

23rd May 2006, 15:25

Any one know what the current maximum penalty for desertion is?

nigegilb

23rd May 2006, 15:31

Still trying to find out, expect it to be the same but what is interesting is this new reference to occupations.

Check out this web site.

We executed 346 of our own in the Great War some of them were kids. The youngest that I have found reference to was just 17 yrs old! We still recruit kids into our own Army. Methinks this move will backfire amongst mums and dads out there.

http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/

This page in the website refers to 3 troubling cases,where such things as stress were not taken into account. Anyone who saw Gilligan's prog last night will be aware that Brit Mil is still making same mistakes 90 yrs on.

http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/page36.html

Sloppy Link

23rd May 2006, 19:04

Ah yes, Gilligan, that well known champion of the British Military. Where would we be without him. Although the issues were real enough because there was a heartbeat at the end of them, I can't help but feel it was yet another chance for Gilligan to strut his fat ego (and gut) around without giving the MoD the opportunity to defend itself and only reporting the side that he wanted to people to hear. He is no better than a video version of the Daily Mirror.

The Gorilla

23rd May 2006, 19:07

Whereas, of course the MOD is full of honourable people who are looking after the best interests of our troops!

Yeah right!
:yuk:

ExRAFAC

27th May 2006, 16:54

Intrigued by Kevan Jones comment about not having a "pick & choose army where people pick and choose where they do serve". I thought that was the way the RAF worked! It was always a bugger getting posted from Kinloss to Brize where all the prima donna "pick & choosers" lived!

Wonder what his opinion would be if the next UK Parliamentary session occurred in downtown Kandahar or Baghdad!

airborne_artist

28th May 2006, 04:55

BBCi: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5024104.stm) "More than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted the armed forces since the start of the 2003 Iraq war, the BBC has discovered."

Dan Winterland

28th May 2006, 05:28

This will work wonders on recruitment and retention. Conscription will have to be re-intoduced for the next war!

Wyler

28th May 2006, 07:35

IMHO, this is a huge story. Not surprisingly, the MOD and indeed the Cabinet do not want this information on the streets in any way, shape or form. They will do just about everything to stop, spin, bury this kind of information.
To say they don't have any figures on increases in desertion is a blatant lie. Of course they know how many are missing and how that relates to previous years.
The Military top brass do little to help the situation when they hang servicemen and women out to dry to appease the Left. They further damage the Forces when they bow and scrape to the Politicians in pursuit of personal gain. Having said that I did meet a VERY senior Naval Officer who had thrown his toys out of the cot. He told us to watch the press over the next three months or so. His PSO was livid and told us to forget what we had heard.
Two months later his retirement 'on health grounds' was announced in the media.

fightingchickenplumb

28th May 2006, 09:31

This will work wonders on recruitment and retention. Conscription will have to be re-intoduced for the next war!

nah that not PC anymore mate the MOD will just introduce CONLOGS for front line units employing a really expensive agency to supply the man power, a bit like nursing banks in the NHS.

fightingchickenplumb

28th May 2006, 09:40

well said lads

I have absoultley no confidence that if I went to basra or khandahar and had to use my personal weapon there that I would be protected by the RAF or the MOD, it makes me wonder when you have the enemy to your front and a human rights lawyer at your back. Oh does the MoD have the figures for human rights lawyers in the TA?who have been to Iraq?

Tom watson is right , we cant have a forces that we pick and choose where we go , but it would have been nice to think the polititcans would have done that job for us and took the countries wishes in to acount.

As for recruiting this is a disater and I think in general that Iraq has done the greatest damage in 50 years to the armed forces, but acording to the MoD that doesnt matter as they require less man power!

effortless

28th May 2006, 10:15

I was amazed at the news this am. The number of desertions is at an all time high. There must ba a message in there somewhere. Still at least we don't frag our Ruperts.
I was forced to watch an excellent film last night "A Very Long Engagement (http://wwws.warnerbros.co.uk/movies/avle/)", I thought that it would be a bit girly but it left me moved. It is about self mutilation in time of war.
My Grandfather had to witness a firing squad during WW1. He was fifteen and had lied to get into the mob. He wrote a very moving piece about it when he became a journo later in life. It left me in tears.

Maple 01

28th May 2006, 10:31

Before we all go down the path of believing the BBC consider what the nice chaps at ARRSE are saying, the BBC seem to be including EVERYONE in those figures including AWOL which is a very different case to desertion - still, why let the facts get in the way of another anti-mil story?
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=39235/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html
The number of desertions is at an all time high.
Not according to this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/776462.stm
Seems they can't even remember their own reporting from few years back(thanks to an ARRSEr for the link) Obviously that was all down to Iraq and Afganistan and the evil Bush/Blair too :rolleyes: :ugh: Still, at least then they knew then that there's a difference between AWOL and desertion!

dallas

28th May 2006, 15:10

I think it's VERY interesting that someone, somewhere, has decided we need to introduce legislation like this, whether it actually goes through or not.

Put another way, we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 3 years now with no obvious problems getting manpower to go, so why bother introducing this measure now...unless you think troops might not like stage three.

I rant, while wondering what might cause something like that...

Tigs2

28th May 2006, 16:49

Now if we had a federation it could take on/publicise bulls**t decisions like these. Whilst we wait for that i wonder what would happen if we had a 'national desertion day', when all members of HM forces down tools to test their mettle. It could be for two reasons
1. Call their bluff
2. Get a pardon for the 346 men that we murdered to keep discipline by using the term cowardice, when actually the poor buggers were stressed out of their minds.

For our National Desertion Day, how about Fri Oct 13 as its the anniversary of that other band of military chaps (699 year anniversary no less) who got turned over - The Knights Templar'

The crew of the Bounty would be dancing on their deck.

Training Risky

28th May 2006, 16:58

Been watching the Da Vinci Code have you Tigs?:)

Maple 01

28th May 2006, 18:57

He's thinking of the Barron Knights surely?

cazatou

28th May 2006, 20:27

Nigegilb

Re: Misconduct on operations #10

"surrendering or abandoning a place when under a duty to defend it."

So the rear gunner of a WW2 Bomber, which was on fire having been shot up and who had no intercom with any other crew member, was not justified in deciding to abandon the aircraft?

Which side are HMG on?

PS How many WW2 Field Marshals and Generals DID NOT order (or allow) the Forces under their command to abandon certain positions which they had a duty to defend?

Where would we have been if we had not evacuated Dunkirk?

Tigs2

28th May 2006, 20:59

Training Risky

NO NO NO NO! Yes! Seen it but am member of said organisation as said on another thread (Know a lot, will say nothing!). Its just a frustrated case of 'Lets bloody showem'! How can they(The Gov) THINK of bringing in legislation against our finest WHILST they(our finest) are still fighting and loosing their lives. F**k the politics. **** Tony Bliar and Two Punches, Two Wives Prescot. How Dare they!! I despair at the unnecessary loss of life.

nigegilb

28th May 2006, 21:07

Sadly only a handful of MPs voted against. Read Mathew Parris in yesterday's Times, the Tories are about to make a mistake. They wholeheartedly support the invasion of Iraq. This will probably backfire just as soon as Brown takes charge. I wish they would support and understand the problems of the men and women in UK Armed Forces, who have been asked to fight an increasingly unpopular war. By siding with the Govt in this mendacious legislation they are probably signalling that nothing would be different under a Tory administration. We need politicians to stand up and fight for our Armed Forces and have a little more understanding for the pressures on those people spending an awful lot of time on the front line.

Maple 01

28th May 2006, 21:08

Whooh there Tigs, how about upping the medication there?

Perhaps a good question is why the BBC chose to run a story that is so factually incorrect - could it be to stir up the kind of emotions we've seen here today?

nigegilb

28th May 2006, 23:02

Thing is Maple, who is sure of the facts here. It is hardly in the Govt interest to admit to mass desertion. They are probably calling it anything but. I note that US personnel are fleeing to Canada for safety. Maybe our guys could go to Scotland??!! One thing is for sure, the Govt and MoD are spooked over this issue.

SASless

29th May 2006, 03:32

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/03/06/desertionsdrop.jpg

Hate to burst the Anti-War gangs ideas here.....but the American Military Desertion rates are decreasing since 9-11. Must be our troops see something to fight for after the WTC and Pentagon. The passengers on United 93 did.

Reportedly, there has been exactly one desertion from US Forces within Iraq.

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 04:40

You are probably right SaSless. Do you have any statistics showing recruitment and retention rates? Is it true that US passed emergency legislation preventing military personnel leaving under certain circumstances, after they had served their time?

I think US Govt approached this war in a different way to UK Gov. In many ways US were more honest with reasons to invade. I am not surprised if US motivations are different. Still, important to look at all the figures, not just desertion. It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to realise that this war is unpopular amongst civilians and that it was only a matter of time before some Mil personnel started feeling the same way. (Take a look at Bush's poll ratings now). However it's a bare faced lie for UK Govt to pretend that all is OK within the ranks. Labour is getting nervous. I wonder if they can remember a very uncomfortable time in the 1970's?

Maple 01

29th May 2006, 08:25

Seems the BBC have changed their tune! The article has been heavily re-written and the journo's name has been removed - no apology obviously
Now as a rule I wouldn't use a blog as a source but have a look at this just to provide an 'alternative view' to the BBC's – balance? Yes, I know the guy has his own agenda - a right winger with a dislike of the BBC
http://ussneverdock.********.com/2006/05/uk-bbc-fabricates-army-desertion-story.html

The guy uses the BBC's own figures
1999 - Just under 2,000 Desertions
2003-5 1,000
Now I'm no mathematician (IGCSE Grade C) but isn't 1,000 over 30 months less than 2,000 over 12?

According to MoD figures 2,670 soldiers went "absent without leave" in 2001, with the figure rising to 2,970 in 2002 and falling in 2003 to 2,825. In 2004 it rose to 3,050, falling back again in 2005 to 2,725.
Taken from the 'new and improved' article, seems someone (perhaps from their legal department?) pointed out the difference between AWOL and desertion

Now as I see it the BBC has a problem, before the internet chances are few would have noticed the contradictions between the two reports, now, with old stories being around forever wildly inaccurate or just plain made-up agenda-setting stories can be ‘outed’ by a quick cross reference top previous work or other sources. One of the desertion stories must be wrong.
So the other alternative to unbiased reporting, apologising for ‘mistakes’ and retracting untrue stories is by editing them surreptitiously – Now normally I’m wary of comparisons to George Orwell’s 1984 because it’s been over-done but the BBC do seem to be running a ‘Ministry of Truth’ – their truth.

The link came from ARRSE - just to attriblte the source - see? Pongos do have their uses

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 08:58

I should decare an interest in that I have a soft spot for BBC at the mo! But question, if desertion is not a problem why is Labour Govt changing legislation? Especially with reference to military occupations? Maybe BBC having a Gilligan moment but looking back they were right about GW2 weren't they?

:) Nige

Maple 01

29th May 2006, 09:07

Er, no, I don't think so - and isn't their job to report news rather than set the agenda? I remember a briefing just before GW2 in which one of our PR people pointed out that out of seven recent conflicts the UK mil had been involved in the BBC had been 'against' 5

Remember the BBC hitting Blair over inaccurate and misleading figures over the 45 min warning? The calls for an inquiry and resignations? Can we expect the BBC to call for the use of the same standards against themselves or will the usual self-serving excuses be dragged out again like the Gilligan bit?

Will be edited for spooling after I've removed a spider form my daughter's school bag

Spider gone, calm restored or in BBC speak ‘Ex Airman in ‘spider massacre’ probe

Pontius Navigator

29th May 2006, 09:08

Tom watson is right , we cant have a forces that we pick and choose where we go

Why not? We are an equal opportunity employer open to all faiths, genders and persuasions. The force you join today may be employed to do something in the future that you would never have joined if they were doing it today.

When I joined Kuwait had just finished and the Cold War was the thing. Africa, after the winds of change, was no longer a balls aching posting although rumour had it that your friendly ayrab would do the favours if you looked at his women.

Fighting those 'commie bastards' even if they were in Indonesia was an OK thing.

We won and peace broke out.

Now we have wars of choice. Where does that leave your Birmingham Chinese if we nip off east somewhere? Or your Carib or African when parachuted in to Sierra Leone?

You cannot have equal opportunities for all and then expect everyone to be equally employed anywhere against anyone.

During the Suez campaign a Canberra jock decided against Government policy and opted out on the take-off roll. Retracting your undercarriage with a load of bombs on was gutsy as suicide bombing wasn't in vogue in '56.

Squirrel 41

29th May 2006, 09:28

I've been watching this thread with much interest, but have waited until now to jump in so that I could have a quick look at the Bill (now in the House of Lords, avaliable at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/113/2006113a.pdf).

Ignoring the amusing backside-covering section 8(3)(c) (relevant service includes the "military occupation of a foreign country or territory" - surely better drafting would've read "the legal military occupation of a foreign country or territory" - the extract that NG has posted is very interesting, and leads to the real question - does following legal orders in a conflict that is illegal constitute a crime?

In other words, if the political leadership in future were to opt to invade - rather than get invited in by a legitimate government like Sierra Leone - a country without UN approval, real humanitarian emergencies, or which has not invaded the UK / UK Overseas Territories / UK allies, it would probably be committing the crime of aggression (or as it was quaintly phrased at Nuremburg, "crimes against peace"), and would this make the orders illegal?

I think that it would - and that to order your subordinates to follow such illegal orders could constitute incitement to commit a war crime.

Consequently, those at the top of the tree - and all of the way down it - should have the right to take independent legal advice on the proposed conflict, and where it isn't legal, then to legitimately say no.

Given that this is effectively impractical, the onus should return to the one place it should always have been - on our political leadership not to fight illegal wars - unless they fancy doing it (by) themselves....

S41

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 09:38

maple do you believe that according to Inrenational law the war was legal? If the answer is yes have a chat with some lawyer chums and see what they say.

Sq raises a very interesting point. Are we legislating for future ops here? I assumed US were going to lever Blair into the UN for his next job. That should take care of any difficulties over UN support in the future. I have a couple of contacts at House of Commons. Will do a bit of digging re. SQ point.

NG

Maple 01

29th May 2006, 09:51

maple do you believe that according to International law the war was legal? If the answer is yes have a chat with some lawyer chums and see what they say.

UNSCR 687 but let's not go there. However, if you can show me where it's been proven to be illegal in a international court of law rather than just claimed by those with an axe to grind, I'd like to read it.

Meanwhile my point remains that the BBC took an anti-war stance regardless of the facts, they are perusing this by any means possible, including ignoring positive Iraqi stories and vilifying the UK mil at every turn. It's nothing new; they did it over the Falklands too. What is strange is the unholy alliance between the Leftie BBC and the Right wing print media

Now, do you think the BBC's coverage of all matters Iraq has been fair and unbiased? When did you last hear a positive story? Is there nothing positive going on?

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 10:15

The point about an International Court is that the victors never appear before it. If the doctor in the trench coat had decided not to go to Iraq before the puppet Govt was put in we would have had an explosive court case. I always thought the same as you about the BBC. Always saw them as a bunch of lefties biding their time to become MPs or Nu Labour advisers. All this changed when I decided to go public with the lack of foam protection for Hercules. I was amazed by the editorial freedom that BBC Broadcast Journos enjoy. When I explained the Herc story they were very angry and whilst remaining unbiased thaey did not hold back in making sure my story got a very public hearing. The Radio 4 hacks are unbelievably professional and caring. Thay were very different to what I was expecting and i was surprised how well we got on. I know I only scratched the surface but all the time I have been learning how the media works and what makes a story. The best journos are agenda setting. Gilligan made a small error and the Govt almost destroyed the BBC as a result. The real culprit here is the Govt. They will destroy anyone who gets in their way. Look at Dr Kelly. With hindsight, do you think we should have invaded Iraq??

Sorry for going on but the media esp newspapers have been the only effective opposition til Cameron took over. Sure they do bad things from timt to time but in the round I have a lot of admiration for them.

NG

Maple 01

29th May 2006, 12:06

With hindsight, do you think we should have invaded Iraq??

Yep, I also think we should have kept going in 1991 but then I have a problem with dictators. Did we stop on the Rhine in '45? 'Oh that Hitler was a one, but he's leader of a sovereign state so we mustn’t upset him?'

Do you want Saddam back in power?

If not how were you planning to topple him?

Going over old ground I fear, but assuming you aren’t keen to see the reinstatement of the man responsible for about 400,000 Iraqi deaths and 300,000* Iranian you got the result you wanted but are just squeamish about how it was done

the media esp newspapers have been the only effective opposition

Not their function, they are there to report, not act as an unelected opposition. If elements of the BBC want to get directly involved in politics perhaps they should stand for election like everyone else?

Now, fancy condemning the BBC for their reporting on the desertion story?

*Higher figures are out there, as are lower, who rearly knows, just put 'lots' we'll know what you mean

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 12:30

We had a thread about this a while back so there is little point in going over old ground. News sure would be boring if it was not slanted in a particular direction. Sometimes the only way to get a story out is to use the media. Armed Forces are late in the day realising the power of the media. I believe the media was directly responsible for getting A400M DAS and inerting systems. That was agenda setting and a good example of how effective it can be.

On the subject of Saddam. he was pretty well under control in recent years. Unfortunately for Iraqis more of them are being killed now than at any time in Saddam's murderous history. I never get taken in by politicos talk about dictators. How is it we did a deal with Gaddafi but invaded Iraq? CIA were big buds with Saddam whilst it suited. All this may be old ground, but what if we had not invaded? We could have the UN camped out in Iraq looking after Iraqi peoples, a deal with oil in place and gradually made it better. Dictators like being in power, Saddam's ability to carry out appalling crimes was getting more and more limited. By invading we made a classic mistake. Best way to overthrow a Govt is to do it from within that way you win the consensus of the people. This process could already have been started in Iran if Bush had done a deal with the previous president. He didn't now we have a nightmare scenario.

Change happens organically over a longer period of time than elected offcials, Presidents and Prime Ministers hold office. They only think in 4/5 year cycles as a result they have f****d everything up for a very long time. Iran was heading for democracy now they are heading for war.

Sorry for blahing on

Pontius Navigator

29th May 2006, 12:39

Best way to overthrow a Govt is to do it from within that way you win the consensus of the people.

I think even overthrow from within, with external support, is also fraught with danger.

IIRC, we supported Baptista in Cuba but the US thought his regime was corrupt. They supported the other fellow and look where that got them.

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 13:16

We will never know in the case of Iraq. After GW1 everything was set up and some very brave Iraqis had organised a coup with assistance from the West. Guess what? CIA got cold feet and we left them to their fates. I did not really mean a coup being the preferred method for change. Iran is split in two, the young people are very modern in outlook. Could be in 10 yrs or so Iran would have gone through a peaceful transition with a peaceful transfer of power from the theocrats to the people. The alternative is to be an occupying force which normally results in the locals unifying against. Not really sure what will happen in Iran if we strike. Will probably set back democracy a long time though. By invading Iraq a non-nuclear power we lit the touch paper for every Middle Eastern country to try and get nukes. If you have the bomb the US will generally leave you alone. Iranians know this now the race is on.

Tigs2

29th May 2006, 14:21

Maple 01

upping the medication now sir :)

I will tone down my reaction immediately (but it doesnt get half as much a bite):}

FJJP

29th May 2006, 14:43

Maple 01

29th May 2006, 15:11

Emergency banter Tigs? And so early in the day!:ok:

Confucius

29th May 2006, 15:24

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 15:25

FJJP, I agree with you and I still think the preferred method is to negotiate, but I do not believe for a second that the US will allow Iran to become a nuclear power. The point I was trying to make is that invading Iraq has worsened the situation with Iran. Creating the conditions for the current Iranian president to come to power leading to a stand-off between Iran and the US. Big question is what would Iran do with the bomb? If PM and US President decide to act on the basis of intelligence who is going to believe them this time round? I have read it several times that the benefit of the Iraqi invasion was to turn US Forces from boys into men ready for the next one (Iran). Oh dear, that plan seems to have gone badly wrong. I think we are in the s**t. I personally believe that the historians will decide that the invasion of Iraq was a huge strategic error.

Confucious, I think you are spot on, Blairs decision to back a new generation of Nuclear power stations has got to be the right answer, along with a move to bio fuels. In the mean time I have been told to buy shares in STATOIL Norwegian oil company! As regards islamic terrorism, a well respected scholar already believes their centre of gravity is Europe, not the Middle East. Scarey??!!

Tigs2

29th May 2006, 15:32

Maple 01
Its bank holiday monday mate! Had BBQ pissed already, Oh My lovely Webber! Doh! different thread!:ok:

Dogfish

29th May 2006, 16:55

A life sentence for murder in this country is about fifteen years, out in eight or ten with good behaviour. What a choice we have.....fight in another illegal war, this time with Iran, or do one. Choice made, just before we invade Iran I'm off. Eight years doing porridge is better than forever dead. We all signed up to serve Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, not to fight to secure America's overseas oil interests. The biggest threat to world peace is not Iran getting the bomb. The biggest threat is that prize prick in the Whitehouse and his poodle in Westminster. Stella induced rant ends. :ugh:

mbga9pgf

29th May 2006, 18:18

Nigegilb, I don't disagree with most of what you say. However, it would be disasterous to Western economies if the US bombed Iran. They would shut down the Straits of Homuz and strangle oil supplies to the west. Think of the effect of fuel shortages would have on our day-to-day lives. It doesn't bear contemplating...
Iran are already doing it. Seen the exchange rate of the dollar lately? well do you know that Iran are going over to pricing barrels in EUROs and not DOLLARS!!!!??? That sure must smart and hit the inflationary pressures in the good old US of A bearing in mind they rely a fair old bit on gulf oil. Or am I just beeing too cynical. Hate to point it out, numerous numpties have commented on that with IRan sitting on a lake of oil, why the hell do they need nuclear power?

Well perhaps, just perhaps, they dont want to bloody burn the stuff that will, at some stage dry up! In other words, Iran projecting the current price of oil in the future may consider nuclear a more cost effective solution for their economy. Just a different viewpoint for you all to consider.

SASless

29th May 2006, 18:39

I reckon if you stick your head firmly up you hind end, one can come up with all sorts of excuses to let someone else defend your freedom and way of life. There must be a lot of WWII veterans that wished they had used better birth control after reading this forum.

Being a volunteer military, each one of you lot read the contract before you signed it (or I would certainly hope anyway). The contract did not give you an escape clause...nor did it grant every single serving member of the military to decide which fight to participate in.

The bugle has been blown....it's time to stand up. If you are not prepared to do your duty as you promised....QUIT. NOW! Take the consequences...be a Man about it. Don't hide out and pray you do not have go in harm's way and continue to wear the uniform in a manner that shames those who go into harm's way in your stead.

The British military must be in a horrible way if the majority of the members feel the way so many of you posters do. I would suggest the UK Taxpayer deserves better than what they are getting if that is so.

The US military re-enlistment rate is the highest in its history. That is a fact.

The US military meets or exceeds its recruiting goals and continues to do so. That is a fact.

The BBC nor the anit-war crowd can change the truth. Our military is not backing away from the fight. Why is the British military unable to summons the same level of dedication? Have you lost your will to fight?

This is our Memorial Day weekend, one where we pause to honour our military, those killed and wounded, and the living Veterans. We see the losses in the daily news....but remember, from D-Day to the end of the War in Europe, we lost 2,000 dead per week on average. On D-Day itself, we lost 9,000 men.

Do you really believe we can peacefully co-exist with those that mean to see our demise as a Western culture? Do you really think the Iranian zealots would hesitate to use nuclear weapons?

Maple 01

29th May 2006, 19:09

SASless old chap, a bit strong there! Unless things have changed in the past few months the view of people being deployed is

'Where?'
'Oh Bu@@er'
'Better get on with it (again)'

Later in the bar (and let's not forget PPRuNe is a cyber bar most of the time) everyone whinges like f***, it doesn’t change much but it makes you feel better. And like any bar argument a few go OTT to provoke a response or say something they don’t really believe or that they know, in the cold light of dawn is b******s

I wouldn't worry too much

Have you lost your will to fight?

Not since 1066

Sven Sixtoo

29th May 2006, 19:25

I think SASLess might suggest 1775

Maple 01

29th May 2006, 19:46

I think SASLess might suggest 1775

Englishmen V German mercenries

We won!

US Herk

29th May 2006, 19:50

don't wish to throw petrol on the fire but this is a link to an article showing recruitment and retention has slumped in US Forces
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/mili-j01.shtml

Resorting to socialist propaganda now, Nige? ;)

As in any statistical challenge, you can make the numbers say darn near anything you want. Fact is, we're in the middle of one of the biggest reorganizations & downsizings since after GW1 - the "recruiting goals" are changing daily as "we" decide what we think we want our force structure to look like.

Truth is, the Army has always had the worst recruiting numbers - primarily because they have the highest goals, but also because, well, they're the Army. The Marines do the best on recruiting, followed by USAF, then USN & Army bringing up the rear.

Recruiting is down slightly, but retention is up, or at least steady. Don't have latest stats handy, but reference above, I'm sure I can find any number of them to support whichever position I pick! ;)

SASless

29th May 2006, 19:53

Let's look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism than the editorial pages do.

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30.

Nig ol buddy,

The article you linked to states 135 Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) folks had been activated. What the article does not tell you is each one of them were volunteers and returned by request not be involuntary orders.

Stop Loss has occurred in peace time as well as war time when situations dictated that be done. It is part of the contract you sign upon enlistment. There is a clause that states: "The needs of the government shall be the determining factor."

Civilian employers change their minds about follow-on postings too. In the helicopter industry, Nigeria is not called the "Whiteman's Grave" for health reasons alone.

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 20:03

I probably deserved that! Strange that you are drawing down. i thought there was a demand for more boots on the ground?

SASless

29th May 2006, 20:17

We have been on the "Lean" routine ever since Reagan left office. Our military is undergoing a fundamental change in force structure and organization. The change is supposed to convert a Cold War military into a modern force structure designed for operations more likely to be experienced than those previously planned for. We do not see a European conventional war the threat that it once was.

Pontius Navigator

29th May 2006, 20:20

SASLess, at the risk of thread drift, buoyant recruiting to meet the persent danger is one thing. Retention of the boys and girls to face a future, unknown threat, is something else again.

One of your war plans in the not too distant past was to fight your closest ally. Later you were eyeball to eyball with us and that only 50 years ago.

Would you have fired?

We were eyeball to eyeball with our traditional enemy and they woul dnot back down. We fired and we won but it did not mean that we liked it. Had it not been to deny the Germans a lot of very useful warships then there may well have been a few who would not have fired.

US Herk

29th May 2006, 21:05

I probably deserved that! Strange that you are drawing down. i thought there was a demand for more boots on the ground?
Naw, just pokin' fun. We're currently paying for Army transformation by cutting USAF/USN personnel - no sh*t. Big numbers too. Army is in flux - many ideas of end state - we'll see when we get there what it actually is. Expect combat trades to remain steady, but support trades to draw down slightly - overall Army numbers won't change as dramatically as USAF/USN.

Within USAF, only AFSOC is a growth organization - new planes, new squadrons, new toys, more people.

Personally, I think we're expanding too quickly - going against our "SOF Truths" - many changes on the horizon for AFSOC...

Talk about thread creep...:rolleyes:

Grum Peace Odd

29th May 2006, 22:13

Refering back up the thread to somewhere before the diversion on to the well-trodden ground of "Invading Iraq: Right or Wrong?" and taking up a previous deviation from the original post, "biased coverage by the BBC"...

Has anyone watched the BBC trailer for their available anywhere news coverage? (It shows people accessing BBC website news via mobile phones, PDAs and the like.) Of all the news stories glimpsed in the trailer, I have only spotted on military related (unsurprising, given how small a part the military plays in the life of Joe Public). Sadly, the story the BBC chooses to use is the headline "British Soldiers Beat Iraqi".

Total number of those stories run versus the number of dead servicemen stories? And yet it's the bad news sotry that the BBC pushes. :(

SASless

30th May 2006, 00:44

Pontius,

World politics is a very complicated topic. The French came to our aid in 1775 or so and joined with us against the British. We all came together against the Germans twice. We then all joined together during the Cold War. Those were the "big" events....numerous "small" events have shown us to be only somewhat steadfast allies (including the French, Germans, British, Italians, etc.)

A soldier does not have the luxury of picking his foe...that is done by the Diplomats and politicians generally. Many a Marine has seen combat in support of US Big Business such as the Banana Wars. I am sure your forces have been thrown into wars around the world during the Empire days.

As to who I would pull the trigger on in your question is simple. Whoever my Commander-In-Chief told me to is the answer. I might find it repulsive, I might find it against my desires. However, if the Big Boss let me and my brothers off the leash....I would do my duty as I swore to do.

Put yourself in the shoes of the American forces that landed in North Africa....to be fired upon by the French and take casualties and then in turn land on the shores of Normandy to liberate the very same people from the German Occupation. How did they feel about that bit of irony? The Germans sure put up a much more aggessive defense than did the French thus the cost was much higher.

The decision as to who is the "enemy" comes from on high. Those of us in the trenches have to believe the cause is just and do their bidding in as honorable a way as we can.

Just this week, I learned Henry Kissinger, while Secretary of State, told the Chinese in secret meetings the United States Government would have accepted a Communist South Vietnam if it happened a decent interval after we withdrew. Over 58,000 Americans died in that war....and the government had given up long before we pulled out. How many of my friends died after that conversation I wonder?

Do I believe everything I hear from my political leaders.....no. Do I have unfailing trust in my senior commanders from those days....NO!

Is it right to be critical of those who will send us off to fight and die.....absolutely. But...we have to do so in an honourable way. Once we get stuck in one of these wars, we should all focus upon "winning" and not do anything that undermines the troops that are fighting the war.

I fear this generation of war fighters will be defeated not by the enemy but by our own side. After serving in Vietnam and knowing what that feels like...it would break my heart to see it happen again. Our troops deserve better of those who voted so quickly to send them off to war.

nigegilb

30th May 2006, 07:25

SASless, sorry about the thread to some socialist rag, i just punched in US recruitment and retention problems and out of a long list selected the first one. I was mortified when US Herc pointed it out! Promise I will be more careful next time. I am also amazed by your recruitment figures. I questioned you because I spend a lot of time in US and I saw several news items about ever changing ways of trying to meet recruitment targets,.ie. providing college education etc. The UK would love to have your recruitment figures!

I don't think we are saying anything new on this thread, there was never a good feeling amongst my colleagues about this war, I think we see it quite differently from you. I fear the break up of Iraq is inevitable an event almost out of our hands.....

MajorMadMax

30th May 2006, 13:10

Just to toss some gas/petrol into this fire, here is the US Uniformed Code of Military Justice article on desertion:

885. ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

So as you can see the US already has a provision for a punishment of death for desertion during wartime. Now, when was the last time anyone heard them using it?

And here is the article that went along with that nice little graph SASless posted, titled, '8,000 desert during Iraq war' (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-deserters_x.htm). While there may be only one known case of desertion in Iraq, a lot of people are still deserting long before they get there. Makes sense, doesn't it? Why wait until you are in a place where there is nowhere to go, and no way to get there?

And whereas the USAF is drawing down, the Army has stopped people from separating and retiring due to their retention problems. But I am in full agreement with your final comments to Pontius. I do not question the loyalty and dedication of the troops on the ground and in the air, I spent 25 years in a US uniform and know the vast majority of them are honorable individuals. However, I do question the political leadership of this country on a regular basis. As far as I am concerned, they have not earned the privilege to lead our nation's forces. We are our own worst enemy!

Cheers! M2

NURSE

30th May 2006, 14:09

one area of UK forces were recruiting has slumped is for healthcare professionals in the UK reserve forces. This isn't being helped by the crisis in the NHS and the realisation that RFA 96 provides no protection at all. Trusts are using restructuring as a get out to dismiss reservists who have been called up for Iraq. I think the govts time would be better spent rewriting the reserve forces act to force government employers like the NHS to properly protect reservists civilian employment. Maybe making it a Criminal offence with an automatic 5 year sentence for heads of human resources and chief Execs of Govt orginisations and heavy fine (50% of expected profits) and loss of all government contracts to industry for dismissing a reservist whilst warned for operations, on operations or within 3 years of returning from operations except for cases of missconduct. And removal of all caveats in RFA 96 regarding dismissal whilst mobilised except for going out of buissness.
I have met more than one reservist that this has happened to and mostly they have been employed by NHS. But MoD has done the same as well.