Riley
He absolutely should have been court martialled. Refusing a written, legal order as an officer - it doesn't get much worse.... If he was that abhorrent of our nation's actions then why didn't he resign when we invaded in 2003 (or before he did his two 'cushy' tours in the middle east outside of Iraq).
RileyDove said:
'His defence to be disallowed clearly indicates......an unwillingness to be able to examine the reasoning for the venture'
No, because this argument was appallingly misguided and legally incorrect (which has been dealt with very effectively by Squirrel and co earlier in this thread). This individual proclaims that he is an 'expert' at logic. But logic, allied with international law, cannot state that the invasion of Iraq was illegal (even if there is reason to question it in other ways). But he (or an articulate defence counsel) should have realised that even if a decision to go to war taken by a government was deemed illegal, he would not be in any way be personally liable or be in a position to refuse to partake in it. If (and it's a big if) he was a very senior officer, he may have had umbrage. But as a doctor (hardly SF or infantry) he could not reasonably raise the argument of illegality. He strikes me as one of these sad individuals who wraps themselves up in their own intellectual 'ability' without grasping common sense, the military, or the bigger picture....
If you join the forces you have to take the rough with the smooth....as long as it meets your social conscience. I have questioned things I've done. Yet I have taken the Queen's commission and am paid to do it. If I found it that abhorrent I would resign, as did Trooper Griffin. An SAS soldier, who has volunteered to the highest level of soldiering that his country can offer and fully served on the front line, has earned that right....
This idiot, immersed in his own self-important academia, has not. Yet I suspect he will not reflect on this as he repays (a rather small) part of the expansive salary he has drawn since he so 'vehemently disagreed' with service for a nation allied to one which he compares to the 'Nazi's' (whilst on a salary which happens to be far higher than those actually tasked with risking their lives).
A very poor show by this man......and I will not accept defence of him.
RAFLOO, as far as I have seen, has made some very reasonable comments. I'm curious as to what you object to?
Last edited by Pongochap; 14th Apr 2006 at 23:33.