All but two of us are pro-war

[dallas]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4818672.stm

So there you have it...

I would have preferred "Reid Doesn't Know What Troops Think of War"

or "Troops Can't Actually Say What They Think of War".

I'm a bit annoyed he feels we are pro-war just because we're not all quitting. As said in previous threads, morals don't pay the mortgage :(

[sooms]

Absolutely gobsmacked by the article- does he really believe it?
Virtually everyone I know is sick to the back teeth of the middle east and quite frankly I don't believe we're there for the reasons the politicians say.

Are the politicians told this c**p by our leadership or am I and everyone I work with in a minority in HM Armed Forces?

[Tombstone]

What else did you expect to come out of the Labour Party Propaganda machine?? ;)

[Duckbutt]

What else did you expect to come out of the Labour Party Propaganda machine??

And under the Bernard Ingham regime of a few years back it would have been different? :rolleyes:

[JessTheDog]

I did a straw poll as part of a discussion exercise during instructional training.

The group was a mixture of ranks, branches and trades. The criteria were "Moral, Legal and National Interest".

40% thought the war was a bad idea.
60% thought the war was a good idea.

This was September 2003, after the death of Dr Kelly and the inception of the Hutton Inquiry, but pre-Butler and before strategic failure became evident.

Most of those who supported the war had been in uniform during the various Balkans civil wars and this undoubtedly played a part in forming their views.

I suspect the percentages are at least reversed by now.

[southside]

but you could argue, Is it our job to agree or disagree? If you feel that strongly about it then you know where the door is.


As said in previous threads, morals don't pay the mortgage If the only reason you are in the AF's is for the money you may be missing the point.

[tablet_eraser]

Southside strikes again!

I don't remember being told I wasn't entitled to my own opinions when I joined up. You've missed the point - many of us who disagree will still serve with zeal and determination in Iraq because our job is to DO what we are told, not to BELIEVE what we are told. When you get to the stage where personnel cannot disagree with Government policy as private citizens, you create an automaton army.

I think that would go against even Mr Blair's "principles".

[Maple 01]

And if the interweb had been around during Maggie's little South Atlantic adventure and beyond how many chaps/chapesses would be described as 'pro war?' No-one I was down there with (after all the shooting had stoped I hasten to add)- it's only afterwards things come into perspective, unless this is another ‘Labour are the anti-Christ, everything under Maggie was wonderful’ thread – in which case crack on.

[BenThere]

Anyone got surveys of British troops at the Somme?

How about the months after Dunkirk?

The singular thing about British troops through the ages is they never give up, they follow orders, and ultimately win. Please be careful about not letting go of that.

We won't be able to judge this war for 20 years, when its effect is settled. Even then we won't know what might have been had Hussein not been overthrown.

[FJJP]

Has Bliar even GOT any principles?

[Newforest]

Mr Reid told PM: "To the best of my knowledge out of the 80,000 troops who have come through Iraq, there have been two cases of people saying they did not want to come back and resigning from the Armed Forces.

Go to Israel and see the deserters there. Why did Bush have an item in a bill about stopping potential draft dodgers moving to Canada if he instigates a draft.:confused:

[Maple 01]

Newforest, we're not Israelis or Yanks, we just get on with the job. I forgot to add, we have an unalienable right to winge and moan, don't mistake that for Vietnam era unprofessionalism.

[brickhistory]

Why did Bush have an item in a bill about stopping potential draft dodgers moving to Canada if he instigates a draft.:confused:
If HE instigates (not sure of your choice of verb here, but I digress) a draft?
You do realized that it takes both the the Congress AND the President to make a law?
It will never happen.
Also, do you have a basis for your allegation?

[Zoom]

And under the Bernard Ingham regime of a few years back it would have been different? :rolleyes:

Certainly would have been, Duckbutt, because despite Maggie's other errors she wouldn't have got us involved in this mess in the first place.

[brickhistory]

Newforest, we're not Israelis or Yanks, we just get on with the job. I forgot to add, we have an unalienable right to winge and moan, don't mistake that for Vietnam era unprofessionalism.

Or that Crimean war unprofessionalism. And say, how'd that trench warfare work out in WWI?

Admittedly, that's really going back but it can be just as telling as your Vietnam comparision. We all have our 'not so finest' hours.

[Pontius Navigator]

That would be the 1917-1918 War?

When you are up to your neck in mud and bullets it is a bit difficult to see where the trees had been.

[SASless]

Tablet,

Just when did a serving member of the military become a private citizen? Perhaps you mean "after" your service one can have a public opinion as a private citizen.

[threepointonefour]

If the only reason you are in the AF's is for the money you may be missing the point.

I guess most of us are these days then. Perhaps someone could enlighten the masses?

[tablet_eraser]

SASless, we are all entitled to our own lives as private citizens, but that is modified by our being subject to military law. No-one can tell us what opinions we are to have - that would be absurd. Our opinions do not come into play until they affect operational effectiveness in the form of "conscientious objection" or desertion.

The proposed law in the US does not, I believe, refer specifically to draft-dodging, but to any military personnel who desert the US Armed Forces. To suggest that Bush is preparing to reinstate the draft on the basis of a law proposed by Congress is absurd. That said, every nation will have dormant legislation to reinstate conscription if it becomes necessary, and any other military law must take such legislation into account.

[Maple 01]

Admittedly, that's really going back but it can be just as telling as your Vietnam comparison. We all have our 'not so finest' hours.

which is what I get for not explaining myself clearly - it wasn't meant as a cheap bit of Spam baiting, - we are (or in my case, were) volunteers, back then most armies of that era relied on conscription, we only got rid of it ourselves in1962, conscript armies are more prone to discontent, usually stirred up by a minority of political gobsheens. Think German navy 1918 etc.
Now think what kind of damage the constant drip-drip-drip of anti-American propaganda emanating from our gloriously ‘free’ and ‘independent’ (and unelected) media would do to a conscript army. Perhaps you can see the Vietnam link? Even when you win (Tet 68) you lose. because the press say so.

The point you didn't pick up on is that both Crimea and WW1 relied on conscripts led by poorly trained officers, nowadays the British armed forces (even the RAF) are a well led bunch of professionals (well, sometimes) and will not (with the odd exception) fold-up and provide more ammunition for the 'Stop the War' nutters (note to said nutters, the war is over, you can go home and concentrate on making better tin foil hats.)

Edited to add: The army in the Crimea was volunteer - but as the option was frequently hang, starve, go to Gaol or join the army it counts as conscription in my book

[brickhistory]

Maple 01,

I have the utmost respect for the UK's military professionalism. Because of its lack of size and resources, it has to be innovative and squeeze the utmost from its people/equipment. As we, the US military, go down that road, we too will have to substitute brain for brawn far more than we do now.

I jumped on the red flag, so good on ya for the wind up!

[SASless]

While wearing the uniform one surrenders most of those privileges granted to private citizens. On Civvie street I can call the boss fellah a tos.ser and do so in public at risk to my employment. In uniform, I would suggest it amounts to Conduct Unbecoming....no ban on thinking it but saying so in public is a no-no to me.

I also believe in conscription.

If for no other reason that if everyone's kids are going to be sent off to war, there might be far more reluctance and opposition to that happening without better justification. As long as it is "volunteers" heading off to the slaughter then is it far easier for them to be sent forth. I just do not believe in a very small portion of the community paying the price for foreign adventures. If one is going to benefit from it then one ought to share in the payment of the costs. I know how I feel when I get overcharged or told to pay a bill that is not rightly my own.


I also think if you risk your life and well-being on the field of battle, you will appreciate life and freedom all the more afterwards.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Actually, I don't think we do surrender 'most of the priveliges granted to private citizens'. For a start there are very few (any?) priveliges granted. Mostly private citizens have the right to do anything not prohibited by law. The same applies to servicemen. It's just that we have voluntarily submitted to a wider body of law - the Armed Forces Acts. Now that stops me expressing opinions in a variety of circumstances, but it doesn't stop me thinking. Winston Smith comes to mind in considering this point.

Less theoretically, apart from mouthing off in public, and being faced with more stringent penalties than being fired for crossing the boss, what rights have I foregone? They can no longer shoot me for deciding I don't want to play any more, and I'm not sure that much else matters in the great scheme of things.

SASless, I also find myself in the curious position of accepting most of your arguments but rejecting the conclusion. Conscription is a fundamental breach of basic liberty. I may voluntarily give up assorted rights - I have difficulty with the concept that a tyranny of the majority can tell you to do so. I appreciate that in a situation of national survival the argument may be made that the infringement of personal liberty is justified to serve the greater good, though even then the penalties for disobedience should be proportionate. To draft people for a foreign expedition under any circumstance where the threat to the homeland is not immediate, direct and compelling, is to me a sign of moral bankruptcy. On the other hand, if I choose to accept the Queen's shilling (and the magnificent sport in high-performance aircraft that came with it), then I have only myself to blame if politicians land me in something I don't really believe in. The fallout from that is becoming a harder choice as the pension looms, the military threat to the territory of the UK vanishes and Saint Tony sees us as a vehicle for his own aggrandaisment, but having taken the money that's entirely my problem.

And I am aware that this is for me a theroetical argument - I've been to a shooting match or two, but as a SARBoy I am unlikely to see another where the targets shoot back before I retire.

[SASless]

Sven,

During Bubba's administration, a couple of General's spoke disparagingly of him during some speeches. They were disciplined by their superiors for doing so. We have both a requirement by military law and by tradition not to speak ill of the President who is our Commander-in-Chief. There may be a difference between our system and yours in that regard. It certainly does not prevent one from thinking as one wishes and using one's vote to try to fire the boss fellah.

As much as I agreed with the Generals who got their hands slapped....I have to agree with the action taken.

Under our law, if one refuses induction into the military when conscripted, it is two years in a Federal Prison. It would be a minimum security facility of some sort commonly known as "The Club Fed". I did my two tours in Vietnam and hold no ill will to those who fled to Canada, Sweden, and other places rather than serve in the military or serve their legal sentence in jail. I do, however, really have a problem with Jimmy Carter for granting a pardon to those folks. We can argue till the cows come home about the "legality" of wars our nations fight but as citizens it seems to me to be an obligation to serve or accept the alternative. Many Conscientious Objectors have served honorably in the military as medics, some have even won the Medal of Honor, our highest award for valor while doing so.