Life Sentences for Desertion...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With hindsight, do you think we should have invaded Iraq??
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Best way to overthrow a Govt is to do it from within that way you win the consensus of the people.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FJJP
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...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??!!
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??!!
Last edited by nigegilb; 29th May 2006 at 16:55.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cosford
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by FJJP
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...
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.
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?
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?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Not since 1066
'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?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
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/ju...mili-j01.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ju...mili-j01.shtml
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!