If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
As most have said, only in defence of loved ones. I'm certainly not going to go over to the home of someone whose done nothing to me and kill them.
The military, especially the army, is all about displine and killing.
You go into the military and its a 'do as your told'. There is no 'only for immediate defence of the country', there is no 'well if its morally acceptable with tons of evidence and reasoning'. You go in, you do as your told. The squaddies do what there sergent says, the sergent does what his CO says and so on up the chain.
Being in the amry you are taught kill. Pure and simple. The police defend the day to day folk, they apprehend criminals and uphold the law. The army is trained and used to kill people and to defend areas deemed of strateic value.
All this stuff linking this to Iraq is mute point, even more so since there is no draft and won't be for this conflict.
How about if your officers turns out to be a sadistic lunatic who wants you to walk into a village and machine gun every innocent person there (as indeed happened in Vietnam)?
Would you obey such orders?
I was just saying what the nature of the military is. You do as your told. If you join, you are gonna get sent to fight, you don't do cozy training exeriese int he moors forever.
Thats what i mean about Iraq, all these famiulies complaing about how their child is dead.
and I don't mean to be callous and yes its sad and tragic but there wasn't a draft.
These soilders willing joined up, knowing they could be sent to war. They accpeted that. You can't complain when it happens, death is the risk you take.
Nobody told them that part of the job might also entitle being shipped to nations thousands of miles away to fight pointless and illegal wars for the sole reason that our Prime Minister is sexually attracted to the US President (or whatever it is that makes Blair such willing slave of the Americans).
Perhaps they should update their contract and conditions to reflect this, so would-be soldiers know exactly what they will be giving their lives for.
The usual anti-americanims, anti-government, propaganda lies as usual!
You sing up tot the military to do as you are told. Nothing else. Defending the countries interest is the job. You are sent out to KILL. Your not there to catch crims or stop muggers, you don't patrol the UK streets. That is the police's job.
You go out to kill who you are told to kill. You defend yoursefl and your colleagues with your life and weapons.
Iraq serves as defending the nations interests anyway.
Its exactly int he remit of the solider's duty.
You cannot cherry pick the wars you do and don't wanna take part in.
And its not like this is the nazi's either. Hardly making a holocuast and if you say we are that proves how little you know.
What 'lies'? Are you still under the deluded illusion that the war was legal?
Please, join the real world when you're ready...
Funnily enough that's exactly what the UK soldiers are doing in Iraq... patrolling the streets and 'keeping law and order' (LOL).
No it doesn't. When you commit illegal actions and anger 2 billion poeple for no good reason whatsoever, you're not doing much of a service to this country. As the families of 52 dead London commuters could tell you.
I would die to secure a safer world for my children (but not in an army)...
I am not repeating myself again aladdin. If it makes you feel big to lay down some insutls, fair enough.
Yes thats what they are doing, since Iraq lost its army and police force and had to built up again so who had to fill in the job? :rolleyes:
That is not the primary aim of the army though :rolleyes:
Yes the families of the 52 dead london commuters really blame Iraq for it. That really is sick, using the death of those innocent people to make a comeback ina debate. Talk to them all did we? Have their permissiont to say that on there behalf do you?
yes, we really angered them by helping them out when russia invaded eh? :rolleyes:
That is such a misconception.
The army does do some peace ekeping, though not the nations amry, peace keeping is doen by peace keeprs sent by the uni, not the paprs or marines, except after immediate conflicts.
the army helps out in rescue missions yes and the do lend a hand.
There job is not to rebuild war torn countries at all. They protect their contries interest and themselves, sometimes the natives of that country to.
If they expected this to be tiehr mian ob they were naive. The army is job is to be an offensive and defenisve unit for the interests of the cuntry ordered by the superiors in chain command.
So they are already departing from the only job you claim soldiers ought to do. Make your mind up.
I saw enough interviews on TV and newspapers, yes.
And of course there also the video testimony of the bombers themselves :rolleyes:
What do you think they did it then? :rolleyes:
To be fair no-one told my uncle he'd be patrolling the backstreets of a British city, or me that I'd be standing outside a small hamlet in Bosnia trying to hold back a mob intent on murder, or my great uncle that he'd be splashing away from a French beach trying to find find his men a boat to get them back to Britain.
In the end as professionals we went where we were told to go, did the job and sometimes came home and sometimes ended in that foreign field. Soldiers are servants of the democratic government - if the government decides to send them somewhere, for whatever reason, off the army troop.
If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined.
At last!!!!
Someone that speaks sense!!!
Sir, I shake your hand and salute you.
Theres a lot of talk about honour and protection but it's yet more bullshit to hide what's going on.
Murderers without conscience and quite evil the lot of them.
A bit harsh calling them murderes and evil but yes it is essentially true.
They are legally sanctioned killers. Its their job.
There is however no justification, reason or standing, moral, legal or otherwise, for the British government to have attacked, invaded and occupied the sovereign nation of Iraq in the way it did.
I have all the sympathy in the world for the army doctor who who refused to go to Iraq and is now being court martialled for it. If only others had summed up his courage...
Yes, lets see the british govenour lording it over a Iraq with our permant bases and set up for rule going.
oh right there isn't one.
Good reason or no (and we disagree on this) we're part of a democratic country. If a soldier decides he's not going to follow his lawful orders* he's actually standing against democracy. And in the end democracies rely on the fact that soldiers obey whether they personally agree with it or not... otherwise you don't have a democracy, but a military dictatorship.
Now I'm not saying there's no time when you shouldn't refuse to obey, for example if the a democratically elected Government decided to order the army to round up and kill all Moslems.
But you need to be damn sure of your ground and be certain that your actions (which may be followed by the rest of the army) are to prevent a greater evil than wrecking democracy.
PS The Doctor's RAF rather than army - explains it all really... :thumb:
* to be a lawful order its irrelevant whether the war is legal or not. Virtually all 'Just War' is aimed at the political and very senior military leadership. It recongises that soldiers do not have the full background and legal experience to make that decision. All as a soldier you are responsible for is 'justice in war' eg you can't go around topping prisoners or burning down villages for fun.
NQA posts utter gibberish about "legal", "democracy" and so on but the real message is that it's fairly difficult to get normal people to do bad things and you have to do a good job of persuasion first.
But it isn't (or at least it certainly shouldn't be) the army's role to further the geopolitical interests of corrupt, oil-obsessed fucks.
yeah, well I'd take the oil crupt fucks over saddam or any dicatorial regime anyday.
Exactly.
The army should be there to protect those who are weak and defenceless, through the UN's human rights programme.
It should not be there to further the economic interests of an undemocratic and corrupt cabal.
Interesting how some people attack Saddam Hussein for killing some Iraqis for geopolitical reasons, but then adore Blair and Bush for blowing the fuck out of 30,000+ Iraqis for, erm, geopolitical reasons.
The UN uses a peace keeping force that are there to protect the inocent, weak and defenceless.
Although if you look back, they haven't done a good job.
But a nations military has no such direct obligations. There primary directive is t take orders and act as a lethal offence and efence of their nation.
Saddam was evry differnt to bush and blair and making that statement above is way to simplistic of the situation.