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.
Options
More than 1,000 soldiers desert since beginning of Iraq war
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5024104.stmMore than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted since the start of the Iraq war, the BBC has learned.
Figures for those still missing are 86 from 2001, 118 from 2002, 134 from 2003, 229 from 2004, 377 from 2005, and 189 for this year so far.
The news comes as Parliament debates a law that will forbid military personnel from refusing to participate in the occupation of a foreign country.
Although small when you consider the total number of people in service, the figures should certainly make worrying reading for army and government bosses.
The question is: are these people motivated by fear or do they do it out of what they see as justified, rightful moral opposition?
Interesting that the government is trying to introduce a bill to ban soldiers from refusing to participate in foreign conflicts.
Afraid soldiers might develop a conscience? :chin:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
As for the military. If they run away out of fear, I cannot condemn them. Faced with suicide bombers, and people who want me dead, would I desert? You're damn right I would. To those of us sitting here typing at our computers and our laptops - those like me with no military experience cannot preach at the brave men and women in our armed forces.
But most probably deserted for the same reasons they were doing before the war, they couldn't hack soldiering, girlfriend decided to shag another bloke, got into trouble and decide not to face the music etc.
And I'm slightly bemused by this
Funnily enough the British Army has that one well covered already. Given that with the exception of counter-terrorism in Ireland the last time the British Army fought in the UK was at Culloden are you suggesting that British troop could have refused every conflict since?
If you're told to go to Greenland to fight the eskimos off you go - there's no rule law which says you can go to your CO and request time off because its abroad.
So long as we never again campaign or try to prosecute foreign soldiers for war crimes... at the end of the day they would only be doing their job and they would not have been allowed to refuse- just as we're asking our own soldiers to do.
That's already covered as this man found out to his cost
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4905672.stm
And the ins and outs of it are pretty well covered in this thread
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?t=97595
Since the signing of the Geneva Convention the British Government has bever sought to prosecute enemy soldiers for taking part in an illegal war, whether that was German infantrymen who took part in the invasion of Poland or Iraqis who invaded Kuwait. All have been treated as PWs and sent home after the conflict was finished.
Nor did they take any action against the German court martial boards or German military police who executed German deserters, taking the view that they were taking perfectly legal actions.
What they did do was take action against the senior military and political leadership for waging an illegal war. That would be covered 'Jus ad Bellum' (the right to war ) ie waging a war of agression. Nuremberg and its ancilliaries made clear that soldiers below the top-level decision making structure can not be held accountable for that.
They also took actions against those who had committed crimes in war 'Jus in Bello' (laws in war), ie actions in contravention of the laws, norms and convention of war. For example, Several Germans were executed or served long terms of imprisonment for the execution of escaping prisoners from Stalag Luft III
Nothing in the Bill is a defence of war crimes. You shoot prisoners and the defence my CO told me to do so, won't work. Illegal orders remain illegal orders. So if someone shoots British PWs, tortures them etc I think the British Government remains quiet justified in demanding their prosecution.
:eek2: :shocking:
A brainwashed murderer.
Desertion is a final desperate mesure when they just can't take it anymore. Anymore of this shit.
If it keeps up and gets worse, we could have a VERY, VERY bad situations here where the Soldiers turn on the government... revolt... revolutions comes this way.
Something better change fast.
Either way. My mate is off to war next year, Afghanistan. Poor sod, hope he gets on fine.
Thus, there is no rule of law, only might makes right. Be prepared for the repercussions when another power or powers ascend to bump us from our lofty perch in the constellation of nations. They will have our example to point to when our governments and citizenries wail and gnash at being on the receiving end.
It will, however, be interesting to see how heroic those of other nations are held in our esteem should they refuse THEIR taskmasters on moral principle and refuse to be party to illegal invasion and occupation.
[edited to add: I DO take issue with those who lazily presume that signing up for the armed services is a declaration of intent to participate in acts of aggression against whatever foreign nation our leaders decide they wish to attack.
The only legitimate purpose for the armed services of any nation is to protect the home soil of the nation itself in the face of clear and conspicuous attack or declaration of war from abroad. It is for that purpose only that soldiers rightly are assembled and subjected to command.
To insist they must acquiesce to killing and dying to further whatever globalist hegemonic aspirations happen to be the fashion of the moment is to disgrace the character of the armed services and reduce them to nothing more than a mindless squad of thugs serving an organised crime syndicate which dares call itself a democratically representative government.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/05/uk-bbc-fabricates-army-desertion-story.html
I agree with you, though. If soldiers become vocal and start asking questions about why they were sent to certain places, the Government would have far more trouble getting away with illegal wars. Iraq, anyone?
But one thing that is drummed into us is civilian primacy. The army obeys the will of the democratically elected Government, and call me old fashioned, but I much prefer it that way.
ROFL, I trust someones blog, yeah, right.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0CE499B2-84DE-42FE-BA8D-025F17AD5927.htm
Al Jazeera back it up. So ner.
Because they're all commie scum trying to fool us all. DUH.
The Flt Lt. has, in legal terms it would appear disobeyed orders as UK military law defines and constructs it, therefore owing to that then he has received the punishment for such transgressance under that structure. This isn't a justification, merely a statement of how the situation IS.
Whether this OUGHT to be the case is another matter, my personal view is that this war is a complete obscenity, a distorted, turgid and ill-considered neo-collonialist project which has achieved precious little in terms of the condition of Iraqi people.
So, whilst I might support the actions of the Flt Lt. as being morally justified, I accept that in making this protest he shall suffer the structural consequences of his action.
Paradoxically, I would infer that NQA's point about civillian primacy. If members of the armed forces submit to this principal in service of the democratically elected government, it then falls upon the civillian population to uphold a reciprochal duty of care to those people, in that we as the civillian electorate must combat and oppose the wasteful and immoral usage of British military personal. As they sacrafice personal freedoms in service of their country, so must those who retain those freedoms excercise our own to safeguard the wellbeing of service personel to the best of our abilities.
'Lets see no news today, I know lets dig up the old video of some RM's hitting each other with roll mats or what about that video of recruits going through the gas chamber.Then all we need to do is call it bullying and 'mention deepcut' that will do'. They should stick all their heads on spikes on the tower of London.
Britain can be proud of a lot of things, the army certainly isn't one of those things.
Erm, the British army is arguably the finest and one of the most powerful forces in the world, with a long and proud history. Yes, we should all be very proud of them.
That;s those still missing - gradually people get caught or decide to give themselves in - so its no suprise the figures seem to be increasing. Its very hard to claim benefits or use your NI number if you're on the run.
Against that one gets the feeling that the RMP doesn't always try that hard to find deserters most of whom are shacked up with their girlfriends.
This may be anecdotal but during the 70's the Irish Guards were posted in Cyprus and were challenged to a game of football by an battalion from the Irish army who were there with the UN.
At half time the adjutant of the IG spoke to his opposite number and explained that the goalie of the Irish Army team was a deserter from the IG. The Irish Army officer then pointed out that the Irish Guards strikers were deserters from the Irish Army.
Both decided it was best to let sleeping dogs lie in this case.