Your Country Needs YOU!

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Less

How dare you come on here being so patronising? A little too young to understand? and yet it's his generation that you expect to go out there and perhaps die for your beliefs?

Why not nip over here and cover him in white feathers for being a coward?

Perhaps it's because he appreciates the many sacrifices made by those who served his Country that make him think that this is an unjust war?

I may not agree completely with all that he has said in fact in places I feel he is wide of the mark, but he, thanks to the many sacrifices of young men from other generations is free to express his feelings about this particular conflict. That does not mean that he or many other young men would not be prepared to defend his family and friends if the need arose. However I would deeply regret that if or when that need should arise he and others would just go blindly like lambs to the slaughter because you and others banged some form of patriotic drum and forced him to!


Excuse me are you re-writing History here? the U.S. didn't do it alone in 1991, they had other countries around at the time helping them, just as, in case you haven't noticed they have now!

Our armed forces are out there dying alongside your armed forces, these young men are doing their duty, they are not on some sort of picnic.

Please in future, do not talk to our young men in this manner, (talk to your own as if they are stupid if you wish), treat ours with respect. If the need ever arises they will do what is right.

I would prefer that our troops weren't there, I think this whole thing has turned into a complete shambles and wish we could withdraw before anymore of them have to be returned to this country in a wooden box.
But, because they are out there then it should be the highest priority that they are not only equipped with every means with which to protect themselves but that any short fall in necessary personnel be made up but only from volunteers that go there equipped with the best tools for the job. That can only be done by being honest with them at all points and not trying to fool them with some mis-guided form of patriotism.

SamF can say anything he wants to. And since military service is voluntary, he is not obliged to sign up. That is his right and I have called no-one a coward for having that point of view - so knock it off, Less. I apologize if you thought my remark patronizing. It certainly wasn't meant to be.

I do, of course, realize that there are many other countries involved in Iraq, including your own. Such was the case in 1991. However, you cannot deny that the U.S. supplies the bulk of the forces. I also would prefer that our troops not be in combat. No-one likes war - least of all the military personnel themselves. The best way to avoid such conflicts is to seed as many democracies as we can.

[bullseyebarb]

[quote=jambutty] From what I have heard recently bullseyebarb the bulk of the new recruits to the USA armed forces are men and women at the bottom of the ladder with little or no hope of attaining a decent life.
So the truth hurts then? quote)

You are misinformed, jambutty. As a recent independent study shows, the men and women of the U.S. armed forces are educated and well trained. You cannot be a dolt in today's military because it's so highly technical. Members of the military are not hopeless souls with no chance of attaining a decent life. So, as Less would say, stop insulting our young men and women. In my own community we have a National Guard unit which returned from Iraq several months ago. These are my neighbors. Very bright individuals. Doctors, small business people, teachers, lawyers, truck drivers, engineers, etc., They already have a decent life, yet these good folks volunteer for duty because they love their country.

And, yes, the media has done a lousy job!

If America went to war for land and oil, etc., then where the hell are they? Pardon me, but I believe Great Britain is the country that had the largest Empire ever known.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Neil

Very true, America supplied guns to both Iraq and the IRA.

We supplied satellite intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war. The American Irish raised cash to supply the IRA with weapons.

[jambutty]

The best way to avoid such conflicts is to seed as many democracies as we can.

Who is America to say that country so and so should have a democracy bullseyebarb?

The best way to avoid military conflicts is to allow countries to govern themselves in their own way and not try to impose the “western” way. Then do honest trade with them without strings. Sadly America wants the cake and the halfpenny and tried to use muscle to get it.

If America went to war for land and oil, etc., then where the hell are they?

I never mentioned land. There are warlords and dictators in Africa with millions being starved but no oil or gas in their land. I don’t see America going in to impose a democracy.

Pardon me, but I believe Great Britain is the country that had the largest Empire ever known.

The operative word there is HAD. But we weren’t the only nation to boast of an empire. France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands and Belgium are a few that spring to mind.

You don’t have to look very hard to find skeletons in every country’s cupboard.

[Less]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

SamF can say anything he wants to. And since military service is voluntary, he is not obliged to sign up. That is his right and I have called no-one a coward for having that point of view - so knock it off, Less. I apologize if you thought my remark patronizing. It certainly wasn't meant to be.

I do, of course, realize that there are many other countries involved in Iraq, including your own. Such was the case in 1991. However, you cannot deny that the U.S. supplies the bulk of the forces. I also would prefer that our troops not be in combat. No-one likes war - least of all the military personnel themselves. The best way to avoid such conflicts is to seed as many democracies as we can.

How am I to answer you if I 'knock it off?' Your remark was patronising, your remarks are still, 'patronising!'.
I find most of what you say to be jingoistic (in favour of the good old U.S of A. of course) and patronising, I only refrained from answering you yesterday because I want the words I use to be in English rather than Anglo-Saxon.

You attempted to twist my words by accusing me of quoting you of calling Samf a coward, in future, read my words carefully or I will no longer be as friendly as I am. My suggestion was:-

Why not nip over here and cover him in white feathers for being a coward?

No way, (bad English must be the Yankee influence), did I say you said he is a coward!

If America's concerns for Iraq are as altruistic as you claim then it doesn't matter if America supplies a million troops and Briton only supplies one! They are supposed to be there helping that country so butt out with the childish, 'we contribute more than you do so there', sentiments (unless you perhaps are thinking in investment terms, we put more in so therefore we deserve more out?).

Every post after the one telling me to

knock it off

has been explaining what you mean instead of what you said, so, will you please in future say what you mean, (English, English being the preferred language on here, (and the plainer the better)), then you won't have to keep explaining what you didn't mean to say in the first place!

Do you perhaps feel that I am being a little over critical? Well guess what? That is the way you have always come across to me and a few others, you are lucky enough to live in the 'Land of the Free', I happen to post on a site where I can say, "knock it off, your form of freedom is killing people!"

The above statement is not how I view the majority of Americans, the few of them that I have met have always been polite and curtious no matter what the name of the Country they have invaded!

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Pardon me, but I believe Great Britain is the country that had the largest Empire ever known.

That may well be but it was some time ago and, whatever its good points and bad points, you can hardly regard it as the responsibility of present-day Britons. Would you like me to start berating you for your country's past treatment of American Indians? You might also care to reflect on the fact that if Great Britain had not decided to expand its empire by colonising North America, you probably would not be sitting here today bombarding us at regular intervals with your pro-Bush propaganda.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I have a cousin and several friends in the USA. recently their emails all seem to have this same post-script tagged on the end:

Q. What do Jesus and an American GI have in common?
A. They are the only people willing to lay down ther lives to save yours.

Pulleeze!

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Firing a gun as a member of the armed forces does not make you a murderer.

Try telling that to the soldiers who faced a court martial in N. Ireland for opening fire on possible IRA terrorists who drove straight through a checkpoint when challenged to stop. Or to the East German soldiers who were ordered to open fire on anyone trying to escape to the west. Or to a firing squad in WWI whose members had to shoot one of their comrades for 'cowardice' when they were suffering a nervous breakdown from the horrors they had endured.

[jambutty]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one WillowTheWhisp but any soldier carrying out legitimate orders should not be charged with murder. The officer issuing the orders – maybe, if it can be shown that the orders were unlawful.

As for the NI incident, wasn’t the car full of teenagers and all they did wrong was drive through a checkpoint instead of stopping. It was assumed by the army patrol that they were terrorists because they drove through the checkpoint so they opened fire. Thus they killed without just cause and were, quite rightly, court martialled for doing so.

The East German soldiers were under orders to open fire on all escapees.

Any members of any of the WWI firing squads were under orders from an officer on the instruction of a court martial. However it was argued that some of these courts martial were not legally convened or conducted within the KG & AI of the day. But I do not recall any such firing squad member being charged with murder.

Some officers took it upon themselves to shoot a soldier for refusing to obey orders in a time of war. But few if any were charged with murder, although they should have been. At the time the Kings Regulations and Army Instructions did not give an officer the authority to shoot and kill a soldier for disobeying orders. Only to arrest them and return them to head quarters for a court martial.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by jambutty

As for the NI incident, wasn’t the car full of teenagers and all they did wrong was drive through a checkpoint instead of stopping. It was assumed by the army patrol that they were terrorists because they drove through the checkpoint so they opened fire. Thus they killed without just cause and were, quite rightly, court martialled for doing so.

How were the soldiers to know that the teenagers didn't have bombs? Younger kids than them used weapons on a daily basis. Those teenagers were at fault for drivng through the check point without stopping. They knew they were supposed to stop. They knew they ran the danger of being fired upon if they didn't stop. They lived with that siuation 24/7 yet they chose to be defiant.

Perhaps that in itself showed that they supported the 'terrorist' cause.The soldiers were carrying out orders. Their orders were to shoot suspected terrorists if they did not stop when challenged to do so. If they had just let them drive through and they had turned out to be terrorists with bombs wouldn't the soldiers have then been court martialled for disobeying orders? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Life isn't so crystal clear in the modern army. "I was just following orders" is not apparently a legitimate excuse at any more.

[jambutty]

That is the dilemma that all checkpoint soldiers face WillowTheWhisp.

However the point is they were under orders to stop all traffic through the checkpoint but did those orders include shoot to kill any that didn’t stop? I guess we shall never know without access to the court martial documents.

As I said we shall just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[SamF]

Legally not murder... morally is a different matter IMO.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by SamF

Legally not murder... morally is a different matter IMO.

Morally if some fruitcake is going to attack me and I have a gun in my hands I'll shoot him

[WillowTheWhisp]

Somebody attacking you or your family is not quite the same as having to shoot somebody in cold blood and the three very different cases I described the people shot were unnarmed. I'd find it an impossible task. If someone was attacking my kids on the other hand I'd fight them off with my bare hands.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Somebody attacking you or your family is not quite the same as having to shoot somebody in cold blood and the three very different cases I described the people shot were unnarmed. I'd find it an impossible task. If someone was attacking my kids on the other hand I'd fight them off with my bare hands.

Two of those cases were technically self defence. If they hadn't shot who they were ordered to shoot they would have been shot themselves.

[Bazf]

Perhaps that in itself showed that they supported the 'terrorist' cause.The soldiers were carrying out orders. Their orders were to shoot suspected terrorists if they did not stop when challenged to do so. If they had just let them drive through and they had turned out to be terrorists with bombs wouldn't the soldiers have then been court martialled for disobeying orders? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Life isn't so crystal clear in the modern army. "I was just following orders" is not apparently a legitimate excuse at any more.

The critical advice and direction which the soldier on the ground needs is clear 'Rules of Engagement', telling him in what circumstances he can open fire. Without such unambiguous rules, his position becomes almost impossible. In Northern Ireland, every British soldier was required to carry a card – known as the Yellow Card - which spelt out precisely the circumstances in which he could open fire. Failure to abide by the rules of the Card laid the individual open to prosecution in the civil courts. Discipline and leadership are the key. If the command chain turns a blind eye to infringements, all is lost. At every level, an understanding of the importance of obeying the rule of law must be instinctive.

In the case of a soldier in Northern Ireland, in the circumstances in which Private Clegg found himself, there is no scope for graduated force. The only choice lay between firing a high-velocity rifle which, if aimed accurately, was almost certain to kill or injure, and doing nothing at all.
One interpretation would be that when a goverment deploys highly-armed soldiers, equipped and trained to kill, in a civilian area, the law must give the armed forces greater licence to kill than would be granted to any other person including, presumably, a less lethally-equipped police officer. In the event, Private Clegg was convicted of murder. He had been on patrol to catch joyriders, and fired three shots at the windscreen of a speeding car as it approached the checkpoint. He fired a fourth shot, killing a passenger, after the car had passed him and was speeding away. The first three shots were fired in self-defence, or in defence of fellow soldiers, but the fourth shot was not a response to imminent danger. The judge dismissed the evidence of bruising to a fellow soldier's leg as a fabrication to suggest injury to that soldier from the car. The Lords observed that army Rules of engagement given to every soldier on a "yellow card" entitled "instructions for opening fire in Northern Ireland" could, on a literal reading, justify firing on a car where a person had been injured by it, irrespective of the seriousness of the injury. But, in any event, the Lords said that the card had no legal force because English law does not have a general defence of superior orders.