"your Country Needs You", But For How Long?

[Albert Tatlock]

[LoneWolf]

Wrong again. You cannot go on Active Service until you are 18.

Things may have changed but I was 17.

I think anyhow all this has strayed a little from the point. "Lovenotfear" had implied young people are being conned into joining the services. The jist of the argument was potential servicemen were not made aware of the risks to health involved in prolonged exposure to stressful situations such as those in Iraq.

I would argue this is not the case. I never met anyone during my 20 years who was not fully aware of the possible consequences of prolonged action.

Regarding your slight difference of opinion with Albert .. you are obviously correct.

[Albert Tatlock]

Wrong again. You cannot go on Active Service until you are 18.

Things may have changed but I was 17.

I think anyhow all this has strayed a little from the point. "Lovenotfear" had implied young people are being conned into joining the services. The jist of the argument was potential servicemen were not made aware of the risks to health involved in prolonged exposure to stressful situations such as those in Iraq.

I would argue this is not the case. I never met anyone during my 20 years who was not fully aware of the possible consequences of prolonged action.

Regarding your slight difference of opinion with Albert .. you are obviously correct.

Er...I wasn't arguing about that. I meant, as resonsible voters we have a responsibility to speak out for people in the forces, including 16 and 17 yr olds who might be there in the next two years. Can you please READ my posts before you fire off these comments.

[LoneWolf]

Er...I wasn't arguing about that. I meant, as resonsible voters we have a responsibility to speak out for people in the forces, including 16 and 17 yr olds who might be there in the next two years. Can you please READ my posts before you fire off these comments.

 

Albert, I have not responded to your post at all. I have responded to PK and to Lovenotfear's argument which started the thread.

I cannot, with the best will in the world, see how you could possibly imagine I have "fired off " any comments in your direction.

Could you please READ my posts before firing off these comments B)

The situation is now about to change. [this next bit is directed at you ]

For what it is worth, and as I pointed out to PK, totally unrelated to the argument put forward by Lovenotfear, PK obviously knows what he is talking about and Im afraid you little discourse with him was some way off the mark. This is no more than an observation based on my own experience. Not in any way related to the main body of the thread of course.

[Albert Tatlock]

Er...I wasn't arguing about that. I meant, as resonsible voters we have a responsibility to speak out for people in the forces, including 16 and 17 yr olds who might be there in the next two years. Can you please READ my posts before you fire off these comments.

 

Albert, I have not responded to your post at all. I have responded to PK and to Lovenotfear's argument which started the thread.

I cannot, with the best will in the world, see how you could possibly imagine I have "fired off " any comments in your direction.

Could you please READ my posts before firing off these comments B)

The situation is now about to change. [this next bit is directed at you ]

For what it is worth, and as I pointed out to PK, totally unrelated to the argument put forward by Lovenotfear, PK obviously knows what he is talking about and Im afraid you little discourse with him was some way off the mark. This is no more than an observation based on my own experience. Not in any way related to the main body of the thread of course.

Disagree - I did nine years in the forces. I am fed up with PK's 'gung ho!' attitude - it is far more complicated than that. Sorry, but IHMO, PK might 'know' what he is talking about but has little understanding of what he actually says and gives it little analysis. Obviously PK is an ex-grunt.

[LoneWolf]

Disagree - I did nine years in the forces. I am fed up with PK's 'gung ho!' attitude - it is far more complicated than that. Sorry, but IHMO, PK might 'know' what he is talking about but has little understanding of what he actually says and gives it little analysis. Obviously PK is an ex-grunt.

Well we will have to agree to disagree about that one.

[Albert Tatlock]

Disagree - I did nine years in the forces. I am fed up with PK's 'gung ho!' attitude - it is far more complicated than that. Sorry, but IHMO, PK might 'know' what he is talking about but has little understanding of what he actually says and gives it little analysis. Obviously PK is an ex-grunt.

Well we will have to agree to disagree about that one.

Well, let's summarise:

 

1. The point of the thread (raised by Lovenotfear) was about the Scotsmans article about people NOT joining the forces and the forces tighting up on AWOL etc.

2. Lovenotfear then posted about the mental health problems soldiers etc. face...and you posted about the events you experienced.

 

In response to my posts...

 

3. PK said - it wasn't true that Tony Blair had attended funerals etc. - when he hasn't.

4. PK said not counting the dead in Iraq was OK - failing to understand the implications of desentising the general public and (though not said but which I implied) the implications of (keeping things back) and desentising soldiers and those wishing to join.

5. PK demonstrated he does not understand what the 'honesty and integrity' of the forces actually means - and how this can be abused by a government. FFS!

6. PK diverts the arguement from the responsibility of governments to obey the law (national and international law) - and turns this into the point that 16 year olds who 'cannot go on active service', when no-one would disagree with that. What a Flanker!

7. PK infers 'orders are orders' - which they are when you have signed up - but misses the point that it is ourselves (as general public voters) that empower governments to make these decisions. He also misses the point that there are lawful and 'unlawful' orders.

 

I know when you sign up you sign away your say. I also know when you work for the MoD etc. afterwards you also sign away your say. You'll never find a 'whistleblower' in the MoD.

 

Sorry...but I still think PK's an arse - and needs to engage brain before keyboard fingers.

 

My point is that governments should obey national and internationa law and that then we would have no problem with recruitment.

[P.K.]

Disagree - I did nine years in the forces. I am fed up with PK's 'gung ho!' attitude - it is far more complicated than that. Sorry, but IHMO, PK might 'know' what he is talking about but has little understanding of what he actually says and gives it little analysis. Obviously PK is an ex-grunt.

After nine years in the forces you MUST know that there is nothing "gung ho!" about obeying orders.

 

If you start to moralise about the relationship between the Armed Forces and it's political masters then yes I can see how you can think it is a complicated situation. However you should maybe spare a thought for those who just accepted the status quo and got on with it not only to the best of their ability but also who took pride in what they achieved. Not brainwashed by the way nor led like sheep. Just young men doing something they signed up for and trained so hard for. I suspect also those least affected by it.

 

Wednesday night post, sorry.

[Albert Tatlock]

Edited

[LoneWolf]

My point is that they should not be required to act on behalf of a government that breaches national and international law. They can (and should) do nothing about that - but we can, and should. That's my understanding of our democracy.

Its a moot point as to whether service people should or should not be required to undertake one task or another. We could not allow a situation, for example, where individuals could be allowed the right to opt out of particular conflicts because their judgement of the situation differed to that of the politicians of the day.

You will, no doubt, appreciate servicemen have political beliefs too !

I dont agree with your assertion that ex servicemen have difficulty realizing they are entitled to an opinion after they leave the service. Furthermore, it was my experience that most servicemen were strongly opinionated during their service ! Life in the services is a disciplined one and most people learn how to place their opinions in context .. given they have freely entered into a contract. In 20 years I never once witnessed any restriction on individuals expressing their opinions on any legitimate subject provided the time and place were appropriate. On the contrary, the occasional leadership training courses provided for servicemen actively encouraged people to express their opinions.

Im also not convinced you have gauged an accurate appreciation of the way Brit democracy works.

We have a parliament system. Not rule by mob. The fact is, and notwithstanding the right to demonstrate, which our armed forces have stoutly defended over many years [ had to get that one in !], British people only have the opportunity to do something, as you put it, when there is an election.

Servicemen have a vote as well. So there you are

[Albert Tatlock]

My point is that they should not be required to act on behalf of a government that breaches national and international law. They can (and should) do nothing about that - but we can, and should. That's my understanding of our democracy.

Its a moot point as to whether service people should or should not be required to undertake one task or another. We could not allow a situation, for example, where individuals could be allowed the right to opt out of particular conflicts because their judgement of the situation differed to that of the politicians of the day.

You will, no doubt, appreciate servicemen have political beliefs too !

I dont agree with your assertion that ex servicemen have difficulty realizing they are entitled to an opinion after they leave the service. Furthermore, it was my experience that most servicemen were strongly opinionated during their service ! Life in the services is a disciplined one and most people learn how to place their opinions in context .. given they have freely entered into a contract. In 20 years I never once witnessed any restriction on individuals expressing their opinions on any legitimate subject provided the time and place were appropriate. On the contrary, the occasional leadership training courses provided for servicemen actively encouraged people to express their opinions.

Im also not convinced you have gauged an accurate appreciation of the way Brit democracy works.

We have a parliament system. Not rule by mob. The fact is, and notwithstanding the right to demonstrate, which our armed forces have stoutly defended over many years [ had to get that one in !], British people only have the opportunity to do something, as you put it, when there is an election.

Servicemen have a vote as well. So there you are

Of course servicemen have political beliefs - but they have to be discouraged as otherwise there would be chaos. You are right - it is about discipline - that's what makes a serviceman a serviceman - that ability to put the needs of the services before their own version of reality. Servicemen don't generally express political views (and should be discouraged as a result of signing up or working for the system afterwards) so the need should never arise (and never did in my experience). Leadership courses in the services are nothing to do with political opinions and shouldn't be.

 

All I am saying is that when you sign up your honour and integrity on the dotted line it should be protected at all costs - first by your own government and then by the people that elect them i.e. the rest of us, on whose behalf you are put your life on the line. It's because this government has f**ked up, that is why there is such a level of debate in this country as never before.

 

All I am saying is that as ex-servicemen with an understanding of the system and the people in it - we should now feel free to say what we think when the government of the day is doing wrongly - in the present.

 

These guys have f**ked up big style and are using the media to cover it up.

[P.K.]

I dont agree with your assertion that ex servicemen have difficulty realizing they are entitled to an opinion after they leave the service. Furthermore, it was my experience that most servicemen were strongly opinionated during their service ! Life in the services is a disciplined one and most people learn how to place their opinions in context .. given they have freely entered into a contract.

Thank you for putting it so well. The notion that any ex-services somehow feels they cannot switch off from supporting the institution and does not feel they can express their disagreement with the government of the day via the ballot box is misconceived to say the least, IMHO of course.

 

As to breaching International Law I go back to my point earlier that independant states have no obligation to obey laws passed by other countries. Because "independant" states means just that. At the end of the day in a lot of countries power still comes from the capabilities of their military. So if the UN orders them to do something (for example like giving up developing WMD that they have already used on their neighbours and ethnic minorities with devastating effect) and they refuse to do it then the military option is the only way forward to solve the obvious problem.

 

Welcome to Planet Earth. It's where I live...

[Albert Tatlock]

I dont agree with your assertion that ex servicemen have difficulty realizing they are entitled to an opinion after they leave the service. Furthermore, it was my experience that most servicemen were strongly opinionated during their service ! Life in the services is a disciplined one and most people learn how to place their opinions in context .. given they have freely entered into a contract.

Thank you for putting it so well. (1.) The notion that any ex-services somehow feels they cannot switch off from supporting the institution and does not feel they can express their disagreement with the government of the day via the ballot box is misconceived to say the least, IMHO of course.

 

As to breaching International Law I go back to my point earlier that (2.) independant states have no obligation to obey laws passed by other countries. Because "independant" states means just that. At the end of the day in a lot of countries power still comes from the capabilities of their military. So if the UN orders them to do something (for example like giving up developing WMD that they have already used on their neighbours and ethnic minorities with devastating effect) and they refuse to do it then the military option is the only way forward to solve the obvious problem.

 

Welcome to (3.) Planet Earth. It's where I live...

(1.) You obviously haven't. Look at your first posts.

 

(2.) You want a what what with a what what? You are arguing for nationalism - which suggests you think just because one state thinks it has it right to do something the UN is wrong. Where will that get us all?

 

(3.) It might be planet Earth you live on - but try standing in a bucket of the s**t you are speaking - you might just evolve a bit quicker - No offence intended of course

[LoneWolf]

Of course servicemen have political beliefs - but they have to be discouraged as otherwise there would be chaos.

Albert, I have never once heard anyone express the opinion that servicemen's political beliefs should be discouraged.

You are right - it is about discipline - that's what makes a serviceman a serviceman - that ability to put the needs of the services before their own version of reality.

Exactly the case and little different to that of the civil service for example.

Leadership courses in the services are nothing to do with political opinions and shouldn't be.

Every course I attended during my service contained a component in which individuals were actively encouraged to articulate their beliefs and explain how they might be reconciled to service life.

All I am saying is that as ex-servicemen with an understanding of the system and the people in it - we should now feel free to say what we think when the government of the day is doing wrongly - in the present.

These guys have f**ked up big style and are using the media to cover it up.

Governments always mess up somewhere along the line and I dont disagree with you on this one.

[P.K.]

(1.) The notion that any ex-services somehow feels they cannot switch off from supporting the institution and does not feel they can express their disagreement with the government of the day via the ballot box is misconceived to say the least, IMHO of course.

(1.) You obviously haven't. Look at your first posts.

I can take pride in an institution that it is fashionable to knock and still be subjective about the government of the day i.e. I'm something of a pragmatist. You don't think that I am then fine, I can live with that.

 

(2.) independant states have no obligation to obey laws passed by other countries

(2.) You want a what what with a what what? You are arguing for nationalism - which suggests you think just because one state thinks it has it right to do something the UN is wrong. Where will that get us all?

Total tosh. I can understand why someone like Saddam thinks he can invade Iran and then Kuwait. Simple really, he thought his military muscle would be enough and the West would not react. I'm not arguing for nationalism at all but to ignore the reality of the situation, which is why you have a military in the first place, really is foolish.

 

(3.)Welcome to Planet Earth. It's where I live...

(3.) It might be planet Earth you live on - but try standing in a bucket of the s**t you are speaking - you might just evolve a bit quicker - No offence intended of course

IMHO an excellent thread with some very interesting differences of opinion. A shame it has degenerated to the usual personal attacks. Oh well, fire with fire.

 

Rather a grunt than a crab...