Jump to content

Medic Refused Rifle Training


Terse

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You posted that without the slightest idea of the irony within.

And you reveal that you also obviously do not consider the populaces of the countries you helped invade as people.

 

Typical nonsense from you.

 

Of course they are people. Its the enemy combatants I'm more interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...a few years ago people get compensation after being chucked out of the forces for being gay (when they knew it was illegal in the forces according to the small print when they signed up), and now a guy refuses weapons training because he won't fight a particular war (also mentioned in the small print when he joined up).

 

Where is a line to be drawn? Does the small print mean nothing any more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small print or contract mean nothing if it/they infringe your human rights or facilitate an illegal act/s imo.

so the small print is still worth the same, imo

 

He should of joined the Peace Corps or the WHO or any number of organistaions similar in role.

 

He wanted all the benefits of being in the Forces without having to do the hard part....you know its call the Armed Forces for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's made crystal clear what is expected of an army medical officer at initial interview (normally a two day process). The candidate then has a choice whether to proceed or not. If they do and proceed through training to commission then they can't just start getting selective about what they want to do. If he didn't like the sound of his duties, then he should have stayed in civvy life.

 

I decided at the interview stage that it wasn't for me(and no doubt they thought the same...) so all I wasted was two days. This idiot 'took the money' and wasted their time so he deserved what he got.

 

Whilst it troubles me somewhat, I (mostly) agree with MDO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I be wrong in thinking that it might simply be the case that the person had a changed political understanding and thus felt it necessary to refuse on the basis of viewing the conflict as immoral? If so, then I can only commend them for their moral integrity.

 

But this might not be the case. Were they naive in joining up? And to what degree of participation in Afghanistan would they now have. How far removed from the conflict would they need to be for them to feel morally sound? All sounds a bit weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I be wrong in thinking that it might simply be the case that the person had a changed political understanding and thus felt it necessary to refuse on the basis of viewing the conflict as immoral?

 

Yes...

 

 

Were they naive in joining up?

 

And yes...

 

Let's get real. How much call do you think there is for a medic in the Submarine Service?

 

Let's hazard a guess here - not a lot.

 

When you sign up you know the government of the day have the right to put you in harms way. But you don't actually expect them to call your bluff. But guess what? They can and they do. And they did and matey-boy decided that he didn't like the idea of being shot at whilst trying to save the lives of his comrades who were hurting and bleeding and dying and relying on him to save them.

 

Good riddance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...