Soldiers

Wait till the hearing loss claims start because proper ear protection wasn't supplied before bombs were dropped on Baghdad.
Seriously though dose this happen in other countries that were involved in the war.

 

You've actually completely missed the point.

Most soldiers behaved in accordance with British and international standards and, therefore, most soldiers will not face prosecution.

Soldiers aren't facing prosecution for serving in war. They are facing prosecution for war crimes during war.

Remember Abu Grahib? Remember the soldiers urinating on and beating civilians that were being illegally detained? Remember the million plus civillian death toll of the war? Remember the rape and torture?

These are the reasons that some soldiers may face prosecution - because they were out of control and commiting acts that you would [should] deplore, if they were commited on your own civilian family.

And they should absolutely face prosecution for behaving like barbaric animals. I don't want to share my streets with people who are capable of such atrocious acts. Putting on a uniform is not an free pass to behave however you please.

Soldiers are important, that's exactly why we should weed out the ones who abuse their position.

Fun fact, by the way: not a single weapon of mass destruction was found in Iraq. The entire war itself was illegal. I doubt we will see Bush and Blair go up in the Hague for war crimes though. This is probably the reason why soldiers are being prosecuted now - to try and distract attention away from the big boys.

Butthay. Blind patriotism is fun. Just ask the Germans.

 

Welcome FBO!

Great post. Well said.

Apart from the last bit...

Tell me honestly, did you believe there were WMD in Iraq? Y'know, that country wot was run by a psychopath who had used WMD against his own people with hellish consequences, and who was demonstrably trying to develop nuclear weapons? And who played Hans Bix like a fool - holding him off until they'd shifted his labs to a different place before then saying "Ok, then - you can open your eyes..."

And who tried to create a conflagration in the Middle East by firing Scud missiles into Israel to try and provoke a mass war?

The loon who would stop at nothing.

Even Joshua Rosenberg declared the war was 'legal' - you know better than him?


The bottom line was, however, Blair didn't want a war at all - he wanted a united UN with the balls to threaten - and that would almost certainly have been enough (as it had in the Balkans and SL)

But, no - the UN (and Jacques Ch'Iraq) got cold feet. Most likely for their own political reasons.

Don't judge the 'legality' of a war by its unfortunate outcome.

 

well put FBO, except for the first 7 paragraphs, paragraph 6, you do share your streets with peeps like that, they don't serve in the British forces, but are welcome with open arms as far as politician are concerned.
As for Blair and Bush, why do you think the Chilcott report is deliberately being held back, Blair would be well and truly banged up if it was released and rightly so, they are solely responsible for the troubles over there now.

 

Saddam was a child playing with bubbles in the bath compared to what has replaced him in the power vacuum that we all left behind.

As we are mentioning nuclear capabilities, it's necessary to remember which country is the only country on the history of this planet to have nuked civilians. Twice. Hint: it's the "good" guys.

That said, I conceed that my final point is not strictly factually accurate.

 

my view is, war is brutal,savagery, man against man and the Victor takes all, its the last ditch move after all the talkin's been done, whether you're the starter or the finisher or both, there's no room for " he did't fight fair Miss" both sides know the consequence of war,
these soldiers were being shot at, the enemy were trying to kill them,What are they supposed to do, Say " tough luck Iraqie bloke lets shake hands and be friends" ????

 

You've actually completely missed the point.

Didn't miss the point at all. Politicians put young men and women in an impossible position in an area of the world that never changes its run by one despot or another and our interference dose nothing to help. The chosen weapon of mass destruction at the moment is mass immigration that has the potential to cost and do more harm to the west than any war. And let's not kid our selves the claims are because of ambulance chasing solicitors in this country nothing to do with justice for any supposed crimes.
It's a bit like Irland when terrorists get pardoned to promote peace but soldiers are prosecuted.

 

I wasn't actually addressing your post, Proby. To be honest, I assumed you were trolling and found it quite funny.

If you see nothing wrong with the degradation, rape, torture and murder of civilians, then there is literally nothing that I can do about that.

But, considering the content your last post and the sheer amount of time I've spent online, I'm just going to slowly back away and leave you to shout at the world.

 

Not trolling, and the crimes you mention happen daily by their own people.
And thank you for backing away slowly and saving us your DRIVEL oh sorry for shouting

 

I fear that the likes of Phil and Probes are delighted to have a 'valid' reason for criticising immigration - 'some of them may be terrorists' - rather than cutting to the honest chase...

Anyhoo, back to FBO's main point - whether the prosecution of soldiers is 'right'. We have probably the best soldiers in the world in terms of skill and decency. You need both. If you are going to show the Middle East (in particular) why they will be better off with democracy, then you first need to show them that your soldiers are not like the Taliban or anyone else.

Yes, you have to wonder about some cases - like that Sergeant(?) who shot the badly injured Taliban soldier whilst - stupidly - being filmed (the Taliban fighter was almost certainly a gonner.) But, once that was made public, they had to act - we are not above the law.

But any case of genuine atrocities must be tackled. We cannot be seen to be the same as the people we are fighting.

I would lay odds that most decent soldiers are even more repulsed by this behaviour by a relative few than are the ordinary general public (a bit like decent dawg owners hating the few who don't pick up after them more than the rest of the public do - it tarnishes the reputation of them all.)

That Iraq turned into such a mess is extremely unfortunate - but has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the war in the first place, or the attempt to remove that repulsive, destabilising psycho.Don't forget the genuinely warm welcome the allied soldiers received in the first few weeks - before it went pear-shaped through lack of planning and lack of troops (thanks Rumsfeld).

Any soldier who has committed a genuine and serious war crime should be prosecuted. For the sake of the rest of the army if nothing else.

 

I just wonder if other countries in our alliance are pursuing their soldiers to the same extent.

 

If I was in a situation where i was up against a Taliban group, i'd wish that i'd those 'crazy' soldiers along side me, there'd be no place for a " lets talk first " types in a desert full of gun totin' face covered hostiles, If you let them think you're concerned to be fighting fair, you're half way to a body bag home,

 

I don't think it's an issue when confronted with opposition soldiers, Mr Plum - I personally wouldn't lose sleep over any of their deaths in combat.

But, innocent people? Torture? Executions?

At its most basic level, it is counter-productive. Imagine the mileage the extremists got from Abu Ghraib?

 

The progressive liberals like bliar and his lefty supporters are the ones who should be in the dock.

Same a London derry. Soldiers out doing their job get prosecuted decades later for doing their job whilst the terrorists are set free.
Thanks again bliar and your supporters.

 

I don't know, Paul - do you? Could you find out?

And which soldiers are we pursuing? What have they been accused of?

What next - bent coppers are ok? "Hey, that kid was dealing drugs - a good clubbing soon sorted it..."

Let's let our teachers whip the kids.

What's wrong with a parent giving their child a slap?

(In case you are wondering - they are all morally wrong and counter-productive.)

 

I wondered how long it would take. Blah blah blah - all the guilty people are being let off blah blah blah all the innocent people are being persecuted blah blah blah

Ye cannae beat a rational argument...

 

Not a lot if he/she deserves it. Instills discipline.

 

That's the reality. Soldiers on the front line saved your sorry arze back in WW2.

Just after the end of WW2 a liberating soldier was driving in convoy through a german town in the back of a truck and a german girl gave a hail hitler salute as his truck passed.
The soldier dropped her with a bullet and not an eyelid was batted.
I wonder what you lefty liberals would make of that today?

OOh yeah.. silly me, I nearly forgot... prosecute him and incarcerate him.

We'd never have won the war if you lefty liberals had any say back in those times.

 

I for one wasn't saying all the migrants were terrorists I was saying the amount of them whether genualy trying to get to a safer place or encouraged by coercion to move to Europe place a burden on the west that is unsustainable, Be that financial or cultural.
As for being the right thing to do to remove sadam as said before nothing changes but the names.