i aint fighting for tony blair - im fighting for my beliefs and the standars of living for my family and freinds, freeeeeeeedooooooooommmmmm so to speak!arameis wrote:Respect him or not, you still have to fight for him if he tells you to.
Share This Page:
Are you happy that Tony Blair can make you go to war?
-
yuri
- Guest
news flash: Tony Blair cannot decide to take the country to war, that decision is made alwayz as a vote by all of the MP's in the house of commons, many of which are against tony blair and vote against what he wants! So it isn't true that tony blair can take blair to war, only a vote by all the MP's can. I really dont understand why almost all of you trust him...... haven't you all heard about the small fact that the war in iraq was illegal (the UN regard it as illegal). Not to mention the fact that tony lied about why to pursuade the average brit and the MP's that it was correct thing to do. I understand that as aspiring soldiers you all want to be patriotic to britain (and being loyal to the Prime Minister is part of this) but jesus you can be a soldier and hate the prime minister..... there are many people high up in the labour party who hate the prime minister for damn sake!!!
-
yuri
- Guest
and as far as the "jump if your told to jump remark"................
well i will do what i'm told in training ...... but once i'm a marine if i'm told to do something that i believe is wrong (shoot a prisoner or something) then i will not do it. If i'm told to fight a war that i believe is illegal then i will not fight it. That may make me a bad soldier, but it does make me a good human being. The worst that can happen for disobeying an order is a few years in jail but you will know that you did what you believe is right. Anyway in my books a good soldier doesn't blindy obey orders, a good soldier thinks for himself and only obeys orders he perceives to be moral and legal. I will give you a few examples. My grandfather was a german and was told to fight the allies, he refused and spend years in prison and was tortured. Does that make him a bad soldier, because he refused to fight for hitler? Another example: a few years back 6000 young men were executed in a football pitch by serbs and dutch soldiers who were at the scene just stood by and let it happen...... why? Because they were ordered not to interfere and save the 6000 men.... what happened afterwards is the entire dutch government resigned in shame because of it allowed the slaughter to happen... had the dutch soldiers gone against orders but followed their own sense of moral rightness (which all human beings have an equal amount of whether your are an officer, a recruit, or the prime minister) then those 6000 men would have been saved. I'm trying to show you all that a good soldier doesn't alwayz follow orders. Being a soldier and being a good human being go hand in hand.
well i will do what i'm told in training ...... but once i'm a marine if i'm told to do something that i believe is wrong (shoot a prisoner or something) then i will not do it. If i'm told to fight a war that i believe is illegal then i will not fight it. That may make me a bad soldier, but it does make me a good human being. The worst that can happen for disobeying an order is a few years in jail but you will know that you did what you believe is right. Anyway in my books a good soldier doesn't blindy obey orders, a good soldier thinks for himself and only obeys orders he perceives to be moral and legal. I will give you a few examples. My grandfather was a german and was told to fight the allies, he refused and spend years in prison and was tortured. Does that make him a bad soldier, because he refused to fight for hitler? Another example: a few years back 6000 young men were executed in a football pitch by serbs and dutch soldiers who were at the scene just stood by and let it happen...... why? Because they were ordered not to interfere and save the 6000 men.... what happened afterwards is the entire dutch government resigned in shame because of it allowed the slaughter to happen... had the dutch soldiers gone against orders but followed their own sense of moral rightness (which all human beings have an equal amount of whether your are an officer, a recruit, or the prime minister) then those 6000 men would have been saved. I'm trying to show you all that a good soldier doesn't alwayz follow orders. Being a soldier and being a good human being go hand in hand.
Once your a marine your going to refuse to go to war? Would you class the GW2 as illegal? Some people do, so would you refused to of gone this year. If the answer is yes then I wouldnt even bother applying mate as I cant see you being much help if you aint prepared to follow orders
Last edited by robj on Thu 26 Feb, 2004 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
joethejudge
- Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Sat 21 Feb, 2004 11:42 am
- Location: Paderborn, Germany
I don't think moral crusaders have much of a place in the Armed Forces. There's the Geneva convention, UN treaties and so forth that prevent those "immoral orders" you seem to be talking about. If you're not prepared to accept that you may have to do certain things for your country that will maybe push your moral fibres a little too far, then you clearly should give more thought to a forces career.
Do you have a few sources regarding the Serbs and Dutch?
Do you have a few sources regarding the Serbs and Dutch?
-
freestyler_onli
- Member
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Sat 31 Jan, 2004 1:53 pm
- Location: London
-
yuri
- Guest
i'm not saying i won't obey orders, i was merely making a point about orders and obeying them and about what makes a good soldier. I do not consider myself a 'moral cruisader'. I am just a normal guy who wants a decent career in the armed forces. My morals aren't that strong i was just saying that being loyal to britain has little to do with being loyal to the government and politicians. Politicians don't know what war is like and they wouldn't send a country to war if their children were in the armed forces.
-
yuri
- Guest
Yuri, think before you type.
But that is all by the by.
At the end of the day, in Her Majesty's forces (and without wanting to start another debate, I do agree with the monarchy as a symbol of the British people, and no more than that...I do not believe they should rule the Kingdom as such again, they are merely there to represent our countries as a whole) you have to obey the government's wishes. There are some things you can never do, for example the Americans who massacred a village of Vietnamese...they were ordered to as intelligence said there were Viet Cong hiding amongst the villagers. There weren't. In those days, to refuse any order was treason and resulted in severe penalties. In the modern military, you can refuse to obey an order if you have good reason to believe it is ill-founded; you will not be shot where you stand, you will be given fair hearing, and if you are justified then the rupert who gave the order will be in the shit and you'll be a hero.
On the other hand, if you are one of those who refuse to go along with anything you consider even slightly wrong, you are looking at the wrong career. At the end of the day, you are going to be asked to do things that you don't like, and maybe don't agree with. You will have to do them unless you have a damn good reason not to. I'm sure you could not find a single serving other rank of the British armed forces today who has not had to do something they consider wrong, even if it be only part of training. The country doesn't give a shit about what you want or believe...either you are a soldier or you aren't. There are very few circumstances which override that, and it is almost certain that you will never come across any of them whilst serving in the modern British forces. GW2 turned out to be illegal (as such...I still agree with it, simply because Saddam was out of hand...having said that, why didn't we do anything about Mugabwe (spelling)), but would you have refused to fight?? Would you have argued about the civilian casualties?? Going a little off topic here, but how many thousands of civvies died in the blitzes of WW2?? Did anyone in the forces moan back then?? Probably, but they went out and fought, and died, for their country; they did not start an inquest into whether or not the war was justified. Her Majesty's forces are known as Her Majesty's for one reason and one reason only - they are her's to command. And that means they are the government's to command. Nobody likes it, but would you rather have a defenceless country?? You have to be led by someone, and unfortunately for every country in the world it is by a bunch of muppets. At least our muppets have the best military in the world to back them up. But do you really want to be part of that?? Maybe not, by the sounds of things...
Damn, that took a while to type....
And yet...Tony Blair cannot decide to take the country to war, that decision is made alwayz as a vote by all of the MP's in the house of commons, many of which are against tony blair and vote against what he wants! So it isn't true that tony blair can take blair to war, only a vote by all the MP's can.
You go on to say that Mr Blair managed to convince the Commons that the war was legal. Therefore by your own reasoning Blair CAN decide to take this country to war.haven't you all heard about the small fact that the war in iraq was illegal
But that is all by the by.
At the end of the day, in Her Majesty's forces (and without wanting to start another debate, I do agree with the monarchy as a symbol of the British people, and no more than that...I do not believe they should rule the Kingdom as such again, they are merely there to represent our countries as a whole) you have to obey the government's wishes. There are some things you can never do, for example the Americans who massacred a village of Vietnamese...they were ordered to as intelligence said there were Viet Cong hiding amongst the villagers. There weren't. In those days, to refuse any order was treason and resulted in severe penalties. In the modern military, you can refuse to obey an order if you have good reason to believe it is ill-founded; you will not be shot where you stand, you will be given fair hearing, and if you are justified then the rupert who gave the order will be in the shit and you'll be a hero.
On the other hand, if you are one of those who refuse to go along with anything you consider even slightly wrong, you are looking at the wrong career. At the end of the day, you are going to be asked to do things that you don't like, and maybe don't agree with. You will have to do them unless you have a damn good reason not to. I'm sure you could not find a single serving other rank of the British armed forces today who has not had to do something they consider wrong, even if it be only part of training. The country doesn't give a shit about what you want or believe...either you are a soldier or you aren't. There are very few circumstances which override that, and it is almost certain that you will never come across any of them whilst serving in the modern British forces. GW2 turned out to be illegal (as such...I still agree with it, simply because Saddam was out of hand...having said that, why didn't we do anything about Mugabwe (spelling)), but would you have refused to fight?? Would you have argued about the civilian casualties?? Going a little off topic here, but how many thousands of civvies died in the blitzes of WW2?? Did anyone in the forces moan back then?? Probably, but they went out and fought, and died, for their country; they did not start an inquest into whether or not the war was justified. Her Majesty's forces are known as Her Majesty's for one reason and one reason only - they are her's to command. And that means they are the government's to command. Nobody likes it, but would you rather have a defenceless country?? You have to be led by someone, and unfortunately for every country in the world it is by a bunch of muppets. At least our muppets have the best military in the world to back them up. But do you really want to be part of that?? Maybe not, by the sounds of things...
Damn, that took a while to type....
Good postarameis wrote:Yuri, think before you type.
And yet...Tony Blair cannot decide to take the country to war, that decision is made alwayz as a vote by all of the MP's in the house of commons, many of which are against tony blair and vote against what he wants! So it isn't true that tony blair can take blair to war, only a vote by all the MP's can.
You go on to say that Mr Blair managed to convince the Commons that the war was legal. Therefore by your own reasoning Blair CAN decide to take this country to war.haven't you all heard about the small fact that the war in iraq was illegal
But that is all by the by.
At the end of the day, in Her Majesty's forces (and without wanting to start another debate, I do agree with the monarchy as a symbol of the British people, and no more than that...I do not believe they should rule the Kingdom as such again, they are merely there to represent our countries as a whole) you have to obey the government's wishes. There are some things you can never do, for example the Americans who massacred a village of Vietnamese...they were ordered to as intelligence said there were Viet Cong hiding amongst the villagers. There weren't. In those days, to refuse any order was treason and resulted in severe penalties. In the modern military, you can refuse to obey an order if you have good reason to believe it is ill-founded; you will not be shot where you stand, you will be given fair hearing, and if you are justified then the rupert who gave the order will be in the shit and you'll be a hero.
On the other hand, if you are one of those who refuse to go along with anything you consider even slightly wrong, you are looking at the wrong career. At the end of the day, you are going to be asked to do things that you don't like, and maybe don't agree with. You will have to do them unless you have a damn good reason not to. I'm sure you could not find a single serving other rank of the British armed forces today who has not had to do something they consider wrong, even if it be only part of training. The country doesn't give a shit about what you want or believe...either you are a soldier or you aren't. There are very few circumstances which override that, and it is almost certain that you will never come across any of them whilst serving in the modern British forces. GW2 turned out to be illegal (as such...I still agree with it, simply because Saddam was out of hand...having said that, why didn't we do anything about Mugabwe (spelling)), but would you have refused to fight?? Would you have argued about the civilian casualties?? Going a little off topic here, but how many thousands of civvies died in the blitzes of WW2?? Did anyone in the forces moan back then?? Probably, but they went out and fought, and died, for their country; they did not start an inquest into whether or not the war was justified. Her Majesty's forces are known as Her Majesty's for one reason and one reason only - they are her's to command. And that means they are the government's to command. Nobody likes it, but would you rather have a defenceless country?? You have to be led by someone, and unfortunately for every country in the world it is by a bunch of muppets. At least our muppets have the best military in the world to back them up. But do you really want to be part of that?? Maybe not, by the sounds of things...
Damn, that took a while to type....
Going to war
What concerns me most about politicians isn't so much their decisions, its the fact that they seem to have so little to lose.
The Queen and the country have sons and daughters in the military, Tony Blair does not. Yet he is commander in chief of the military, well, if parliament allows him to be.
Were any Labour MP's called up for service in Iraq? Ironically, the one that I know of who was called up was a Tory.
With respect to other big decisions that affect the nation, education, for example, the majority of children in the country attend non-selective state schools, Tony Blair's do not. Tony Blair's empty rhetoric has not improved the education system for the vast majority of English pupils, and his children are completely insulated from the consequences of all his poorly executed initiatives.
Even in times of conscription, best exemplified in the US during the Vietnam era, the sons of the establishment were kept away from the sharp end (Al Gore) or shamelessly took advantage of loopholes (Clinton and to a lesser extent Bush, who may very well have flown combat missions in Vietnam, had war actually been declared).
Remember that tacky, staged photo of Lyndon Johnson moved to tears listening to his son-in-law's cassette from Vietnam?
Even if there were full disclosure of which MP's have children in the military, what crime-free areas they live in, or what top-of-the league table, selective, bully-free, fully-staffed schools their children attend, I still cynically think the electorate would still put up with it.
Our expectations of the people who make the decisions has truly hit rock bottom. The result? One-size fits all bloated socialist government with right-wing economic policies which may never leave office in our lifetimes.
All that being said, regardless of who sends you to war or how little they have to lose in the process the soldier's duty is the same.
Yuri, you won't pass basic, training sorts out the doubters, not by coercion, but by taking you to the point where you ask yourself, "how badly do I want this?" It happened to me. If you're against controversial military action like GW2 in unshakeable principle, you will not want it when that moment in training comes and you will leave.
Nothing personal and you raise a valid point, but if you don't have the will to conduct operations which the public does not agree with, don't join up. Rather than be a conscientious objector and be charged, should you complete training, have you considered a career in the emergency services or humanitarian organisations? The emergency services fight their own battles and see plenty of action. Humanitarian organisations see the world.
Possibly the only country with an army that exists only to defend itself in time of invasion is Switzerland, the rest of us have alliances and foreign policies and the soldier is stuck with them.
The Queen and the country have sons and daughters in the military, Tony Blair does not. Yet he is commander in chief of the military, well, if parliament allows him to be.
Were any Labour MP's called up for service in Iraq? Ironically, the one that I know of who was called up was a Tory.
With respect to other big decisions that affect the nation, education, for example, the majority of children in the country attend non-selective state schools, Tony Blair's do not. Tony Blair's empty rhetoric has not improved the education system for the vast majority of English pupils, and his children are completely insulated from the consequences of all his poorly executed initiatives.
Even in times of conscription, best exemplified in the US during the Vietnam era, the sons of the establishment were kept away from the sharp end (Al Gore) or shamelessly took advantage of loopholes (Clinton and to a lesser extent Bush, who may very well have flown combat missions in Vietnam, had war actually been declared).
Remember that tacky, staged photo of Lyndon Johnson moved to tears listening to his son-in-law's cassette from Vietnam?
Even if there were full disclosure of which MP's have children in the military, what crime-free areas they live in, or what top-of-the league table, selective, bully-free, fully-staffed schools their children attend, I still cynically think the electorate would still put up with it.
Our expectations of the people who make the decisions has truly hit rock bottom. The result? One-size fits all bloated socialist government with right-wing economic policies which may never leave office in our lifetimes.
All that being said, regardless of who sends you to war or how little they have to lose in the process the soldier's duty is the same.
Yuri, you won't pass basic, training sorts out the doubters, not by coercion, but by taking you to the point where you ask yourself, "how badly do I want this?" It happened to me. If you're against controversial military action like GW2 in unshakeable principle, you will not want it when that moment in training comes and you will leave.
Nothing personal and you raise a valid point, but if you don't have the will to conduct operations which the public does not agree with, don't join up. Rather than be a conscientious objector and be charged, should you complete training, have you considered a career in the emergency services or humanitarian organisations? The emergency services fight their own battles and see plenty of action. Humanitarian organisations see the world.
Possibly the only country with an army that exists only to defend itself in time of invasion is Switzerland, the rest of us have alliances and foreign policies and the soldier is stuck with them.
"Poor Ike, it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating. He'll sit here and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen."
Harry Truman
Harry Truman
-
yuri
- Guest
dfinaus i said i would have fought in the gulf war, but i wouldn't have fought for the germans in WWII (as my grandfather refused to do) and i wouldn't have watched 6000 young men being slaughtered. I will pass training if i am fit enough and yes, if i want it enough. I have a brother who might become a diplomat for britain or a politician. It's his duty and concern to make sure this country has the right leadership not mine. To be honest i wouldn't be suprised if an least one currently serving bootneck was against the government during his training.
