Are you happy that Tony Blair can make you go to war?

[Wilky]

Respect him or not, you still have to fight for him if he tells you to.

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!

Freedom? Since when has it been about freedom? I mean the government(UK and US) can pull you off of the street at anytime and accuse you of being al-queida, taliban or whatever and deal with you how they see fit without a trial... that's not really my idea of freedom. I understand the concern for your family and friends and even your country... but we aren't even fighting for a free country anymore. Especially as we're just about owned by america now. We have to ask America permission to launch cruise missiles or nuclear weapons now and they can even launch our own nukes without our permission? Im sorry does this not seem a little worrying to anyone else? Thats like walking outside into your garden and asking your next door neighbour who's taking a shit right in the middle of your neatly kept lawn, "Can i have permission to drop a log in the pan please?" Ok bit of a crass comparison but it gives you the right idea . Anyway that was going off topic a bit. As far as i kno when it comes to fighting in a conflict, politics are the last thing on you're mind and the only thing you fight for is your own life and more so for your oppos' lives. During situations like that Tony Blair would look like a bit of a muppet to a bootneck or any other men fighting for their lives (i cant say i've been in that situation myself but that is what would seem more logical).

I dont think anyone here would trust Tony Blair to open a packet of peanuts let alone go to war for him. But you get on with it anyway. And thats exactly what i'll do. What i say on signed papers and what i know is going on in my mind would be two different things entirely.

So overall "Do i trust Tony Blair enough for him to send me to war" I dont think anyone ever has or will, and neither do i... "Will i go to war, if i am told to do so?" Definatley.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself
-John Stuart Mill Might seem a bit patriotic but it seemed to fit this topic quite well.

P.S not slating your beliefs or what you said saffer mate... just stating a point... Oh and sorry for the long post aswell

[freestyler_onli]

I saw in the papers that bush has sent some of his Marines to Haiti to try and intervene. Do you guys think that we will have troops sent over there-or is this one just upto Bush?

[AdamR]

Nah, I can't see Britain getting involved in Haiti, maybe the Kermit's and the Canadians (due to it being a former French island) but once again we're seeing the Yanks go in and clear up their own mess. Haitian affairs don't really concern us too much seeing as its not on our doorstep like it is with the Americans. I did though particularly enjoy the headline the Mail gave to their article on it 'BLOODBATH ON VOODOO ISLAND'.

[freestyler_onli]

Lol- i see. I just wondered if we'd once again have to go and fight Americas battles for em.

[Wholley]

It seems to me from what the Pentagon is saying,
that the US will not be there long.The French and Canadians are on the
ground along with a few hundred US Marines.
I think the only way the British will get involved is under the auspices
of the UN.
Wholley.

[freestyler_onli]

I see. Ok thanks!

[joethejudge]

The americans go in- wipe everything with a gun out-leave- and then we do the peacekeeping mission fo the next 5 years

[Wilky]

The americans go in- wipe everything with a gun out-leave- and then we do the peacekeeping mission fo the next 5 years

Sounds about right to me.

[freestyler_onli]

Well lets hope that the ''peace'' is ''kept'' a deal better than it is in Iraq

[Wilky]

Another thing about this situation is the rules of engagement. My step father was telling me the british rules of engagement they went over at a briefing today. This cleverly written piece of paper states some thing along the lines of (do not engage anyone unless they are engaging you). It was a bit more complicated than that but thats basically what it's saying in a nutshell. So say 100 taliban members stroll on into some base somewhere, accidently walk over the three armed guards who stood in the way and got trampled to death, who were guarding the armoury, then round up all the weaponry and stick it into a truck then drive away... what then? Another example, you may be manning a GPMG position on a ship of the shore of Basra or somewhere similar and watching some al-queida (excuse the spelling there) paddle along in their dingy, and start wall paperring the side of your ship with plastic explosive. We cant open fire untill they engage us which they probably wont because they know about these rules of engagement. And if we try to stop them and arrest them they are probably likely to stop what they are doing and shove an electrical charge into lump of explosive whilst making warbling indian noises and screaming "Jihad!". They dont care about dying... they get to go to paradise for all eternity with a bunch of virgins to do with what they please, as far as they are concerned. In court the judges may look a bit of a mong when told "They were attaching mines to the side of our ship, and we video recorded it here, have a look. Sure we shot them and violated the rules of engagement but we wern't going to watch ourselves get blown to pieces" and would obviously let them free (or i hope they would). The suggestions I've made are admittadley a bit crass. But the main thing I'm getting at is that the modern British soldier now has to consider during a conflict, "Should i shoot these people who i know are about to drive a truck of explosive into the front gate, even though i don't have proof, and save the lives of myself and my oppos? Or do i shoot and spend the rest of my life in jail when it turns out that the truck is filled with pregnant women and the male driver was wearing a jacket of Semtex?". I know what i would do. And whilst our soldier here is considering whether or not to open fire for 5 seconds someone could have easily walked up behind him and shot him in the back of the head with a handgun and he wouldn't even have known. And even if he did turn around he still couldn't have opened fire because the terrorist hadn't opened fire yet. I dont see why our soldiers bother to carry weapons in Iraq when they can only use them to get themselves in trouble. The Iraqi rebels obviously know about our weak point here and are using it to their advantage, as they have driven into barricades with pregnant women. They win either way... they destroy a group of soldiers and a road block and go to paradise, or they get shot to pieces and go to paradise anyway and give the UK/US a bad name. Why will our government not do anything about this?

Sorry about the essay

[Jordiman]

I thought the ROE were more like, "engage if you and your equipment is threatned" . Obviously common sense is needed. You can't shoot into a crowd if only one person has a weapon or if they have stones and pitchforks. Hard to judge it really.

[-=TONY=BLAIR=-]

I respect Tony Blair, he just gets a hard time from the usual bitches, i.e. the hippies and Clair Short etc. As mentioned above, your gonna fight for him whether you like him or not.

[Jason The Argonaut]

I respect Tony Blair, he just gets a hard time from the usual bitches, i.e. the hippies and Clair Short etc. As mentioned above, your gonna fight for him whether you like him or not.

I'd fight for Queen an country, but not that f@*ing w*%nker.

[josephwells]

When the lads have used up all the virgins what do they do?

[Guest]

Blair presides over the cabinet as its first minister ie PRIME MINISTER, it was not HIS final decision to go to war in Iraq, he proposed it and this had to be seconded through a vote in the lower House, this was endorsed and therefore the war machine was put in place. It is the elected representatives (MP's) of the voters that make such decisions, whether or not the evidence gathered was false or misleading is another matter, on the evidence given at that time to Parliament it was voted upon and the motion was carried..............DEMOCRACY