Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Taz_786, Nov 12, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Another great article by Simon Jenkins
'American and British troops are squatting in bases all over Iraq' FFS, is he commenting on the latrine arrangements?.
I don't see Britain as being in a 'military fantasy'. We have to find the ideal solution (or a near compromise), to enable us to withdraw our troops.
I can't see us just retreating with our tails between our legs whilst the locals dance in the streets before getting stuck into a religous civil war.
Whatever the Iraq outcome will be, we will be fighting Islamic terrorists for decades, mostly on ground of their own choosing
they also, as usual, have a soundtrack to go with it.
I'm listening now to Neil Youngs 'Living with War'.
The Yank armed forces also have a civvy population that cares about them and want to help them to get out and stop dying pointlessly.
The Brit forces don't have any civvy interest let alone a useful back up caring about their interest.
And as I've found from some of the posters here they respond like abused yard dogs who bite hands that try to feed them.
Britain as always is a bit backward. Still, it was the Yanks that invented Rock & Roll we will catch up later.
On a side note, in America we have groups to support our Wounded, their Families, & those still "incountry"
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/site/c.iqLTI2OBKlF/b.1109075/k.9013/Headquarters.htm -as an example
http://www.supportasoldier.org/ Is there something similar in the UK?
As for Jenkins, F-him, until he's carried a weapon his opinion aint shite
Any one have an idea on just what Dear Leaders Iraqi Policy is ?
Historically the British public have not been military minded, untill someone is camped in Northen France waiting for the next ferry.
Its not going to change much for a while so why bother shoutijng at the moon.
Bush is hardly the type who will give up the ship easily notwithstanding what the popular opinion might be!
I think the difference in attitude can be boiled down to two things.
The American armed forces fight for the American people and their nation.
The people in the Brit armed forces are by tradition in service to the crown and not the people.
Therefore, quite understandably especially at this point in time, the type of civvy who doesn't have or wish to have contact with the military, views those who do as having made a lifestyle choice to become paid armed footman to the court of Queen Bess and something nebulous that's called 'The National Interest' what ever that is.
The Yanks have also been dying in greater quantity which brings it home to more people there. There it is not unusual for parts of the military and parts of the anti war movement to collaborate.
Here, unfortunately the anti war movement is monopolized by the Socialist Workers Party for their own anti capitalist ends which in my view is why it is not the more broader cross party movement that it should be.
And to be pro armed services yet anti these particular wars must be hugely difficult for serving personnel.
I am ex services who was against the war from the beginning.
I had no trouble being able to argue against it from what could be loosely described as a peacenik point of view AND argue against it from a purely military one as well.
I can't have been alone there must of thousands like me but our views were never given an airing.
Here in Britain you had the often derided 'peacenik' approach on the one hand and on the other you had top brass like Jackson, in my mind, disgracing himself, abandoning any duty of care for the troops to do his masters and the crowns bidding's.
Blair played of both against the middle and the military now find themselves piggy in the middle with the cheap and raucous civvy support for the war now faded away and averting their eyes now things have gone tits up.
Civvys, there good for talking big about how 'WE' have got to go over there and waving flags but they are f'uck all good for much else.
In the years to come after the forces come home and the true magnitude of the cynical abuse to which they have been put begins to sink home a new covenant will have to be developed between citizen, the military and the crown.
It's British people who serve and it should be the British People who should be served by them not the crown.
One thing that I think should be introduced is completely independent counsel for the forces.
If they think what the politicians are asking them to do is illegal or plainly militarily unwise they should be able if necessary be able to argue the case in closed court.
Never again should such a case arise as it did before the war when Admiral Boyce sent a message to no10 requiring clarification of the legality of the attack only to receive a cursory e mail by a P.M's assistant telling him in effect the P.M says it's Kosher so just get on with it.
Oh and as well as that the armed forces here haven't been dying in sufficient quantities to alarm or concern the British civvy enough to cause him to raise his selfish, greedy little snout from the consumer trough from which he slurps. He is not capable of hearing the roar of war above the sound of ringing tills. Other peoples deaths deserved or otherwise do not concern him whilst his plastic still swipes nicely.
What this country needs is a Bonfire of the Vanities, a little dose of Savanarola to bring it to its senses.
Good analysis, SLR - agree with much of this. However, to state that few care very much about the Armed Forces is, IMO, untrue. I have strong military connexions, so am not typical, but many people with no such links DO have great pride in the British military; talk/ argue a lot re current situations, and are very concerned for serving personnel. I have often heard it said that whenever "military types" are interviewed on TV, they make a far better impression than most politicians. Many of the much maligned "civvi" population hold the military in high regard.
As always, the voice of the "quiet majority" is rarely given much air time, and - as we all know - opinion polls, surveys, "Question Time" audiences etc are inherently unbalanced, and are rarely truly reflective of real opinion on the ground.
It is/was his job FFS! Without wishing to get back to the Dannatt/CGS argument, this whole thing that the CGS/CDS must stand up against the Govt in support of the military at all costs is starting to get up my A**E!
Agreed there is an element of 'support' required when conditions and support are lacking, but to suggest the CGS (as SLRboy said - rather than CDS?) should stand up and say "no" to going to war (remembering that the "overwhelming evidence" supported WMD in Iraq) is b*ll*x.....
That is not his job, that is why we have an opposition, however in/effective they may be....
This is not a personal rant against SLRboy....sorry if it seems that way....
I take issue with your comments about "the Crown".
Yes we serve the Queen. Thank God for that.
But the Queen is not responsible for us being in Iraq.
Tony B Liar, as voted in by the British public, is responsible for Iraq.
The Queen and her family have far more time and respect for the Armed Forces than politicians, or the public ever will.
Do you see the children of our elected representatives joining up? No.
The children of the Royal Family? Yes.
Your analysis is seriously flawed and just shows your political leanings.
But I agree Gen Jackson was a dissapointment.
Separate names with a comma.