Ethical Concerns.

[Pox_Dr]

Hi

I know I’m going to get flamed over this but hopefully some of you will have some sensible feedback.

I’ve served in the Army for some 21 or so years now. I was in the Falklands, Gulf, done Bosnia, Kosovo & NI.

All had justified reasons & I was happy to do my small bit.

For the first time in my career I find myself in an uncomfortable position. I as many others are prepping for Gulf 2.

I sit hear wondering why! I seen the slant the news puts on everything, I know the country & its politics well & the only thing that keeps coming back to me is “Bush” wants it so as the 53rd state Blair lays down our life’s.

Am I wrong, is it time to escape to the big wide world. Am I alone in my confusion over this issue?

 

[The Snob]

Doc,

I genuinely feel that Saddam Hussein needs sorting out - permanently. No-one wants to go to war (well, apart from psychos and people with no experience of violent death) but this guy is a serious menace.

And he's got a vile moustache...  

 

[Bayonet-mouse]

Having had a number of discussions on this subject at JCSC with the collection of cynics and others that make up the course (including a large number of the DS) I believe the general conclusion is that any military action in Iraq MUST be sanctioned by the UN.

I personally believe that Saddam Hussein is a scrote of the highest order and needs to be dispensed with as he is a serious threat to his own people and to the stability of the Gulf region. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be enough irrefutable evidence that he is a current and credible threat to UK plc.

The second thread of the armed force's mission is to be a force for good. How do you define that? Who's good? Ours (as in the UK), or the western nations as a greater whole? If you combine that with the so called UK ethical foreign policy what do you define as ethical foreign policy? I would suggest that ethical foreign policy and a force for good are defined as whatever Tony and his gang feel they are going to get the most votes from.

The problem comes when we realise that we are a very small army, navy and stinking crabs and we can't afford to do anything without the Americans and so we need to keep them on-side.

As much as I dislike Blair I think that he is probably dealing with this in the  right way, with two provisos:

1. We can only get involved with a direct UN mandate (including a clear end state).

2. He needs to make a decision on who is going to go - and he needs to make it soon. Not next week as we've been hearing for the past month, but now.

Hussein has got to go, but not simply to satisfy Bush's desire to get the bloke who tried to kill his Daddy.

 

[Exmarine]

I have done my 22 and would given the chance love to be off the dog chain and get some desert wellies.

However as age and reason seems to develope I believe that the PBI and attachments are being asked to fight a war which will benefit a class not of his own.

Who gives a fluck what Saddam has  it does not affect us, admittedly a jack attitude but honest compared to some.

The Americans have adopted any dodgy regimes regardless of ethics including Saddam whom it thought could back its aims at one time.

BS and two faced sh=te of the usual political degree

Chris

 

[slackjack]

Iraq is not a problem ! They`ve got f*ck all anyway .
It`s North Korea you should be concerned about !

 

[error_unknown]

If it's any consolation, it seems the UK hasn't really been invited to the party anyway.

 

[Ventress]

Having partaken in GW1, I saw the mistake of letting Hussain off the hook in 1991, letting the Southern Marsh arabs and Iraqi Kurds do our dirty work and not even having the common courtesy to help them, apart from a few loaves of bread thowrn out of the back of a hovering chinook.

Now Bush will be chuckling to himself the UN inspectors have found the 120mm warheads. Hussain has to go, but where do you stop- North Korea, Lybia, Syria or Yemen? I don't think you are going to see old Dubya piling into those locations.

I think the UKplc forces will find themselves deployed to sit in some Fort Baldrick for 6 months whilst the toothless UN debate going to war, which i agree is the only way it should be- with their mandate!

 

[ex-dvr]

Look we have to go! how else are G&T going to alienate the whole Arab world, they will "produce" whatever evidence they require and off you go... then when all the fighting is done they will show up in theatre and declare what a just cause it was. 6 months after that they will be back on the hunt for other Arab "terrorist" on far shores.
i know I watch too much Tele but maybe the 2 of them are Borg.." resistance is futile" you will be assimilated and we have President and V.P of the world.

 

[wHoSaIdThAt?]

Bluuur and dubya have got themselves caught up in their own propoganda trap, as with the logo on the front page "got everything but a reason now".

VGood comments on bremner,bird and fortune last night.
Who needs question time or panorama when they put the point across without trying to make people feel thick or uninformed about it!

Do it with humor I say

 

[RDT2]

What I most object to is the pretence by our political masters that GW2 will be about WMD (what happened to NBC weapons?), when in reality it's about oil.   It's on the cards that there will, sooner or later, be a revolution in Saudi (now the fastest plunging economy in the world) and so the US needs to second-source its oil - and the excesses of Saddam provide a good excuse to take over Iraq (notice the short period between the overthrow of the Taleban and the signing of the agreement on the trans-Afghanistan pipeline).

Of course, many (perhaps even most) wars have been driven by economics rather than altruism, but I'd kind of hoped that our 'democratic' government would be honest with us.

 

[PartTimePongo]

We're going, we're fighting and the sooner we get used to the idea, the better.

It appears that democratic government, you remember that old concept, that Governments exercised the will of the people that voted them in, doesn't exist anymore.

Bluppet has taken on a dictatorial role, because the British people need "protecting" from a nation that isn't threatening them, and we are too thick to understand it, because a clear reason has never been given.

11 very old EMPTY artillery shells get found, but the spin was stuck on, that they were in excellent condition. The boxes looked all of a dozen years old, but that's not the point. I pity some Iraqi storesbasher , who's going to get the 7.62 retirement plan for that one.

Now it seems that there is a nuclear programme. I don't suppose these notes date back to the time the Iraqis did have a nuclear programme do they?

We're going, because external pressure dictates it. Read the Sunday times in depth comments yesterday. Oh dear....Rah-Rah septics, Blair is a great man, let's stop this anti-spam feeling, and let's get one for the gipper, this action is absolutely justified, Saddam has links with the Ricin makers. The example was used, of a guy on the watch list, who MAY have had dealings with Saddam, because he was based in Northern Iraq for a time. Let me tell you something. Northern Iraq is a frigging no-go zone for Saddam and his mates, because the kurds and others have made it so.

We're going, because the US economy is in rag-order as Bush turns a Clinton surplus into a proper deficit, and because the senate hearings on Enron happen this week, and there are dark mutterings of fingers being pointed, and people promising to take others with them.

There is nothing like a war, to take your eye off the ball. Gordon Brown is telling Bluppet, till he is blue in the face, that we can't afford it, and it wil cripple the UK. Blunkett is getting hamstrung, because he's trying to tell the Trotskyite Labour party, that we are letting in the very people, without control, that will do GB PLC a lot of harm. Ricin? you ain't seen nothing yet.

We made the point on this board, a long time ago, that 5th Columnists and terrorists are using Sangatte and the Channel tunnel, as their preferred method of entry into this country. We are being proven right.

Blair is tying his banner to the Cowboys chuck wagon, because in the political sense, it will make us the 2nd most powerful nation on Earth. Then Blair can turn his attention to the Presidency of the European federation, possibly with Hoon as his number 2. Which would account for why Hoon does the things he does. IFF systems ready for the off? According to todays papers, they haven't even been bought.

To pacify the populace about Iraqi civilian casualties, we're being told that "smart" munitions will be used, as in Kosovo. In Kosovo, as in Kuwait, we were ejecting expeditionary forces, that had "tried it on". We used smart munitions against the homeland, to "deny military access" to the battlearea. Ie. Destroy the supply and communications infrastructure, and bring the war to civpop, to make them see the folly of their government.

Now we're being told the same thing will be done in Iraq. The last time we did that, Iraqi civillian dead, were into the thousands. This time we're invading, what do you think the likely casualties will be?

It still hasn't been reported in the press, but I can tell you as a solemn truth, Saddam has mobilised his reservists, students and anyone else that can hold an AK. The iraqis don't blame Saddam for their problems, they blame us, and stripping away the propoganda from the IST broadcasts, there is a resignation, and a willingness to fight to defend their homes and families.

I note with interest, that the Police have finally raided Abu Hamzas mosque. Don't know how much they'll find, but I feel that raid should have happened after his threats against the Uk, not now. If the Spooks want another Mosque to raid, may I suggest the Central Jamia Mosque hereabouts? Sparkbrook is the central area, for the delivery of inflamatory texts and papers, as well as the new UK base for "Mecca Cola". Fundamentalist cells do operate in this area, and have been raided in the past, but precious little public activity of late.

Coffee break, bit of reflection, then Rant ye Seconde

PTP

 

[ho-hum]

Not even sure N. Korea is as big a problem as everyone thinks. Is it true that prior to the whole nuclear thing, Dubya had cut aid and oil to the country?
I personally feel that if sabres have to be rattled at all, a great many people (myself included) would take greater satisfaction in removing "Big Bad Bob" Mugabe. Interesting to see the Beeb go off message on the news last night by leading with Zimbabwe.
Add Rupert Murdoch to the list too, actually. I fcuking hate him.

 

[OldSnowy]

N Korea is a problem now because the Septics caught them cheating.  Even while signing an agreement with Clinton for free oil if they were good boys, they were working in secret.  They got all huffy AFTER the yanks caught them oput, and went public.  At least Dubya had the nads to go public - clinton would have kept it quiet, and tried to pay them off even more.

Sadman is a menace, and needs sorting.  This time, however, there won't be a coalition of "arab allies" stopping us going on to Baghdad.  

I'm fed up with yank haters.  No matter how much we take the pi@@ out of them, if it weren't for them we'd be speaking russian, or german, or more likely not even be born.  Most of the anti-war coalition over here are the same people who were anti-cruise, and are anti-Trident - they just hate it 'cos they lost the cold war (and how many marxists and trotskyites would have been let live in the UK if the Russians had made this a worker's paradise?)

As for the UN - don't make me laugh.  They just put "Colonel" Gadaffi in charge of monitoring human rights!

 

[PartTimePongo]

O_S

I don't hate Yanks, far from it, with the exception of us, they're the greatest nation on Earth, and every time I've been there, I've found nothing but warmth, hospitality and women who'll put their pants in their handbags, as soon as you say "I say, Barman, Miller lite if you please, Gawwwwwwd , I just lurrrrrrve your accent"  

My personal problem, is the administration currently running things in the 2nd greatest nation on Earth. I'm unhappy with their links to other activities, I'm unhappy with their histories, I'm, unhappy with the way they came to power, which all seems to be building up to the main event... Iraq for Oil/Agriculture/Revenge/Israel or whatever the reason is.

I'm unhappy, that the famous document that was supposed to have proved WMD, turned out to be nothing but suppositon, guesswork and smoke and mirrors. I'm unhappy that the US are supposed to have released proof positive to UNMOVIC about weapons sites, which have been inspected and nothing found.

Now, we can all be reasonably sure he must have something. If your neighbour has 200+ TacNukes , then you must be hiding the odd nasty Petri dish somewhere, for retaliatory purposes.

Iraq could supply weapons of WMD to terrorist organisations? No evidence so far, as stated in parliament, and from the legoland bods. However if I was going to finger someone for that activity, I would say certain ex-Soviet states strapped for cash, or PAKISTAN would be right at the top of my list.

It's time to stop pussyfooting around, and say what we mean. We want Saddam out, for whatever reason. As long as we continually attempt to hoodwink the public about WMD's and "Human rights violations" blah x 3 , the public will get on the net, and do their own investigations, and arrive at the conclusion that Bluppet and Bush are full of shit, and attempting to hide something, i.e the percieved real reason for this adventure. The problem is, GovMediaOps has lost the plot, and it shows.

So let's get blunt. We do not want to see the Iraqi people suffer anymore because of one man. However, we are not going to leave him in place, because then , he would have won, and that sends a clear message to the next Arab nation that wants to try it on. Send a clear message to the Iraqi people. "We don't want to hurt you, we want Saddam, and we want stability in the Middle East."

Start talking more, about what will happen in Iraq, after Saddam is gone. Start talking about free and fair elections under UN auspicies, start talking about Iraq once again resuming it's rightful place as a powerhouse in the middle east, with western investment and know-how. Sell the benefits to the Iraqi people Hells Bells,sell the benefits to OUR people. E-mail spam the place with your "Marshall plan" for the recovery of Iraq.Start offering financial inducements to Iraqi officers to defect, bringing their troops out with them. Start the collapse from within. Amassing Mundo hardware Militaire sends a message all right, it also sends a message to the Iraqi people that we want to fight them as well, hence the eagerness of the civpop volunteers to get their AK47's and RPG's.

Many Iraqis do not have access to satellite television, and are forced to watch state television, which is bloody boring I can tell you, however, there are a lot of clandestine SW radios, the BBC world service is the preferred station. Let's get the propoganda war ramped up big style and SELL THE BENEFITS.

Give Saddam the chance, to step gracefully from power. Sell him the plan of a comfortable retirement (As much as that fcuking rankles    ) and the chance to tell the Iraqi people, that he is going into retirement, to give them a new beginning. Leave him an avenue, where he can retain some self respect, a bloody important thing for an Arab, get him out of it, and turn Iraq into a pro-western democracy. Which will have the additional benefit of scaring the shit out of the House of Saud, and the Iranians.

I am very much in favour of getting Saddam out. I am not in favour of Civpop taking huge casualties, to achieve this. Primairily because, I don't want any of us to be fighting a population of martyrs and local terrorists for the next 5 years.

But we all volunteered for this womans army, so in as far as that goes, all of us should be ready and willing to fight, just tell us the real reasons..

PTP

.....and does anyone know where the Iraqis hold their gold reserves? Purely out of academic interest you understand  

 

[PartTimePongo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2681701.stm


UN 'must run post-conflict Iraq'


Frederick Barton, a former UN deputy high commissioner for refugees, told a conference at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that "winning the peace" was just as important as winning the war.

But he warned that "military deployments to the Gulf have not been matched by visible, concrete actions by the US, the UN, or others to prepare civilian resources and personnel to handle the immense reconstruction challenges that post-conflict Iraq will face."

 

[ex-dvr]

Sadman never has or will abide by any agreement unless it's his own desire. Iraq have exported oil but to whom? wouldn't be USA by any chance?

It is also hard to establish why G&T want the UN to back a war, while they are still supplying lots of aid to the same country.

I got this from the UN official site. there is still a lot of money being exchanged, and as far as I am aware there has not been much improvement on who gets what in Iraq.

"In August 1990, the Security Council imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iraq.

Concerned about the extended suffering of the civilian population as a result of the sanctions, the UN Security Council passed resolution 986 (1995)  in April 1995 with an "oil for food" formula as "a temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people". The Office of the Iraq Programme (OIP) was established in October 1997 to implement the oil-for-food programme for Iraq.

In May 1996, after extended negotiations with the UN Secretariat, Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) setting out arrangements for the implementation of resolution 986.  

The first oil under the programme was exported in December 1996 and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997.  

To date, some $41 billion worth of contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment have been approved. Supplies and equipment worth almost $26 billion have been delivered to Iraq, while another $10.5 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment are in the production and delivery pipeline. "

 

[YeoTanky]

Ours is not to reason why............

Also:

We defend democracy, we do not take part.

Debate as much as you like.  I had a Sgt. in GW1 who asked to be excused duties (once in theatre) because he did not agree with a war about oil.  He was sent home and admin discharged (more to protect good name of Regt. than anything to do with agreeing with his sentiments).  If I had had my way he would have been court martialled and then shot.

How many wars excluding WW1 & 2 have we taken part in or started for trade, or similar reasons.  Our legally appointed Government of the day who we have sworn to obey give the orders and as long as they are legal we  do it.

We are a volunteer Army - if you dont like it do not join.

 

[Mighty_doh_nut]

Yeo I think you need to get yourself into the 21st Century ASAP, I took part in GW1 therefore defending democracy, I also take part by casting my vote every election time.

If I am missing something please explain

The Sgt from GW 1 was a brave guy for voicing opinions in difficult times, that took balls, no I don't agree with him but he doesn't deserve the Kitchener approach. He could have been sidetracked to an admin role or employed elsewhere in the unit

 

[Exmarine]

Our legally appointed Government of the day who we have sworn to obey give the orders and as long as they are legal we do it.

I think the Germans used that line at Nuremberg

Trade or what every you want to call it, wars are started to further political policies, trade may be one of them. It is always for gain.

WW1 and WW2, which was really WW1s continuation, also come under this heading.

That’s why we tend not to give a rats arse when other people are getting chopped to pieces in other parts of the world.

Wars never start for wars sake.  Bush wants Saddam out for other reasons than these so-called wpns of mass destruction.

It is a good smoke screen and of course with 9/11 thrown in which is also tantamount to the same relationship as the Jewish question. Any criticism of these will bring instant blind condemnation.  

I agree that the Sgt had big balls and ended his career in its prime (unless he was a coward and did not wish to fight and this was a convenient excuse)

Yes it goes against the military grain to say these things but to blindly obey is also wrong.

And also easy for me to say sat behind my computer.

The daft thing is, given the chance when it kicks off I will miss being with my mates in the shit.  

Thats why Governments have got away with sending joe bloggs to do their dirty work wether it is just or not.


Chris

 

[notinmyname]