Head Sheds originally refused to go to war?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Feb 29, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/29/1077989424613.html

    More from Chairwoman Claire , not confirmed, but MOD already saying "We don't comment on leaked reports"

    British army feared war would be illegal: Short

    Blimey! 8O
  2. mmm interesting wonder what the fall out would have been if the'd stuck to their guns?

    Military refusing to obey orders of government....an interesting positon
  3. No point in crying over spilt milk.

    Tell you what though......the more that is exposed about Bliar & Co, the better I feel. I've never liked Clare Short, she's too ugly..........but I hope she has more to say and that others join her. This Government needs bringing down.
  4. Law and legality is the new Religion. Doesn't matter whether somethings morally right. The perversion of civic society, and the difference between law and justice: discuss.
  5. agreed no use crying over spilt milk.
    But the position were the government declares a war that its army then refuses to fight is an interesting concept.
  6. What happens if I don't fancy ULAN EAGLE this year as it's against my principles as I'm worried about them Polaks suing the arrse off me for wanton destruction of their countryside? Same detail BATUS and the Canucks.

    Dodgy old business this legal eagle stuff. Tinker at your peril.
  7. Then again, it was said by Clair 'say anything to hassle Tony' Short. Has she come up with any 'proof' of her last alegations? If this is true, you'd have thought she'd have mentioned it when she offered to put her job on the line.... off the line..... on the line.... no I'll keep it really :wink:

    The woman is not only ugly, she's got this habit of trying to show she's got principles and using them as an excuse to krap on the people she works with..... notice I didn't say friends as I'm not sure she's got any left.

    You have to wonder what hold she's got on the wimp Blair, as for what she's done recently would have got her sacked from any other political party no matter how weak the leadership.
  8. This goes back to the Wehrmacht supporting Adolf in the last bit of Global Unpleasantness. The Nurenburg trials defined once and for all the merely 'obeying orders' is no defence in law.
    The head shed no doubt had visions of Hague-style war-crimes tribunals if things went awry - and rightly so. This is one of the few instances of our military invading a sovereign territory (The Crimean campaign also springs to mind), so they had to be certain that we were legally entitled to do so - remember all this was without the sanction of the UN, whose mandates have been our legal crutch for the past 40 years.
    It's all well and good fighting (and dying) for Queen and Country when our way of life is under threat, but quite another when it's to further the political ambition of the incumbent US president.
    An illegal order is an illegal order, whether it comes from an SS-Hauptscharfuhrer or the PM.
    Befehl ist Befehl as they used to say in Germany... but not any more...
  9. ....only if you're on the losing side, sunshine. Don't suppose Mr Hitler and his chums would have been invited to Nuremburg and taken the rap if they had won!
  10. will be interesting to see how this story developes
  11. Interesting one on here at the moment as I have noticed one major thing (in my eyes that is). Although 99.99% of Brit squaddies would go to war over the most trivial of things (because that's what we do as servants of The Crown), this particular shindig seems to have attracted more derision than has been seen previously.

    Maybe it's just because we now have a medium by which to do it (i.e., this), but I doubt that, I was there during the last outing, which, to a man, we all knew was about oil. However, it was rarely mentioned, even face-to-face as it was just a "side issue". We were there to do our jobs and no one really cared about the big political “why”, there was a bad man doing bad things to other people and we were there to sort it out.

    So what is it about this one? We all know that morally sadaam was a cnut, he deserved to be toppled for no better reason than he was a mini Hitler and for that reason alone, he deserves far worse than he is getting now. BUT, the questions of "was the war legal" and "was the war just" have become two big separate issues. Are we now saying that although something may be just in the eyes of our own democracy, but is not legal in the eyes of the UN, that we should turn a blind eye?

    Don't misunderstand me, the irony here is that I really, really hope that the war is found to be illegal and that it brings Bliar down, however, I totally agree that we should have done it and I am ashamed (probably the wrong word as that hints to self induced failure, which it wasn’t, but I can’t think of a better one) that as a part of Op Granby, we didn't end it in the first place (not through lack of ability I hasten to add, just through lack of orders).

    Why should we tolerate the notion that if we find something unjust, we cannot act upon it as a nation without the blessing of the UN / Rest Of The World? As an example, if Zimbabwe had happened 40 years ago (forgetting the history of Rhodesia, I mean the situation, not the history), we would have intervened, maybe not militarily, but a lot stronger than we do today. It is unjust, simple as that.

    Britain, amongst it’s many dark sides of history, also has a history of being the champion of the underdog, something that is being eroded by the PC and legal b0llocks that is thrown around today.

    People accuse us (and the sceptics) of being the “moral police” and reckon that this is the way that we justify our conflicts, well, shock horror, maybe it should be.

    Defending against genocide, dictatorship etc etc, these are obviously terrible things to be seen as being against.
  12. Stella said
    Including 'looking at their pint in a funny way'. :? 8O
  13. Re "legal" vs "just" - I think that's what annoys me most about the current mess we're in. With a little thought and effort we could have made it both and avoided an awful lot of the trouble we're in now.

    Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, no doubt about that, but ..... if we'd waited a few months (six at the outside) we could have got the UN to rubberstamp the invasion, got in and eliminated what remained of Saddam's forces - and then handed over to someone else in a blue beret to cope with the aftermath.

    Instead of which that fool Bush decided to go it alone without the UN to pander to the predjudices of middle America. So that poodle Blair goes along - and we are where we are.
  14. Especially that :D

    As i wrote the above under the influence of many lagers, maybe that bit didn't come over right. What I meant was that 99.9% of squadies will follow the order to go to war, regardless of their own moral beleifs as to whether that war is right or not.
  15. I agree with all the above - what I'm less comfortable with is a growing suspicion that we're being horribly misled and taken for a ride here.
    If BLiar and Shrubbery had just came out and said "Let's get the Ba&tard, why - just coz we can!" I'd have no problem. The only trouble being that it'd be a difficult one to sell to the voters.
    I happen to believe that the majority of western attitudes and policies are, for the most part, just. What is lacking is the political will (spine, if you like) to act pre-emptively before too much blood is split.
    If we'd gone in harder and sooner, not only in the Gulf, but in the Balkans, how many more lives would have been saved?
    Worry about the political fall-out later - saving lives - that's our business.