Memorial Service

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Mighty_doh_nut, Oct 10, 2003.

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. Thier is a memorial service today at St Pauls for the British dead from the recent incidents in Iraq.

    It angers me to think that Blair will show his face. Has that man got no sense of decency.

    Let the Queen and other members of the monarchy attend but not the cadinet who wrongly sent these brave men to thier deaths..

    Piss boiling today :evil: :evil:
  2. I say let them go and see the families of the deceased, up close and personal.
  3. This has been discussed elsewhere-Blair needs to be there as head of the Govt. He probably regrets the deaths as much as any other non relative-maybe even moreso as he had to make the decision to send them out there, but for the head of the government not to be present? A swift injection of reality please people
  4. He didn't HAVE to make the decision to send them out there, and he made that decision despite the advice from experts that an invasion of Iraq was detrimental to the stated aims, even IF they were true.

    We now know that the reasons for the war were lies, we now know that Bliar knows the reasons for the war were lies as he told Cooke as much.

    This was a political decision, not moral or security, that saw our comrades die in their dozens, and Bliar has reaped, or thought he would before he was caught, the benefits.

    It's an affront in these circumstances for him to be there regardless of his position in the Government, although I do agree that he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, but that is the result of his lies, deception, manipulation and willingness to sacrifice the lives of our men to pursue a political policy. Ergo: the cnut only has himself to blame and if he had even the slightest shred of honour he would resign.
  5. OK, so perhaps I'm about to set foot into the Lion's Den but...

    regrettable that ANY deaths might be, has anyone given any thought to the fact that despite what we, individually, might think about the decision taken to go to Iraq, collectively we have signed up to serve the country and our elected representative (like him or lump him!) took the decision to send the country's Armed Forces to war. This is called doing one's duty. Whilst I join with the families in their grief, the soldiers who gave their lives did so doing what THEY believed in.

    Argue the toss as much as you like as to whether Bliar is the right man for the job, whether the decision was the right one or whether we should or should not have been there but lets not forget that the bottom line is we are all expected to do the bidding of our government when the time comes and we cannot, necessarily, chose the time or place where we die.

    If that prospect bothers anyone, perhaps we should see a few more people voting with their feet and heading towards civvie street. I, for one, intend to stay put.
  6. This is an old chestnut revisited. The fact of the matter is that you DO NOT sign up to serve the bidding of the PM and the Government of day, and espeacially NOT to do that PM or that Governments bidding.

    The actual aim and function of the army is to preserve the security of the UK, and that is why you swear allegiance to the Queen, as head of state, and not to the Government.

    Bliar in the final analysis has no more constitutional power than any other MP, and is directly responsible to Parliament, which is why every policy decision is voted for in Parliament, just like the armed forces is. The only time he can take any of the armed forces under his direct command is under Royal Prerogative and that only hapens when the country is at war directly as a consequence of being attacked.

    Bliar has NO allegiance, in ANY form, from the armed forces, and the same goes for the Government, with the proviso of the above.

    That is exactly why he should be charged with treason if he has misled in any way Parliament to take us to war in Iraq, and is culpable, technically, of manslaughter with regards to misuse of the armed forces. It's also why he is on the run and denies everything over Iraq and the run-up, and blames everybody else; if he didn't he would be in shyte.

    If you want to serve the PM and Government, then fine and you should join the Labour party, I'll stick to serving the people of the UK and their best interests, as that is the only thing I'm obliged to serve and perhaps lay my life down for.
  7. Your barking up the wrong tree, the army are employed to do what is best for the people of the UK by Force, and to keep stability and defend our best interests and opinions, the people of the UK are represented by the Government (In Theory), so we do serve Tony.

    To say Tony doesn't care about lose of life is harsh, he is a fool maybe, not a beast.
  8. Wherever this thread is going, I hope you dont mind a civvy nudgin in and taking his hat off to 51 true hearted British Soldiers.
    Rest In Peace boys.......never mind the why's and wherefores.
    And god bless to your wives and families.
  9. The Government and Blair represent the people? And there was me thought Parliament represented the people.

    Blair and the Government/Cabinet, are 23 MP's out of 650 odd, so (In Theory) the Government and Blair represent only four percent of the people of the UK, hardly representative of the whole nation.

    If Blair cared about loss of life, why did he push the invasion of Iraq when the securioty services told him WMD would be more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists threatening the UK?
  10. C'mon Shotgun, get real. Whaddya gonna do? Have a referendum every time there's a difficult decision to be made? Politicians are our elected representatives, charged by the Queen and the electorate to govern the country. Defence of the UK mainland is but one pillar of defence policy. Just because you (and perhaps an odd 30 million others) might not agree, it does not make the thing treasonable.

    At the risk of repeating myself, the 51 who gave their lives - God bless 'em - did so performing a duty that they were proud to undertake. They may not have liked it, but they - like the rest of us who were there - did it because it goes with the territory. WE are, after all, a volunteer Army.

    If we are not prepared to die doing the bidding of the country - which, I am afraid IS govened by hapless politicians - we either don't join or we leave. A choice made possible by democracy.

    I am not pretending its perfect - it surely is not - but it, currently, is the way it is. Don't like it? Get yourself elected!
  11. Mmm this powderkeg's been lit....

    All sounds akin to the thread "BLAIR URGED TO STAY AWAY FROM MEMORIAL SERVICE",

    a few good links to BBCi articles in there.

    But just to add my tuppence worth, Her Majesties Armed Forces are deemed apolitical and hence serve whatever elected government the people choose, 'thems the brakes' when living in a democracy. Just to reaffirm someone elses statement, that's why we pledge to HM the Queen, her heirs and successors etc etc as opposed to the government of the day.

    Bliar may be an absolute throbber but the only way to change that is by the ballot box, I'm no sandal wearing leftie, in fact quite the opposite but the fundamentals of democracy still apply.

    Pity the "Quiet Man" IDS wasn't a bit louder and his party was totally behind him, oh and never forget, never trust a liberal (policies change to suit whatever demographic they're pandering to even if it contradicts previous policy related statements).

    Roll on the next general election, fingers crossed Tony and his Cronies will have outlived their tax-raising, policy spinning halcion days.
  12. You're missing completely the point made, and missing the error in many of the posts, which is all I'm trying to put right.

    The main error that I'm putting straight is the assumption, or assertion, that the armed forces are there to serve Blair and the Government, which isn't the case. Whether it is right or wrong is another matter, but the fact is that we as the armed forces aren't there to protect Blair, his Government, or their policies.

    We may be prepared to die for the country, but the country isn't Blair and the Government.

    The 51 who died, you are right, may well have been proud to serve, and of course it does go with the territory, but again, you're missing the point made. The point is that if Blair lied and manipulated to get the army into the invasion of Iraq, then the 51 died for a lie and manipulation, and that IS the point. It is also one of the worst things a politician can do. As to treason and Blair being culpable for manslaughter, that has nothing to do with the war as such, but the lie and manipulation that took us to war. It is also not my theory or opinion necessarily, but the opinion of international lawyers. A international war crime tribunal right now is being prepared against Bush and Blair, and the lawyers claim they have a good chance of success.

    What's the point in getting myself electd when people think the PM is the one and only power?

    If Blair would have come out and said, "Fck it, Iraq has been given long enough and we're going to sort them out." Then fair enough and he made his case plain, and then Parliament would have decided the issue, but he didn't say that. He lied and manipulated Parliament to gain the support he needed.

    I was for the war, but against lying politicians, and the only way to get rid of lying politicians is to weed them out instead of letting them stay and claiming they are all the same.
  13. Now you're doing it. There is a difference between the elected Government and Parliament, and the armed forces serve Parliament. It's this misconception that's allowed Bliar to act like a President and up to now get away with lying and deceiving the people into a war.