Political gain from Iraq deaths

#1
There's a lot of animosity towards the current government for the current situation in Iraq. Obviously every loss of British life is resented by those serving soldiers (and ex-serving and most of the public), however many people use the loss of life to have a go at the government/mod.
When is this acceptable and when is it not? Many arrse members have had a go everytime there has been a casualty and quite rightly we should pay our respects to the families of those who have lost loved ones. However, at the same time as blasting the "illegal war" we get irritated (to put it mildly) by people using each death, especially the 100th, for political gain. I am mainly referring to George Galloway (*goes off to be sick in a bucket*) and those he supports and those who support him. In my opinion they are disrespectful to the dead and to the job our soldiers are doing at the moment in iraq, afghanistan and the many other commitments they have (overstretch anyone?). They should not be allowed to use the deaths of our soldiers for any personal or political gain, unless they are expressely given permission by the families of the dead. When a soldier joins he or she should be fully aware that they may go to war, there are casualties in war. The families of those who died in Iraq through "preventable" c*** ups should fight for the memories of their loved ones and to prevent the same happening again (body armour etc).
I suppose my question is where do we draw the line? What can we say? What can the families say? I hope noone is going to post on here supporting George Galloway and his actions, but what can be done about it?
 
#2
CRABBY a very good post , From a soldiers point of view nothing winds me up more than seeing these
''stop the war'' protesters , what have they ever done to help the people of Iraq ? Nothing ! do they really
think having a bimble around London with their smelly hippy mates is going to save the plight of Iraq ?
Not one bit . Its the soldiers out in Iraq that are doing the very most to help the people of Iraq . Hardly
any of the good work of the British army gets in the press /media . Then when we lose another soldier
of course the attention hungry usual suspects appear to show sorrow for the dead soldier and his family .
3 years ago that clown Galloway was telling the Iraqi soldiers to kill the British infedel soldiers .
The brass neck of the bloke makes me cringe . As for the rights and wrongs of the conflict or whatever
we call it in Iraq , well as soldiers it is not our position to comment .We all have our own opinions. It
doesn't take the brains of Steven Hawking to realise things haven't gone to plan .But we have to get on
with the job , the job we signed up to do . I just wish the media would perhaps focus on the job the British
army is doing out there.Training the Iraqi Police and army , building sewage systems , painting schools '
and the soldiers on the ground dishing out their own rations and water . Lets hope we dont lose anymore
servicemen/women out there and not feed the publicity hungry scum that cash in on the deaths of our
mates to further their own political careers .
 
#3
"From a soldiers point of view nothing winds me up more than seeing these
''stop the war'' protesters , what have they ever done to help the people of Iraq ?"

Paveway, maybe these protesters (the majority at least), are protesting about a War which seems to be killing UK servicemen with little or no visible results, not against the Sevicemen involved in it. I think it's an important distinction.

There will always be some renta-crowd fcukwits amongst the protestors, but do the majority of them really blame the individual servicemen and women? Surely they must blame the Government for sending you there.

Are they protesting outside the seat of Government, or ouside the Military bases?

I for one think the war is dead wrong and indefensible, but I also recognise that it is not a Serviceman's choice whether or not to be involved. I hope that the UK (and Australian) populace always keeps the ability to differentiate between the Orders Given by a Government and the Orders Received by the Services. I would hate to see the situation which seems to have evolved in the US, where any Government action can be defended with the catch all "don't disrepect the troops".
 
#4
I'll just add to my previous post... I started thinking even more about this cos I drank loaaads last night and watched the final blackadder goes forth. We lost almost a million men, 18,000 alone on the first day of the Somme... perhaps we needed people to protest against the war? It was just mindless, pointless slaughter. I know circumstances and numbers are very very different but we can't just follow everything blindly.
I'm normally against anti-war protesters, but I do think a family member can protest. In a more general picture MPs are there to debate and provide different points of view, I think it's a good thing there are MPs pro war and anti-war, but the way in which they go about their lobbying speaks volumes about the types of people they are. Some, like Robin Cook, did so with grace and dignity, others not so.
 
#5
Ok a good debate is starting . I do have a few points/ questions. What do the anti-war lobby
want ? Do we just pull out of Iraq right now ? Its happened , its a bit of a mess , so what can
we do about it ?I was there 3 years ive been back for a tour since and i'm shortly deploying
again . As have many many other soldiers . My point is , if people are protesting against the
conflict in Iraq due to the loss of British soldiers lives then fair one. Its when the usual suspects
turn up .Be they polititions , rent-a-mob or muslim extremists that the blood starts to boil .
Whatever the press broadcast/print, the British army is slowly helping the Iraqis rebuild their
own country .I am sure as soon as it is deemed possible we will be out of the place . We all have
our views on Blair and Bush but the thing is we are committed now . What else can we do ?????
 
#7
Having served 24 years myself , and my son is about to start his Phase 1 training ( I mention this to show my perspective), I can understand how every service death (in ANY Theatre) is a tragedy, but I would have hoped that my parents would not have turned around and blamed Tony Blair if anything had happened to me. If you disagree with the war, then fine , but I hate it when personal losses are made political.

If people want to protest against the war then fine - but I didn't see them protest about Saddam slaughtering people, or about poverty and genocide in 3rd world countries. I see people protesting about fox hunting, but nobody protests that pensioners die of hypothermia in our so-called civilised country.

Oops - sorry , got on my soapbox there. I think there are too many people jumping on bandwagons when they aren't actually prepared to do anything constructive.
 
#9
As far as I see it, the main differences between the other two "big 'uns" and the war in Iraq is that the latter was unpopular from the get-go. In WWI and WWII, the population saw a need to wage war (even more so in WWII), but it was obvious from the beginning of the Iraq war that it was just war for war's sake and entirely unnecessary.

As repulsive as Saddam Hussein was as a dictator, he never threatened or instigated any action against either the USA or the UK.

From that point of view, I can understand the anti-war protestors, and also that brave people are dying needlessly to feed the egos of those gobshites Bush and Blair.

However, I agree that some people are pushing a purely personal agenda with their protests sometimes, but then again, when I talk to others about it, it becomes clear that only a very few are taken in by it. So that's perhaps an encouraging sign.

MsG
 
#10
crabby said:
I hope noone is going to post on here supporting George Galloway and his actions, but what can be done about it?
What namely mr.Galloway has done?
 
#13
jonwilly said:
Just as a good debate starts the spoilers surface.
john
Grow up.
It's a typical answer of those that haven't anything concrete to say.
 
#14
Sergey
I have never been able to make up my mind if you are the Acceptable face of a Properganda Department or like the the rest of us, a single person passing comment on what he sees and hears.
john
 
#15
Are we not really examining the right to demonstrate? The circumstances that led to original posting are defined and, I would suggest, the range between both sides is too great for agreement or agreement to differ. Clearly, just because we cannot agree with the demonstrators point of view must not allow us to bar them the right to demonstrate their beliefs. KGB Resident can advise - if his avatar describes him correctly - what comes of that course of action.
We cannot insist that demonstrators prove their case before they get the banners out. If their case is rubbish, there is no need to concern ourselves with their actions. They annoy us? So, what's new. Annoyance is all around. If they have a point - the more who see it the better.
My overall meaning in this drivel is that saying what can and what cannot be demonstrated and how is a very slippery slope and best left alone. After all, if there is a really offensive march involving hundreds, we can always rely on the police to arrest three of them can't we? Later - much later.
 
#16
paveway_3 said:
. Lets hope we dont lose anymore
servicemen/women out there and not feed the publicity hungry scum that cash in on the deaths of our
mates to further their own political careers .
Thats the heart of the matter.
 
#17
jonwilly said:
Sergey
I have never been able to make up my mind if you are the Acceptable face of a Properganda Department or like the the rest of us, a single person passing comment on what he sees and hears.
john
John! Of course I'm a single person passing comment on what I see and hear. However if I were 'an evil propagandist' then I would say the same thing.

OldRedCap said:
KGB Resident can advise - if his avatar describes him correctly - what comes of that course of action.
They are puppies and it is rather a game than a fierce fight. My dog (below) is a lovely nice girl absolutely harmless toward human beings (though not towards other dogs). I think that this picture reflects typical discussion there, on this Forum.
 
#19
jonwilly said:
Sergey.
"A man is never more truthful than when he acknowledges himself as a liar."
john
Ching Ching for sure.
John!

Truth and lie... they are two sides of one coin and the truth without lie is impossible as one-sided coin is unimaginary thing. Moreover, the most pure truth is very close to absolute lie. And a distance between a liar and a truthful person is not so big as one could think.

But there is one feature that helps to identify the lie. The lie is always profitable, the truth - only sometimes (namely in these cases it looks like a lie).

Returning to mr.Galloway, can anyone explain me what is namely his guilt? If he would never mention fallen British soldiers, would never take part in meetings and demonstrations in their memory, then would it be right for MP to ignore such an important and painfull problem?
 
#20
A problem here is that this was is not a 'popular' war,in the public at large.This contracts sharply with others,conducted by The Army since 1945.That's not The Army's problem,but the problem for the politicos.The Army performs tasks,always,to the best of the ability allowed by the politicos(and The Treasury).Death and injury is the lot of anyone sent to war.It's often a lottery.However excellent training and leadership,coupled with focused aggression,against the enemy,will always win the day. When a Sapper POM can come top of the Army sniper course,there is always hope!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top