# Defending your country is not murder.



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm having to be careful here but there's nothing to say I can't post up a really good website in support of 5 Royal Marines who have been arrested and held for the 'murder' of an Afghan insurgent who was wounded while attacking them. During their tour in Afghan 42 Commando, which these men are from, lost 7 men and had many wounded including double and triple amputees. Any support for them, ie sign the petition, is gratefully received from any and everywhere. And if you could pass it on? You might not think it will do any good but any and all pressure on the government does help, they've backed down before on other subjects when the public pressure has been on.
http://supportthe7.co.uk/


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 17, 2012)

Done, my friend.  I am sure there is more detail in the background of this story but the very idea that soldiers should have to operate under RoE that needlessly risks their lives makes me shake my head in disbelief.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2012)

British troops are having to work to rules of engagement given out by Gen. McChrystal not to British rules of engagement. it means we can't shoot first basically when under threat, we have to wait till they've shot at us. You also can't shoot unless they are standing there shooting at you, if they are retreating you can't shoot them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...iban-to-beat-rules-of-engagement-8082165.html


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 17, 2012)

I couldn't find anything that purported to give any facts of the incident so I can't comment on their actions.  I certainly hope they committed no violations of law, for their sake, the sake of their mission, and the sake of their countrymen's pride in them.  

Servicemen are often put in more harm's way by those over them.  When I was in Vietnam, there was a time when President Nixon ordered that the enemy could not be fired on unless they were firing at the troops.  Imagine their frustration on seeing a platoon or company of enemy walking across the rice paddies, not firing at any one (but who knew when later they would), and not being able to engage them.  The idea mentioned in post #3 isn't any better.  If the enemy finds themselves in an untenable position, even trapped, all they have to do is disengage and move away, then shazam!  Immediate safety until the next time when they find themselves in a better position to ambush.  Makes no sense at all.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2012)

No 'fact's' will be reported now because of their arrest, it becomes sub judice here and nothing can be reported in the media until the trial, in their case it will be a court martial. 
The troops accept the danger, they accept they may be killed or maimed but they do need a level playing field and not have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2012)

http://voiceinthecrowd.org/2012/10/...ged-with-murder-four-released-without-charge/


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> No 'fact's' will be reported now because of their arrest, it becomes sub judice here and nothing can be reported in the media until the trial, in their case it will be a court martial.
> The troops accept the danger, they accept they may be killed or maimed but they do need a level playing field and not have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.



Trust me, I do understand.  

I also, while hoping this is going to sort itself out in the favor the the Marines, must keep an open mind since I know soldiers are people, and people are capable of committing crimes and then denying it.  

But sometimes in war time, care must be taken not to hold too high a standard against people who must dodge bullets while determining who is the enemy, and whether or not that enemy is the one engaged, or about to engage, in hostilities.  Are those hands up to point out your position, or indicate surrender.  When you literally have split seconds to decide and determine a course of action, there is potential for mistakes.  In war time, the difference between a mistake causing death, and intentional killing of someone you don't have to kill, can be pretty thin, but does exist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 17, 2012)

I have found very little information on this other than the fact of the arrests and subsequent charges.  The UK is very much unlike the US in this sense.

What little I have found seems to allude to a single act, involving a wounded insurgent, and a decision undertaken as to whether to render medical assistance or not; the insurgent subsequently died.

My sympathies are, as always, with our fighting men and women, both from the US and our allies.  I am not sorry for insurgents and not broken-hearted when they die.  They would, after all, gleefully kill us if they could, and that indeed is their intent.

One wonders what the exact circumstances were.  Executing a prisoner, while understandable in the heat of battle, might be what happened here, and that sort of thing tends to not be defensible later.  If that is indeed what happened, or something along those lines.

I am merely curious as to the events which took place, I of course do not take the dead insurgent's side.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2012)

Once someone has been charged here with an offence there is no talking about it in the media, this incident happened well over a year ago though during a fire fight, I do know that. However as it's a court martial it's likely that what happened will never be told as it will come within the Official Secrets Act. It's likely that a lot of the court martial will be in camera too. 
The Bootnecks from 42 who are campaigning for the guys know what happened and I doubt they would make such a public display of support if it were an illegal incident. When something _has_ happened that was illegal the guys have said that trial and punishment was a fair cop they haven't made such a thing of it befoire. We all know things can happen and that not every service person is as clean as we'd like, in those cases there's been no demonstrations of support such as is going on now. It's like a reverse 'no smoke without fire' thing, they'd not make such a fuss if they thought it was a murder.


----------



## Haakon (Oct 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> British troops are having to work to rules of engagement given out by Gen. McChrystal not to British rules of engagement. it means we can't shoot first basically when under threat, we have to wait till they've shot at us. You also can't shoot unless they are standing there shooting at you, if they are retreating you can't shoot them.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...iban-to-beat-rules-of-engagement-8082165.html



Sounds like they're trying to apply US self defense laws to a war zone, which is absolutely insane.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 17, 2012)

In the end, NATO is the aggressive force occupying Afghanistan. The people living there, with the drone strikes, the night raids, and wedding massacres, have every right to defend THEIR HOMES. They can change the rules and make whatever kind of crazy "rules of engagement" they want and it doesn't matter. NATO needs to do the right thing and leave Afghanistan. The people who put the troops in this situation need to be held responsible.


----------



## billc (Oct 17, 2012)

Sorry, Makalakumu, the 9/11 attacks originated in Afghanistan under the tolerance of the taliban, they needed to be stopped and punished.  Drone strikes, night raids are part of war.  Wedding massacre...it is a war zone against an enemy that hides behind innocent civillians, whom they also torture and murder.  War isn't easy, it isn't something that is ever going to be anything other than chaos and mayhem with innocents too often caught in the middle.  Avoiding the killing of innocents is why our troops go to so many lengths to protect innocents caught in the middle.  It is the radical, islamic jihadists who have put these innocent people in harms way, not us.  If there were no jihadists, then we wouldn't be conducting drone attacks or night raids and innocents wouldn't be killed in the crossfire.  

Once we leave, and the taliban reasserts control over the country, how will you stop terrorist training camps and support networks from starting up again?  That is the one thing no one on the peacenik side can tell us.  How do you stop attacks against us and how do you stop them from originating from Afghanistan once we leave?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 17, 2012)

Look, Bill, the cavalier way you shrug off the war crimes is absolutely appalling.  The drone strikes have a 2% success rate.  The "double tap" strategy of bombing targets (wedding parties) and then coming back and bombing 20 minutes later kills anyone who is trying to help no matter who they are.  When the night raids go down, no one in the houses knows what is going on.  A typical Pashtun family expects the men to protect them, so they grab their kalashnikov and do what any red blooded man would do if their family was in danger.  If this was Texas, and this was happening in your neighborhood, you'd shoot back

In the end, it doesn't matter how convoluted the rules of engagement have become.  It's ******** because the whole reason we are there in the first place has been lost.  Our very presence is wrong.  Every action we take, no matter how "justified" is wrong.  We can't even pretend to justify this and call ourselves the good guys anymore.

The worse part is that we created this problem with our series of failed foreign policy and now we think that our next foreign policy failure is going to fix it. Ninja please. We need to get out. The Taliban are going to reassertion control no matter what. NATO has lost and they've been negotiating with them for months, saying pretty please don't put Karzai's head on a pike when we actually do run out of the country with our tail between our legs. The best that our government is trying to achieve is leaving without looking like we lost. It's Vietnam 2.0.  

At any rate, it's been ten years. Bin Laden is gone. The "Al Qaeda" who we don't control are dead. The only enemies left are people who been pissed off by our continued occupation.  This includes the Afghans that NATO is training.  How many "dinner parties" have trainers been invited to in order to get ambushed? Our government's continued interests in the region revolved around CIA control of opium and the massive amounts of rare earth elements that have been discovered.  And now, that kind of foreign policy is being called into question because it's too expensive.  We need to leave now.  We needed to leave years ago.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 17, 2012)

I have to agree, makalakumu. Our involvement in Afghanistan has been touchy from the get go. We responded to the bombing of the world trade center by a lot of indiscriminate bombing that killed a lot of innocents , needlessly, which made the job on the ground that much more difficult. There were a lot of elements willing to overthrow the Taliban even at the beginning.  Rather than work with these people we kept going our own route and it not only made the job harder for our soldiers,  tens of thousands of innocents died. 

We weren't even certain Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan when we initially went there, nor that the Taliban was harboring them, as they also weren't exactly close with them. In fact, the Taliban from what I remember had been initially willing to help us find those responsible.. then the bombings began and we made quick allies of the two camps. Our way of going about things in Afghanistan really wasn't that good. Then we went to Iraq, dividing the force, and it got even worse (we ended up CREATING a situation in Iraq where terrorists could flourish)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 17, 2012)

But I doubt those responsible will ever be held to account. Look at what happened in south America. Same script, different players. The united states has NEVER admitted culpability, and the combined death to in Nicaragua,  el salvador, Panama, Honduras, Columbia,  and Venezuela was in the tens of millions.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2012)

http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-r...yker-brigade-observations-still-ring-tru.html



> Col. Tunnell's letter is essential reading for Americans trying to understand why we are 11 years into a war against an illiterate enemy that has no air force, navy, or armor.
> 
> _*COIN cost U.S. war effort*_
> Where did we go wrong? Tunnell said it's mainly because our senior leaders, who have less combat maneuver experience now than perhaps at any time in U.S. military history, are "unwilling to conduct operations that reflect sound military art and science."
> ...



If you are really interested in whats going on over there read this.

Im starting to agree with Maka. Once we stopped knowing exactly what our mission there was we should have left. COIN as we are fighting it has become voodoo instead of military science.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2012)

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/secarmy_redacted-redux.pdf

When a Colonel is willing to toss his career by writing a letter like this...we should read it.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2012)

A quote from the above linked article:



> What is troubling is that the White House and Pentagon no doubt knew this from the beginning. *But the political leadership decided that the narrative was more important than the reality, so we would train the Afghan army and police for the sake of training &#8211; you don't question COIN. *Now we are approaching the point that the Afghans we train are as deadly to our troops as the Afghans we fight.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 17, 2012)

Interestingly,  the Al Qaeda we fight was originally the Al Qaeda we trained, and even deployed.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2012)

I think you mean Taliban in this conversation.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 17, 2012)

So history repeats itself. We have yet another potential enemy, trained to fight against another enemy we have trained, that can later be used as an a new threat and convenient reason to go to war.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 18, 2012)

The point is though that we sent soldiers in and now we are punishing those soldiers for doing what was asked of them. Whether we should have gone in is a different issue altogether and to be honest I'd like to focus on the Royal Marines rather than whether we should have gone to war in Afghanistan. The politics of the situation is less relevant than the politics of making servicemen scapegoats.
The other thing is that you are overlooking the natural wealth of Afghanistan in valuable ores and minerals, worth a fortune to the companies (and countries) who can get them. Iraq was oil and Afghanistan is ores and minerals.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 18, 2012)

A very good letter, *TG* - thank you for bringing that to the fore.

I am fairly sure that it is the confused and inadequate counter-insurgency agenda that has contributed to the situtation that has lead the Royal Marines to their current 'legal' plight.


----------



## Instructor (Oct 18, 2012)

Haakon said:


> Sounds like they're trying to apply US self defense laws to a war zone, which is absolutely insane.



Actually in most of the U.S. you can shoot if somebody merely points a firearm at you, they don't have to fire first.  This means that the ROE for these soldiers is actually more risky than our civil laws.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2012)

If all our soldiers are allowed to do is drive/walk around and be targets, and not be given the ability to take the fight to the enemy...... than it's time to leave.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 18, 2012)

Tgace said:


> If all our soldiers are allowed to do is drive/walk around and be targets, and not be given the ability to take the fight to the enemy...... than it's time to leave.



And, as this thread is about "unjustly" killing civilians by the Royal Marines, we avoid more of these incidents by pulling out.


----------



## billc (Oct 18, 2012)

Tez is right.  Combat is not a police action so more latitude must be given to our soldiers fighting these monsters.  

************

DISCLAIMER...

To those about to jump on me by accusing me of condoning atrocities committed by our soldiers, and I also mean our allies, let me state this clearly.  I do not, nor have I ever condoned the committing of war crimes by our soldiers, our allies, or even close relatives of our soldiers in peacetime or in actual combat.  No, I do not consider waterboarding a war crime, but that is not part of this topic so let's not go there either.

END DISCLAIMER....

*************

Civillians who have never been in the military or experienced combat must understand that fighting an enemy that is intent on killing you requires the ability to meet that force with sometimes what may seem like excessive force in a civilian police setting.  Trying to meet an attack by monster who torture and kill civilians as well as soldiers with "equal," force is in most cases silly and impractical and costs the lives of our people.  I support these Marines.  If they actually did something wrong, I retract my support.  However, like the case brought against our Navy Seals for punching a prisoner, I give the benefit of the doubt to our guys...you know, the good guys in this fight.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 18, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I give the benefit of the doubt to our guys...you know, the good guys in this fight.



We're not the good guys.  This isn't a justifiable war and it hasn't been for a long time.  If we simply look at the numbers of dead, the amount of property damage, and the amount of long term lasting pollution we've spread around Afghanistan, it far outstrips anything any terrorists ever did to any of the NATO nations.  The use of DU alone is a crime against humanity, Bill.  For that, NATO lost any semblance of moral high ground.  DU will kill innocents thousands of years in the future, in a time where humans won't even remember what this particular war was ever about.  

If NATO is fighting to defend the countries involved, we must draw upon some definition of defense in order for the word "defend" to have any meaning.  If the Taliban represent a clear and present threat that requires the sacrifice of blood and treasure as well as the murder of innocents, let the NATO governments present that case to the people and actually declare war based on evidence.  If that threat is so terrible that it justifies 98% civilian casualty rates, thousands of years of radioactive pollution, massive destruction of property, and hundreds of thousands dead, lets be really clear about what that threat is.  

On one level, the truth is that this so called threat can't even threaten the citizens of NATO countries more than bee stings.  More people die from bee stings each year than from a threat that we are currently spending NATO countries into bankruptcy for.  Which brings up another level of truth, a level that most people don't want to look at...why the **** are we really there?

Which brings me around the Royal Marines.  It doesn't matter if they shot that guy in accordance with the rules of engagement.  It's wrong no matter what.  The poor sods signed their lives away to a corrupt government that fed them a bunch of lies and sent them away to kill people over a boogeyman myth.  If they are being victimized in any way, it's by the twisted corporate bureaucrats with their obfuscated convoluted self serving agendas.  The soldiers, the civilians, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda are merely pawns to them.

Polls say that the majority of people in all of the NATO countries see through some level of the lies and want their soldiers home NOW.  In the US, the majority of troops themselves supported a leader who would end this mess immediately, which is why over 70% favored Ron Paul.  Despite this, NATO is still there and is tacking on months to the withdrawal date.  Democracy has failed to make any difference.  I think the time will come where only individual action will matter.  You can choose to be part of an evil empire or you can choose not to be part of it.  The children of the future, the children whose labor was stolen in the form of debt to pay for this, will remember the people who choose to be a part of this.  

They will say that this was not defense.  This was murder.  This was pillage.  This was wrong.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 19, 2012)

I think you have a fundamental error in thinking regarding the history of war and warfare. If you think it's all a one dimensional "government boogyman" conspiracy than your blinders are as dark as those who think its all "fighting for mom, apple pie and the American way". There are plenty of good people out there who believe that they are doing whats right...even if whats right is simply trying to keep each other alive....good people.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2012)

Tgace said:


> There are plenty of good people out there who believe that they are doing whats right...even if whats right is simply trying to keep each other alive....good people.



Good people can get stuck in bad situations, but the measure of a person's integrity is how they choose to deal with that.  In the end, just as we discussed in the Necessary Evil thread, a line has to be drawn somewhere and sometimes tough calls have to be made.  I know a lot of good men who are experiencing a lot of pain over this very issue and I have a lot of empathy for this.  A friend of mine has one year left and hates what he feels he has to do for his family...at the expense of some other man's family over there.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 30, 2012)

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/30/michael-yon-president-obama-fumbled-afghanistan/ 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 30, 2012)

The man writes bluntly but, party-political comments set to one side, it is hard to disagree with much of what he says on the practicalities of a non-war in which our Allied troops still die (all too often at the hands of those they have trained).


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> And, as this thread is about "unjustly" killing civilians by the Royal Marines, we avoid more of these incidents by pulling out.



No this thread about about Royal Marines being accused of killing insurgents, the guy they are accused of killing was a *wounded enemy soldier who was engaged in a firefight with them* not an innocent civilian!


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> No this thread about about Royal Marines being accused of killing insurgents, the guy they are accused of killing was a *wounded enemy soldier who was engaged in a firefight with them* not an innocent civilian!



So, anyone who shoots back at an aggressor is an "enemy soldier"?  That's ridiculous.  I don't think NATO know who the "bad guys" are anymore. They've aggressed against so many people and turning the population against them.  Here is an example of a simple moral principle in regards to self defense, If I pick a fight with you, you defend yourself, and I kill you, is it morally justifiable for me to call you my "enemy" and walk away? If a man initiates force in response to NATO's aggression, in response to the constant terror of living with drones flying overhead, night raids, and family members dying unjustly, that man is justified in taking up arms.  If NATO invaded Texas and did the same damn things, you'd have cowboys doing what any red blooded man has a moral right to do.

That said, I'm not willing to overlook the broader context in favor of arguing about the minutiae of a convoluted system of engagement.  Even when NATO soldiers follow the rules, they're still committing an evil act.  The only reason NATO has the rules in the first place is so they can pretend it's justifiable.  "Enemy" is simply a convenient label that has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 3, 2012)

It's a whole new world--the WWII notion of uniformed armies lined up on opposite sides is gone and the rules of war just don't cover something like this well. As with the death of LT Mike Murphy, not being able to shoot at will causes deaths, yet shooting noncombatants is hard to justify and counterproductive w.r.t. winning over the population.

Still, if these soldiers are put on trial, then that's the system at work--an inquiry and a judgment.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> So, anyone who shoots back at an aggressor is an "enemy soldier"? That's ridiculous. I don't think NATO know who the "bad guys" are anymore. They've aggressed against so many people and turning the population against them. Here is an example of a simple moral principle in regards to self defense, If I pick a fight with you, you defend yourself, and I kill you, is it morally justifiable for me to call you my "enemy" and walk away? If a man initiates force in response to NATO's aggression, in response to the constant terror of living with drones flying overhead, night raids, and family members dying unjustly, that man is justified in taking up arms. If NATO invaded Texas and did the same damn things, you'd have cowboys doing what any red blooded man has a moral right to do.
> 
> That said, I'm not willing to overlook the broader context in favor of arguing about the minutiae of a convoluted system of engagement. Even when NATO soldiers follow the rules, they're still committing an evil act. The only reason NATO has the rules in the first place is so they can pretend it's justifiable. "Enemy" is simply a convenient label that has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong.




Ah you are one of those you assumes our service personnel are the ones who shoot first? Strange that because the rules of engagement state that they can only shoot back not initiate the firefight. 
To be honest I don't give a flying f*** about the politics, I care only for the guys who do their best in difficult circumstances, to serve their country. Now their country may be wrong, the polticians may be all sorts of bastards by by god our servicemen deserve every bit of support they can get. The fact that our service people put their lives on the line in the past means you can spout as much rhetoric as you like, don't call people who are willing to lay down their lives for their country evil. I know one of the Royals arrested, as do a lot of Americans who are into MMA and I can assure you that these Marines are every bit as honourable as you could want a man to be. Perhaps you could look at the Afghans who are willing to blow up a school because they know the British soldiers will come and help leaving them open to ambush, look at the afhgans who throw acid into school girls faces, look at the Afghans who kill each other in what is basically drug gang warfare. Look at the girls who are raped and married off to old men, the girls beaten to death, so the people are scared, tought **** perhaps they could try acting as civilised people should then they wouldn't be 'invaded' for harbouring terrorists...how soon you forgot 9/11 and it's your own people too... 

the enemy? It's ignorance, bigotry, misogny, child abuse and hatred, it's not Royal Marines.

this lovel girl you are saying is evil, I shall pass your thoughts to her parents shall I at her funeral?






*Corporal Channing Day *
Corporal Channing Amanda Day deployed to Afghanistan on 2 October 2012 as a Combat Medical Technician Class One with the United Kingdom Medical Group. She was based at Patrol Base One in the Nahr-e Saraj District of Helmand Province, Afghanistan, where she provided medical support to 40 Commando Royal Marines.
Corporal Channing Day was born in Swindon, Wiltshire on 12 March 1987. She grew up in Newtownards, County Down before joining the Army in 2005. Following basic training she undertook specialist training as a Combat Medical Technician. In June 2007 she successfully passed her Class One Combat Medical Technician course. In January 2012 she was posted to 3 Medical Regiment and joined 63 (Force Support) Squadron, based in Preston, and in the build up to Operation HERRICK 17 was selected to support 40 Commando Royal Marines as part of Transition Support Unit Nahr-e Saraj.
Corporal Day was a popular and well respected member of both 3 Medical Regiment, and Transition Support Unit Nahr-e Saraj. A veteran of previous Iraq and Afghanistan deployments, she was looked up to, especially by more junior soldiers in her Squadron, as a mature voice of experience and good advice.
Corporal Day clearly displayed the potential to go far within the Army. Her diligence, her loyalty to friends and comrades and the high opinion in which she was held by all ranks made her a natural medical leader. Her courage, selflessness and commitment in adversity embodied the ethos of the combat medic, and will be long remembered by all those who had the honour to serve with her. 
Corporal Day is survived by her parents, Leslie and Rosemary Day, her sisters, Lauren and Laken, and brother Aaron. She was 25 years old.
The family of Corporal Day paid this tribute: 
"Channing was bubbly, sporty, beautiful and lived her life for the Army. She has died doing what she lived for and in the life that she loved. She will be remembered by all who knew her as a wonderful girl who never stopped smiling and who had an infectious laugh. 
"Channing played football for Northern Ireland as well as ice hockey and also gained her qualification as a ski instructor through the Army. She was also the Northern Ireland Gymnastics Pairs Champion. A girl who lived her life to the full without ever giving up on her dreams. 
"She was a fabulous daughter, sister, granddaughter, cousin, niece and friend. She will be so sadly missed by all."​Lieutenant Colonel Phillip de Rouffignac, Commanding Officer, 3 Medical Regiment said:
"Corporal Channing Day was a star for the future. Although only 25, she had recently been promoted to Corporal, and her current operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan made her a natural choice for the demanding role she was undertaking in support of 40 Commando Royal Marines. Diligent in every respect of her preparation, she had worked hard all the way through the build-up training and led by example in all that she did. 
"Hugely popular with her friends in Preston, Catterick and in Afghanistan, Corporal Channing Day made the most of everything and had lived a lifetime in a short time. An Army footballer, she was a real team player in every sense. Corporal Day will be sorely missed, and the thoughts of all our Regiment are with her family and friends at this difficult time."​Lieutenant Colonel Matt Jackson, Commanding Officer, 40 Commando, Royal Marines, said:
"Corporal Channing Day had clearly made a positive impact on Charlie Company Royal Marines and is spoken about with huge warmth and affection; she was an inspiration and example to all whom she met. Throughout her short time with 40 Commando Royal Marines she endeared herself to all that she worked alongside. Enthusiastic, popular and professional it was clear that she really was one of those rare people who could lighten the mood regardless of the situation. Highly competent she gave Charlie Company the confidence to patrol across a dangerous area knowing that she would be there to care for them if they fell - she was devoted to helping others. 
"The loss of such an exceptional talent has come as a tragic blow and our thoughts at this time are with her Squadron in the Royal Army Medical Corps and especially her family to whom we offer our sincere and heartfelt condolences at this exceptionally difficult time."​


"Corporal Channing Day had clearly made a positive impact on Charlie Company Royal Marines and is spoken about with huge warmth and affection; she was an inspiration and example to all whom she met." Lieutenant Colonel Matt Jackson


Major Paul Sandle RAMC, Officer Commanding, Close Support (Task Force Helmand) Medical Squadron, 3 Medical Regiment, said:
"Corporal Channing Day joined Close Support (Task Force Helmand) Medical Squadron from 63 (Force Support) Squadron when 3 Medical Regiment re-structured into its Operation HERRICK 17 configuration in early 2012. Channing was a very experienced Combat Medical Technician who had already served operational tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
"Channing had recently been promoted to the rank of Corporal and was enjoying the opportunity to lead the junior medics of 3/5 Troop who were working alongside 40 Commando Royal Marines as part of Transition Support Unit Nahr-e Seraj. Channing's strong character, good nature and unique sense of humour were invaluable in contributing to the efforts of the Squadron. She was never one to shy away from a challenge, and would fully immerse herself in the task at hand, fully embracing the role of a close support medic. 
"Channing was a dedicated and selfless medic who put the needs of others before her own. She will be greatly missed and our sympathy goes out to her family and friends."​Lieutenant Charlie Tibbitts RAMC, 3/5 Troop Commander, Close Support (Task Force Helmand) Medical Squadron, 3 Medical Regiment, said:
"Corporal Channing Day joined 3 Medical Regiment early in 2012 and immediately made an impact with her outgoing personality, her professionalism and dedication to her job. Aside from being a thoroughly professional soldier, Channing was a highly popular member of the Squadron who was always happiest with her friends whether out in town or on the training area. 
"When informed that she would be deploying to Afghanistan for the second time in as many years, Channing looked forward to the chance to deploy forward in a close support role with 40 Commando Royal Marines. She was not the sort of person to take a back seat and was always keen to go out on patrol and engage with the Company she was attached to. As well as being a keen and professional soldier, Channing was an excellent medic who was dedicated to attending to the needs of others and always put her patient's needs and those of others before her own.
"Back in barracks Channing was at the heart of all social activities and her presence had the ability to immediately lift the spirits of those around her. 
"Channing's passing will be hard on her Squadron and amongst the wider Royal Army Medical Corps community as well as those that she has served alongside both in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is by remembering her warm and friendly nature and her determination to do the best for those she served alongside that her memory will be best honoured."​Warrant Officer Class 2 (Squadron Sergeant Major) Barry Lewin RAMC, Squadron Sergeant Major, Close Support (Task Force Helmand) Medical Squadron, 3 Medical Regiment, said:
"Corporal Channing Day deployed with the Close Support Medical Squadron from her Troop based in Preston, and immersed herself in pre-deployment training. She deployed on Operation HERRICK 17 in support of the 40 Commando, Royal Marines in the Close Support Role and fully embedded herself within Transition Support Unit Nahr-e Seraj. 
"Being a Class One Combat Medical Technician, Channing was responsible for the delivery of both Primary and Pre Hospital Care to those that she supported, a job at which she excelled. Both her military and medical skills were without question excellent, and being a very capable Junior Non-Commissioned Officer she was able to take to this task with great ease. As a medic, her patients and casualties always came first.
"She was a very much loved member of her troop. As a chatty and bubbly individual she always had a smile on her face, and was always on hand for the younger members of her Troop if they needed guidance or advice.
"Her death is a great loss to her deployed squadron, parent squadron, the Regiment and the wider Royal Army Medical Corps. Our thoughts are with those she loved and left behind."​Sergeant Karl Hinton RAMC, Troop SNCO Combat Medical Technician, Force Support Medical Squadron, 3 Medical Regiment, said:
"Channing Day was taken away from us today, God bless her, a quirky Northern Irish girl who loved to play mother hen to the younger medics. Channing was a great medic and deeply cared about the lads' welfare and well-being no matter who she was attached to. She was a perfect example of the ethos of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Channing will be greatly missed and I had the honour of being her Troop Sergeant. In my eyes she is a true hero, giving her own life to help injured comrades; I will never forget her nor will any of her colleagues. My heart goes out to her family especially her Mum who she had a special bond with. Channing Day, a true legend, we will never forget."​Corporal Kelly Pope RAMC, Combat Medical Technician, Force Support Medical Squadron, 3 Medical Regiment, said:
"Channing, for once I am lost for words, the loss that we are all feeling is unbearable, I am proud to have served with you my fellow Corporal, my friend, my confidante. 'IN ARDUIS FIDELIS'."​Lance Corporal Grace McLeod RAMC, Combat Medical Technician, Force Support Medical Squadron, 3 Medical Regiment, said:
"Channing... words cannot begin to describe how we are feeling right now. Our condolences go out to your nearest and dearest; we have lost a dear friend and colleague and what I would call a family member. Going to have to find a new gym and cinema buddy now, and I miss our little nights in my room drinking my famous cups of tea! We are having a massive party when we get back to the UK but gutted it's in such devastating circumstances. I am missing you so much right now and I love you to pieces. Rest in peace, Gorgeous, Grace."​Private Bethany Gilford RAMC, Combat Medical Technician, Force Support Medical Squadron, 3 Medical Regiment, said:
"Meeting you, Channing, has set the bar for any friendship I will ever have; you will always be a true and perfect friend. I know that I can vouch for anyone who has ever had the honour of meeting you that you have touched all of our hearts deeply. You warmed everyone with your presence and always had a smile which could only be returned warmly. Never forgotten and always in my heart. All my love, Bethany."


Such people are just trying to make a differnce, she treated the Afghan women and children who would not have been treated otherwise, her and the other NATO troops aren't the evil, look to your politicians, look to the women hating men of Afghanisatn, look to those who hate, don't look at the serive people who love their countries and do what others are afraid to.​


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

Total emotive rubbish, completely disconnected from reality.  Quit trying to justify this.

Here's my advice, for what it's worth.  Admit you have been lied to.  Admit that what you are doing is wrong.  Quit serving evil.

This is a question of moral courage.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)

I nailed my colours to the mast, I support the troops, I do not support the governments or the politicians who start the wars, I support the people who stop the wars..the troops. I am emotional because I care, I don't sit in an ivory tower preaching, I care very much and do what I can to support our service men and women.

Keep your cold hearted rhetoric, it's no use when the bullets are flying. You can be as smug and self righteous as you like but you are no better than anyone else.

I expect like many you imagine that Afghanistan and it's people are just like Americans or europeans, well, they aren't, they are still in the Middle Ages, they treat women and girls appallingly, place no value on anyone's life, tribes feud with tribes, animals are treated appallingly, they find it quite amusing to cut off dog's legs, you will find some of the most horrendous cruelty in Afghanistan. Does this mean it should have been invaded? No, it doesn't, but I and a good many people aren't supporting the invasion, we support the troops, yep those people you pour hatred on. Who are you to judge the troops? Judge your politicians, judge your presidents but not the troops who are actually trying at the expense of their lives to do something for a people who on the whole are actually grateful for the efforts made on their behalf. No they don't want the invaders there but they do want a strong army and police force which is what NATO is building there. They want the schools and hospitials which are being built by the troops. I'm not and never have justified the invasion but I won't shut up in my support for the troops..yours as well seeing as you despise them... theirs no lack of morale courage there, the lack of morale courage is when you preach but do ni=othing, the troops are makeing the best of a bad job while trying to make a difference, that diffierence btw wasn't on our governments agenda, the troops themselves took it upon themselves to build schools and clinics, to take medics out to villages and to befriend villages, it wasn't government policy. A lot of the kit to stock the schools and clinics was fund raised for and collected here in the UK. And you despise the military... you see only the evil not those who actually fight that evil.

Moral courage? don't make me laugh...the average soldier has more in their little finger than any politicians has in their entire body, put the blame where it lies not on the service personnel. Try some honest emotion too.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)




----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

I've made the hard decisions already. Quit serving evil and you can do good. Don't make excuses. It's simple and it's one of the most difficult decisions you can make.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I've made the hard decisions already. Quit serving evil and you can do good. Don't make excuses. It's simple and it's one of the most difficult decisions you can make.



So...what good are you doing the school girls in Afghanistan then as you've washed your hands of everything? How many lives have you saved by opting out?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 3, 2012)

Those who have put their *** on the line for something other than themselves will never be understood by those who haven't Tez.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Those who have put their *** on the line for something other than themselves will never be understood by those who haven't Tez.




Thank you. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> So...what good are you doing the school girls in Afghanistan then as you've washed your hands of everything? How many lives have you saved by opting out?



No one dies by my hands and soon no one will die because of the money that is forcefully taken through taxation. The school girls in Afghan will be better off with out NATOs intervention.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Those who have put their *** on the line for something other than themselves will never be understood by those who haven't Tez.



This is the typical propaganda line that gets trundled out when ever a clear moral line is drawn. Stop making excuses for evil behavior and stop serving institutions that engage in evil. 

If you want to commit your life to something make sure you serve something that is worthy of such a sacrifice.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I nailed my colours to the mast, I support the troops



Troops _do _occasionally do wrong things. Let's not make a blanket statement that they can do no wrong.



> I expect like many you imagine that Afghanistan and it's people are just like Americans or europeans, well, they aren't



So, this sort of rhetoric worries me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Troops _do _occasionally do wrong things. Let's not make a blanket statement that they can do no wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> So, this sort of rhetoric worries me.



Me too. It's the rhetoric of domination, of empire.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Troops _do _occasionally do wrong things. Let's not make a blanket statement that they can do no wrong.
> 
> If you think that I have made a blanket statement you are incorrrect. I am talking about  supporting the troops generally and not making statements about them doing evil and killing everyone.
> 
> ...



It's hardly rhetoric that Afghanistan isn't America or Europe now is it. Have you  been there?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's hardly rhetoric that Afghanistan isn't America or Europe now is it. Have you  been there?



It doesn't matter. They don't need NATO and they don't need It's guns. In fact, it's ironic that the very guns NATO is facing down are the guns that were originally given to our "friends".

This would be funny if it didn't cost so many lives.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It doesn't matter. They don't need NATO and they don't need It's guns. In fact, it's ironic that the very guns NATO is facing down are the guns that were originally given to our "friends".
> 
> This would be funny if it didn't cost so many lives.



I think you are missing the point of my thread here, it's not about the rights and wrongs of Afghan, it's about the convenant that exists between our government and Her Majesty's Forces, in that the government as political leaders send our troops to fight for this country, the troops do their best, play by the rules and the country in return looks after the wounded and the dependants of the fallen. In this case the government has broken the covenant. The troops fired back at a declared enemy who shot at them first so why are they being penalised?  
Your views on the war are irrelevant as the war itself isn't the issue, it isn't the 'bigger picture' we are looking at, it's the smaller one, the lives and reputations of good men putting it on the line for their country. 
If you wish to start a thread on the rights and wrongs of the war in Afghanistan do so but don't try changing my intent on this thread of drawing attention to the fact that the politicians have yet again betrayed the troops.
Very few people in this country support the war and very few think we should have gone there but the support for the troops is strong, there's a huge amount of fun raising for the wounded, there's always soemthing about the war in the media every day, it's a big thing here. the fallen are mourned and the wounded are tended by charities which is something the government should actually be doing here. All but a very few think we should be there but the thoughts on the service people is that they are serving their country and should be honoured not arrested.
You need to separate what people think about the war, we are all against it and what people think about the military which is all good. You also need to separate our government from our military.

I think you might find that any weapons supplied to the Afghans by America in the 80s will now be either out of date or damaged, they don't need them they have been well supplied by Iran for a long time now who also trains the soldiers. 

Whether it justifies invading Afghanistan or not, it is as well to remember who and what the Taliban are. Certainly we should remember why they were and still are considered a danger to the West, I don't actually think we should have invaded but the fact remains they do pose a danger. A danger that can't be ignored.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11451718


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

First of all, we can't trust what the media says. They've been caught lying for various governments so many times, it would be pathologically naive to believe a word they say or print about foriegn policy.

Secondly, my whole point is that sometimes, even when you are right, you are wrong. And in this case, it's evil no matter what happens or what rules may or may not have been followed. 

In the end, I hope your friends get out of trouble. They are victims of lies and propaganda and are thrust into a terrible situation that was created by really horrible people. Hopefully, they can choose to do the right thing in the future.

Lastly, the intent doesn't matter. The "intent" of the war in Afghanistan is so far separated from the reality, that it's asanine to even attempt to dovetail them. Ultimately, all that really matters is men are responsible for their actions. The rules of engagement or even the intent behind the whole operation cannot absolve someone from this. If you attack someone in their home and they draw a weapon and you still kill them, you are responsible for that and subject to moral judgement. This moral judgement missing in our debate about war because we are taught from such an early age to "support our troops" and that any questions of this sort constitute non-support.

The bottom line is that the actions being performed by NATO are evil by any standard you could hold. Every person who pulled a trigger on a DU round, for example, maimed or killed the unborn for generations. That is evil. I have no problem saying that and no amount of justification by government is going to change that.

So, yes, we can talk about the trees and ignore the forest or we can swing through the branches and never touch the root, but the conversation will be missing an essential moral element. Certain questions that need to be asked will continue to be verboten.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Me too. It's the rhetoric of domination, of empire.



I work for the U.S. Air Force (as a civilian) and am not on your side of things either. But people are people everywhere, in my experience--even though it can be hard for them to overcome the culture in which they live.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's hardly rhetoric that Afghanistan isn't America or Europe now is it.



Yes--yes, it is, in the dismissive, demonize-the-enemy, they're-not-civilized-like-us way you're using it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I work for the U.S. Air Force (as a civilian) and am not on your side of things either. But people are people everywhere, in my experience--even though it can be hard for them to overcome the culture in which they live.



What is "my side" of things?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 3, 2012)

E.g.:



Makalakumu said:


> Lastly, the intent doesn't matter. The "intent" of the war in  Afghanistan is so far separated from the reality, that it's asanine to  even attempt to dovetail them. Ultimately, all that really matters is  men are responsible for their actions. The rules of engagement or even  the intent behind the whole operation cannot absolve someone from this.  If you attack someone in their home and they draw a weapon and you still  kill them, you are responsible for that and subject to moral judgement.  This moral judgement missing in our debate about war because we are  taught from such an early age to "support our troops" and that any  questions of this sort constitute non-support.
> 
> The bottom line is that the actions being performed by NATO are evil by  any standard you could hold. Every person who pulled a trigger on a DU  round, for example, maimed or killed the unborn for generations. That is  evil. I have no problem saying that and no amount of justification by  government is going to change that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 3, 2012)

arnisador said:


> E.g.:



I'm curious as to how you would summarize "my side" of things. That's why I asked. I know what my side would be. It the side that universalizes the non-aggression principle, including applying it to foreign policy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2012)

I just want to make sure I have things straight here.

Several members of the British armed forces were engaged in some type of armed conflict, with the result being that one of the individuals on the opposing side died.

Beyond that, most of the details surrounding the individuals death are unknown, and not likely to become known anytime soon.

Meanwhile we've moved from trying to speculate about their guilt or innocence, into a debate on the rightness or wrongness of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, root causes, sources of blame, and whatnot while throwing out the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept that was at the root of the US and many other legal systems, as well as delving into mind reading and philosophical bull ****.



Hows this sound:  I can't support nor can I condemn these individuals absent more facts on the matter.  I will wish them well in their defense, and should they be innocent of the charges wish them speedy exoneration, yet should they be guilty of actual moral wrong, that they be found guilty and punished according to the laws of their nation.

If they executed a prisoner, that's a violation of international law and the rules of warfare. 
If they purposefully let him die, that too may be a violation.
If however he died because they were unable to aid him because the situation made it unsafe, that's different.
Of course, that and more is all speculation as none of us here has the sit-rep, and if any of us did we couldn't post it because such is evidence in an ongoing investigation, and most likely top secret, and so forth.


ok, back to editing naked models for me.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Yes--yes, it is, in the dismissive, demonize-the-enemy, they're-not-civilized-like-us way you're using it.



No I'm not 'demonising the enemy', do you know who the enemy is in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a very different country from America and the UK, these two countries are surprising different from each other. The culture you see in Afghanistan today isn't Afghan culture it's Taliban..the ultra extremist Muslimist movement's culture. Afghanistan before the Taliban was a very different place, when the Taliban forcefully ousted the government there they turned it into a dark place in the way that Pol Pot did in Cambodia. In the UK we have many refugees from Afghanistan, intellectuals and medical staff of both sexes, free thinkers who are devout Muslims but without the bigotry. In the Afghanistan before the taliban girls went to school, university, medical schools etc they became teachers, doctors, nurses and anything else they wanted to be. Men were free to be bearded or not, the arts were encouraged as well as the media. The USA is responsible for the Taliban I'm afraid, in it's normal course of disliking any country or government that seems to be socialist or communist Carter funded the Taliban, this was continued by Reagan. You reap what you sow. The Afghan culture was destroyed by the Taliban who were funded by American governments. What is going on there is the direct result of Jimmy Carter and his successors efforts to halt world socialism. Socialism which was actually chosen by the Afghans would have been preferable to what they have now. Decry socialism and communism as much as you like for Afghan women the time under them was the best.

_By the late 1950's, women's participation in the economy was seen to be essential for Afghanistan's development. The royal family and government were seen with their wives and daughters unveiled in public. Once again, women could choose whether or not to wear the veil, and were encouraged to work outside the home. In the l960's, a socialist reform began, along with further dependency upon the Soviet Union. Many Afghan's studied in the Soviet Union, and a left-wing modernizing elite formed. In l964, women were given the right to vote and to enter government.

In the 1970's, many women began to attire themselves in Western clothing. Women were being educated in universities and working as representatives in government. In 1973, the monarchy was overthrown by Muhammad Daud who declared himself president. He was overthrown, in 1978, by leftist military officers. The new president was Noor Muhammad Taraki, and his lieutenant Hafizullah Amin became Prime Minister. 

A revolutionary program that included land reform and the emancipation of women began. These reforms were intolerable for traditionalists and armed revolt was instigated by the mullahs and tribal leaders. In l979, Prime Minister Amin created a reign of terror by arresting and killing opponents and took over rule of Afghanistan while Tarik was off in Moscow, only to return to be executed by Amin. The rebels controlled most of rural Afghanistan by the summer of '79, and Amin refused to abide Soviet directives to moderate his policies. The Soviet Union invaded on December 25, 1979.

The next decade was fraught with violence and destruction, but it was during this time that women's rights reached their pinnacle in Afghanistan's history: 50% of teachers, government employees and students were women, and 40% of doctors were women. When the Soviet Union left in 1989, the nation fell into chaos, and women's rights quickly eroded. By 1992, the beginning of civil war, women were precluded from public service, and by 1994 women were only seen in public in the burqa.




_


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> No I'm not 'demonising the enemy', do you know who the enemy is in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a very different country from America and the UK, these two countries are surprising different from each other. The culture you see in Afghanistan today isn't Afghan culture it's Taliban..the ultra extremist Muslimist movement's culture. Afghanistan before the Taliban was a very different place, when the Taliban forcefully ousted the government there they turned it into a dark place in the way that Pol Pot did in Cambodia. In the UK we have many refugees from Afghanistan, intellectuals and medical staff of both sexes, free thinkers who are devout Muslims but without the bigotry. In the Afghanistan before the taliban girls went to school, university, medical schools etc they became teachers, doctors, nurses and anything else they wanted to be. Men were free to be bearded or not, the arts were encouraged as well as the media. The USA is responsible for the Taliban I'm afraid, in it's normal course of disliking any country or government that seems to be socialist or communist Carter funded the Taliban, this was continued by Reagan. You reap what you sow. The Afghan culture was destroyed by the Taliban who were funded by American governments. What is going on there is the direct result of Jimmy Carter and his successors efforts to halt world socialism. Socialism which was actually chosen by the Afghans would have been preferable to what they have now. Decry socialism and communism as much as you like for Afghan women the time under them was the best.
> 
> _By the late 1950's, women's participation in the economy was seen to be essential for Afghanistan's development. The royal family and government were seen with their wives and daughters unveiled in public. Once again, women could choose whether or not to wear the veil, and were encouraged to work outside the home. In the l960's, a socialist reform began, along with further dependency upon the Soviet Union. Many Afghan's studied in the Soviet Union, and a left-wing modernizing elite formed. In l964, women were given the right to vote and to enter government.
> 
> ...



Why do you think the people in Afghan keep following the Taliban?  What is the motivation from your perspective?


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Why do you think the people in Afghan keep following the Taliban?  What is the motivation from your perspective?



Fear.

The Taliban have shown time and again that they will not hesitate to use violence against those who do not follow their ideology.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Fear.
> 
> The Taliban have shown time and again that they will not hesitate to use violence against those who do not follow their ideology.



I've read and it was reiterated by an Afghan doctor who spoke at UH, that one of the reasons people in Afghan and Pakistan follow the Taliban is because they actually represent a stabilizing force.  Particularly, the courts and the government were so corrupt in the past, that any kind of justice was impossible.  Sharia provides something Afghan society that they haven't had before.  So, that is one of the reasons that the men join, that and the Taliban represent a group that is fighting an aggressive force that has killed a lot of innocent people.  Therefore, revenge is also a huge factor.

I really wonder how many people actually believe in the Taliban's version of Islam?  My guess is that it's probably similar to any other extreme religious group.  Therefore, as soon as the outside forces quit destabilizing the society, quit providing weapons and money to the crazies, Afghan society will start to sort it's way out.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Why do you think the people in Afghan keep following the Taliban? What is the motivation from your perspective?




Are you asking what I think or asking because you don't know? You can see the fear in people's eyes when they talk about the Taliban, like most dictatorships whether they are left, right or religious the Taliban rule by fear. Following the Taliban isn't exactly the word I'd use btw. I wouldn't say they even tolerate them, they suffer under them however.
The history of Afghanistan is a complicated one, for one thing it's a 'made up' country, it didn't exist before America and the UK 'invented' it, as they did with most of the Middle East. There are a great many tribes living in that area all of whom go to war with each other at various times, Islam isn't even the 'native' religion there, it's an imposed one on everyone who wasn't already a Muslim. The Taliban aren't a bunch of farmers defending their country they are a highly organised, motivated professional army of religious fanatics ( not all are Afghan either) determined to have everyone under their control and I mean everyone! this sort of regime isn't new in this world. Couple this with the warlike tendencies of the tribal chiefs, the greed of the politicians and the money the drug growers get you have a lovely mix of the most undesirable 'leaders' you could ever hope to have in a country.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Are you asking what I think or asking because you don't know?



I'm asking about your opinion, I have my own that is informed by various sources.  Thus far, we're not really that far apart.  

That said, I think you have underestimated the extent to which the US government has supported the Taliban.  This government was in direct communication with the Taliban up to August of 2001.  They provided money and weapons until shortly before.  This was all part of Unocal's "Pipelinistan" project.  The Taliban were never willing to work with the governments and corporations, other than to accept their money and weapons, and were eventually told in August 2001, "Accept this carpet of gold or accept our carpet of bombs."  The Taliban refused and 9/11 provided the excuse.  This government refused the Taliban's offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden.  This government let OBL escape at Tora Bora.  

I believe that it's all been an excuse to clean out the Taliban from the start.  Even Al Qaeda had strong CIA ties.  OBL's CIA alias was "Tim Osman" and this government flew him to the US in 1984.  FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmunds, a translator, reported on conversations this government was having with Al Qaeda up through September of 2001.  This is what she told the 9/11 commission.

http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_documents/Letter_to_Kean.pdf



> Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist
> attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the
> bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with
> specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This
> ...



One hand of the government discovered what the other was doing.

This is why former Unocal spokesperson Hamid Karzai runs the government in Kabul.  This is how this whole thing started.  It has nothing to do with defending our country and it raises to painful moral questions for everyone involved on the ground.  I don't understand why anyone would want to serve governments who do things like this?

And when you take this into account, the whole picture gets darker and darker.

http://www.livescience.com/16315-rare-earth-elements-afghanistan.html



> Recent exploration of rare volcanic rocks in the rugged, dangerous  desert of southern Afghanistan has identified world-class concentrations  of rare earth elements, the prized group of raw materials that are  essential in the manufacture of many modern technologies, from electric  cars to solar panels. So far, geologists say, they have mapped one  million metric tons of these critical elements, which include lanthanum,  cerium and neodymium.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91



> Heroin is a multibillion dollar business supported by powerful  interests, which requires a steady and secure commodity flow. One of the  &#8220;hidden&#8221; objectives of the war was precisely to restore the CIA  sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and exert direct control  over the drug routes.
> 
> 
> Immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium markets were  restored. Opium prices spiraled. By early 2002, the opium price (in  dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.
> ...



This drug trade amounts to *500 billion dollars*.

So, why are people continuing to die in Afghanistan?  Do the rules of engagement even matter?  Is anyone getting their limbs blown off and thier lives shortened to "defend" their country?  What should the poor people who bought the governments lies about Afghanistan do in response to the truth?

Like I said above, I really hope those friends of yours get released. They are victims of a massive propaganda campaign that landed them on the wrong side.  I also really hope this informations gets out to soldiers so they can make different decisions about their futures.  Who wants to serve a government that does this?  Democracy, so far, has been unable to end this, therefore, it's time for it's time for individuals to face the truth and act, IMHO.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm asking about your opinion, I have my own that is informed by various sources. Thus far, we're not really that far apart.
> 
> That said, I think you have underestimated the extent to which the US government has supported the Taliban. This government was in direct communication with the Taliban up to August of 2001. They provided money and weapons until shortly before. This was all part of Unocal's "Pipelinistan" project. The Taliban were never willing to work with the governments and corporations, other than to accept their money and weapons, and were eventually told in August 2001, "Accept this carpet of gold or accept our carpet of bombs." The Taliban refused and 9/11 provided the excuse. This government refused the Taliban's offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden. This government let OBL escape at Tora Bora.
> 
> ...



The Marines are out on bail. They aren't victims of anything other than a government failing to keep their side of the covenant. As I said, their oath of loyalty is to the Crown not any government. One solution would be for your country to leave other countries alone if they decide they want to be communist or socialist, it's your continued policy of anti communism that has caused much of this. Your government in it's fear has interfered with so many countries. communism was actually doing some good in Afghanistan until your government decided to interfere. 
 I think you need to stop blaming service personnel for what governments are doing, a soldier serves his/her country, they put their lives on the line so you don't have to. If their government has let them down shame on the government and the politicians but it's not the soldiers fault that the war isn't a just one, they are being true and loyal to their country, that they die for others stupidity is wrong but it's ever been thus. Soldiers know this and for you to disrepect them by making them out to be ignorant dupes is shameful to be honest. I think if you understood military people rather than despising them as 'the running dogs' of their governments you might go someoways to understanding what is going on from their side of the Afghan conflict. You would see that despite being called to fight Her Majesty's enemies which the Taliban are, you would see that they also seek to protect and help those they can. Far too easy to blame soldiers than look and see where the blame really lies.
I'm not sure what lies you think we've been told and what lies we are supposed to believe, no one in the British military believes anything any government or monarch has told them. Our Navy is a thousand years old, our standing army nearly as old, in all that time our soldiers and sailors have never believed anything told to them by the powers that be, they defend our country and believe me they have their eyes wide open, they are far from stupid. They know who and what they are.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 4, 2012)

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2012)

Tgace said:


> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



So, are the Taliban a bigger threat to the Constitution than the NDAA? How about the TSA? How do you feel about serving a corrupt government that is hell bent on undermining our founding principles?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The Marines are out on bail. They aren't victims of anything other than a government failing to keep their side of the covenant. As I said, their oath of loyalty is to the Crown not any government. One solution would be for your country to leave other countries alone if they decide they want to be communist or socialist, it's your continued policy of anti communism that has caused much of this. Your government in it's fear has interfered with so many countries. communism was actually doing some good in Afghanistan until your government decided to interfere.
> I think you need to stop blaming service personnel for what governments are doing, a soldier serves his/her country, they put their lives on the line so you don't have to. If their government has let them down shame on the government and the politicians but it's not the soldiers fault that the war isn't a just one, they are being true and loyal to their country, that they die for others stupidity is wrong but it's ever been thus. Soldiers know this and for you to disrepect them by making them out to be ignorant dupes is shameful to be honest. I think if you understood military people rather than despising them as 'the running dogs' of their governments you might go someoways to understanding what is going on from their side of the Afghan conflict. You would see that despite being called to fight Her Majesty's enemies which the Taliban are, you would see that they also seek to protect and help those they can. Far too easy to blame soldiers than look and see where the blame really lies.
> I'm not sure what lies you think we've been told and what lies we are supposed to believe, no one in the British military believes anything any government or monarch has told them. Our Navy is a thousand years old, our standing army nearly as old, in all that time our soldiers and sailors have never believed anything told to them by the powers that be, they defend our country and believe me they have their eyes wide open, they are far from stupid. They know who and what they are.



You would never apply this standard to any other organization. If you worked for a corporation that designed a product, discovered that this product was killing people in droves, and continued to design similar products for that company, you'd be responsible for all that followed from your actions. Why is it different if you put on the government's costume?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> You would never apply this standard to any other organization. If you worked for a corporation that designed a product, discovered that this product was killing people in droves, and continued to design similar products for that company, you'd be responsible for all that followed from your actions. Why is it different if you put on the government's costume?




I have never put on any government's uniform, the uniform I wear now is the Queen's. The oath of loyalty I swore when I was in RAF and the one I swore for my current job are to the Queen. The service of the Crown is not 'any' organisation, it's not even an organisation, it's an idea, a belief, it is service to one's country so there is a different standard to be maintained. We aren't citizens by the way, we are subjects of Her Majesty, when you takes the Queen's Shilling you agree to obey the orders of the Sovereign and her representatives. You are allowed, indeed, expected not to obey illegal orders which means you obey the Geneva Convention which we signed and the Rules of Engagement.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2012)

Our current government is a completely different one from the government that took us into the Afghan war, it's generally agreed here that pulling the troops out without an end strategy was unwise and would mean the deaths of the service personnel so would have been for nothing. We now have a date for leaving, in fact our Brigadier here is hoping that he can send half our Brigade home after Christmas...six months early. You may wish to read his mission statement of how he sees their job out there.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...areToContinueAfghanistanTransitionProcess.htm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 4, 2012)

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I must say that for someone to say "leave other countries alone" when theirs once controlled one of the largest colonial systems, which were maintained by force of arms for a good portion of the 19th and 20th century is interesting.  Of course, you can argue that we've replaced British Colonialism with American Colonialism. Though that might be a separate thread.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I have never put on any government's uniform, the uniform I wear now is the Queen's. The oath of loyalty I swore when I was in RAF and the one I swore for my current job are to the Queen. The service of the Crown is not 'any' organisation, it's not even an organisation, it's an idea, a belief, it is service to one's country so there is a different standard to be maintained. We aren't citizens by the way, we are subjects of Her Majesty, when you takes the Queen's Shilling you agree to obey the orders of the Sovereign and her representatives. You are allowed, indeed, expected not to obey illegal orders which means you obey the Geneva Convention which we signed and the Rules of Engagement.



Okay, here is an another example.

A person makes a product for a corporation and they know it kills people. Do they get an exemption from moral responsibility if they claim they serve a higher standard and intended something different? 

That said, doesn't the Queen "approve" of every government? Doesn't she still retain the power to dissolve. The government call elections if it doesn't please her? Don't the governor generals in the common wealth nations retain that same power?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2012)

It's a silly distinction--but then, having a Queen is itself a medieval mentality. These people went to war. Civilized nations have rules about how war is conducted. We insisted on it with the Germans--others will demand it of us in the West now. They're going to have a trial. Outrage pre-trial is simply its own form of pre-judgment: No soldier can ever do anything wrong. When I taught at West Point a documentary on the My Lai massacre played on endless loop on every classroom TV that wasn't turned off for the lecture--a reminder of what can go wrong.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 4, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I must say that for someone to say "leave other countries alone" when theirs once controlled one of the largest colonial systems, which were maintained by force of arms for a good portion of the 19th and 20th century is interesting.  Of course, you can argue that we've replaced British Colonialism with American Colonialism. Though that might be a separate thread.



Different Age with different rules, my friend.  However, power abhors a vacuum and inconsistency in the application of strength often creates little political vacuums in which vile regimes fester.  Even when external power is applied strongly and with wide consent of those governed from outside, when that power is removed disaster is often the result - look for the thread I started on Partition to see some horrid examples of that.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2012)

arnisador said:


> It's a silly distinction--but then, having a Queen is itself a medieval mentality. These people went to war. Civilized nations have rules about how war is conducted. We insisted on it with the Germans--others will demand it of us in the West now. They're going to have a trial. Outrage pre-trial is simply its own form of pre-judgment: No soldier can ever do anything wrong. When I taught at West Point a documentary on the My Lai massacre played on endless loop on every classroom TV that wasn't turned off for the lecture--a reminder of what can go wrong.



What if all of that is just a false distinction? What if it is just rationalizing a general pattern of immoral behavior?

"Rules of War," sounds like ******** ethics to me.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2012)

Should France have fought back against Germany in WWII, or just rolled over? What would you have suggested for them?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Should France have fought back against Germany in WWII, or just rolled over? What would you have suggested for them?





If you are aggressed against, you defend yourself.  The same standard we apply in the dojo, in real life self defense situations, can also apply in foreign policy.  Also, the same standard that we hold defenders to, in regards to the level of force that you can respond with, should also apply.  People need to hold to the principles of not initiating aggression and to owning the results of their actions.  One could argue that this is the system we have now. However, how is this possible in an environment where the ruling classes can create lies, myths and distortions about events and manipulate their citizens into war?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2012)

It's all well and good spouting high flying statements such as we shouldn't be the aggressors etc and it's all well and good playing at seeing conspiracy theories everywhere. I wonder if people who do go on about how the 'ruling classes' manipulate the rest realise how patronising they sound? They sound every bit as partonising and irritating as the religious zealots who declaim to all that the only way to salvation is to believe as they do, they are..of course..the only ones who are right, the only ones who know the truth, everyone else is blundering around in the dark. None of these people conspiracy theorists and religious zealots alike actually live in the real world. It must comoft them a great deal to believe that they alone have the 'truth' and the rest are sheep wandering in the dark. So often they all refer to the people as sheep which is odd because they actually know little about sheep and how clever in reality they are, rams will kill to defend their flocks, we had a chap killed up here a little while ago, ewes will attack dogs to defend their lambs, those horns can do a lot of damage. Sheep do flock together because there's strength in numbers and they have an intelligence few will admit they have. One should always be careful about making assumptions.
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/856101-sheep-smarter-than-we-previously-thought-says-scientist

The British forces weren't manipulated into war, they were sent to war, that's their job, it's as simple as that. They serve their country and the idea is that their country then looks after them and theirs. It's the way things are and no one actually wants to change that, it's been that way for longer than America has been a country, as long as the UK looks after the wounded and the families of the fallen that's the covenant held. What we are saying here is that the government is not holding their side of the covenant, that's what the demonstrations and protests are about. The military does it's duty and the government does it's, it really is as simple as that. 
We aren't much for all these conspiracy theories here, we know what politicians are that's why we laugh at them and lampoon them so much, we are well aware of the political machinations that go on, we know what businesses do, after all and I'm not being patronising here, we're had a couple of thousand of years or more at this. Makalakumu, we are wiser to what goes on than you imagine, we've literally been there, seen it, done it, don't preach to the British about power, aggression and conspiracies, we've seen them all. We've seen the royal dynasties come and go, invaders come and go or stay and be assimilated, we've had the finanical barons, the empire builders, the want to take over the worlders. We know who our government is made up of, we know who the Opposition parties are, we consider them all equally useless as we do solicitors, lawyers, journalists, estate agents and everyone on the X Factor. Ruling classes? You're having a larf mate, they are transparent, they may not think it but they are, you mustn't mistake people's apparent disinterest with them being led by the nose, far from it, you'd be surprised how much power the British people have when they rouse themselves and they do from time to time and oh the U Turns governments do then! You may deride people but the British people are a sleeping tiger pull it's tail once too often and you'll see what happens. It's also a far from stupid tiger. 
We pay the government to sort things out for us, if they don't do it the way we like we elect another one. anyone can stand for Parliament, you don't need loads of money, you don't even need a party to get you in. You just put a couple of hundred pounds down as a deposit ( you get it back if you don't get a certain percentage of votes) and go off and campaign. You have a good chance actually og getting in if you aren't a loony. Then you are part of our Parliament with a vital vote to help keep the government under control, we have a good system of checks and balances in our Parliamentary system, the Queen being head of the country means no would be dictators. 
As I said and it doesn't demonise any one, our country is very different from yours and also very different from Afghanistan.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's all well and good spouting high flying statements such as we shouldn't be the aggressors etc and it's all well and good playing at seeing conspiracy theories everywhere. I wonder if people who do go on about how the 'ruling classes' manipulate the rest realise how patronising they sound? They sound every bit as partonising and irritating as the religious zealots who declaim to all that the only way to salvation is to believe as they do, they are..of course..the only ones who are right, the only ones who know the truth, everyone else is blundering around in the dark. None of these people conspiracy theorists and religious zealots alike actually live in the real world. It must comoft them a great deal to believe that they alone have the 'truth' and the rest are sheep wandering in the dark. So often they all refer to the people as sheep which is odd because they actually know little about sheep and how clever in reality they are, rams will kill to defend their flocks, we had a chap killed up here a little while ago, ewes will attack dogs to defend their lambs, those horns can do a lot of damage. Sheep do flock together because there's strength in numbers and they have an intelligence few will admit they have. One should always be careful about making assumptions.
> http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/856101-sheep-smarter-than-we-previously-thought-says-scientist
> 
> The British forces weren't manipulated into war, they were sent to war, that's their job, it's as simple as that. They serve their country and the idea is that their country then looks after them and theirs. It's the way things are and no one actually wants to change that, it's been that way for longer than America has been a country, as long as the UK looks after the wounded and the families of the fallen that's the covenant held. What we are saying here is that the government is not holding their side of the covenant, that's what the demonstrations and protests are about. The military does it's duty and the government does it's, it really is as simple as that.
> ...



Rubbish. On one level you totally accept the things I'm saying, but on another you've done a complete turn. It's a contradiction and you know it.

We solve the moral contradictions by dispelling our illusions. Our illusions of religion, our illusions of nationalism, our illusions of authority are crafted for social control by evil people. They can be nightmares or comfortable phantasms that hide the nature of reality from your eyes and the results will always be the same. The illusions will cause you to initiate force against the innocent and have no responsibility for your own actions. Dispel your illusions. Then, stop serving evil. Withhold your consent from the people you know are engaging in evil.

This is the only way I think people can actually make this situation better. Dispel your illusions. Withhold your consent.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Rubbish. On one level you totally accept the things I'm saying, but on another you've done a complete turn. It's a contradiction and you know it.
> 
> We solve the moral contradictions by dispelling our illusions. Our illusions of religion, our illusions of nationalism, our illusions of authority are crafted for social control by evil people. They can be nightmares or comfortable phantasms that hide the nature of reality from your eyes and the results will always be the same. The illusions will cause you to initiate force against the innocent and have no responsibility for your own actions. Dispel your illusions. Then, stop serving evil. Withhold your consent from the people you know are engaging in evil.
> 
> This is the only way I think people can actually make this situation better. Dispel your illusions. Withhold your consent.




Oh dear, dispelling our illusions eh, and of course you are the only one that is right and the only one who can see the truth aren't you? You realise you come over like a complete numpty don't you? I mean that kindly btw, you must be one of the most naive people I've ever come across, it's sweet in a way, this belief that if we are all nice to each other everything will come out fine. Well I'm afraid, we aren't nice to each other, I'm not nice, the world isn't nice, it's a big bad world out there. 
When you say we are exerting force against the innocent I assume you think the Taliban, Al Queda, the IRA and all the other terrorist groups are really just misunderstood so just need a cuddle and everything will be fine. You do realise of course that the reason you can think all this is because men and women died so that you could? Men and women fought for your freedom to be this airy fairy and patronising towards the rest of us? Are you sure it's us that have illusions or that perhaps you see the world through glasses that are tinged with the colour of feeling superior in the way the god botherers do. I'm sure you feel you are a voice crying in the wilderness but the wilderness is nature and nature is red in tooth and claw so be careful.
Please don't insult my intelligence or anyone elses by mouthing what is basically a formulaic mantra I've heard by many a hippy starting in the 1960s. It's just mouthing words, 'dispel your illusions' is a nonsense, you don't suggest any practical help for anyone. I sponsor a little Muslim girl in Bangladesh so she can go to school and make a better life for herself, it's a small thing but something anyone can do, it's a small step and changing the world will be done by people taking small steps not blowhards mouthing well worn cliched banalities. And it is banal and quite tiresome actually being preached at by someone who refused to face the realities of life. Oh how I wish I could ignore the realities of life, how nice would that be. Everybody, hold hands and be nice to each other.... I wish!  

Please do come up with something other than this conspiracy theory junk, it's laughable, evil men manipulating the innocent. Very few people are innocent, we are well aware of business tactics, using money etc etc, why do you think such things are called Machiavellian? Great Britain is the country of the Tudors, the Plantagenets, the Seymours,the Boleyns, the Percy's, the Whigs, Francis Wolsingham,  etc etc. Then there's the Medicis, the Borgias etc in Europe when things were really interesting. What on earth do you think you can teach us about conspiracies, plotting and manipulation lol? We've been doing it since the year dot! You think we don't know what goes on, do you think we always care?
Here's an early conspiracy for you   http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk...ianspictsromans/barbarianconspiracy/index.asp

Nice try grasshopper but you have to go a long way before you can catch people who have been around a lot longer than you out.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2012)

Lol. Allow me to sum this up. Conspiracies don't exist, but the British are the masters of them. Also, evil people don't rule, but we're all fallen in the end.

Illusions.

If you want things to change, give up the illusions of religion, of nationalism, and of violent authority. Then, withhold your  consent. That is as practical as it gets as far as making things better goes.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Lol. Allow me to sum this up. Conspiracies don't exist, but the British are the masters of them. Also, evil people don't rule, but we're all fallen in the end.
> 
> Illusions.
> 
> If you want things to change, give up the illusions of religion, of nationalism, and of violent authority. Then, withhold your consent. That is as practical as it gets as far as making things better goes.



I said _your_ conspiracies don't exist, the ones you think everyone but you are in, mmm perhaps that's the problem we've left you out of our plans and you feel sad.

I think you are having conversation with yourself because more than half of what you write makes no sense.  I actually have no idea what you mean when you say 'evil people don't rule, but we've all fallen in the end', is it something weird and mystical?

What is evil? Is it leaders who believe they are doing the best for their country but in doing so cause problems for others? I don't think Carter was evil when he bankrolled the Taliban, I think he was stupid and was poking his nose where he shouldn't, I think America does interfere too much in other countries but I don't think it's evil, I think your leaders think they are doing it for the good of their country. I think it's high handed but not evil. Evil is invading other countries as Hitler did, evil is killing millions of people as the Nazis did, as the Khmer Rouge did. The world is full of people who meaning well and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The British thought that they were doing good for the 'natives' of the countries they ruled as well as enriching Britain and themselves, not in itself evil but seriously wrong and misguided. Again high handed and egotisical but not actually evil. 
Withold my consent to what? To the killing of twunts that throw acid in the faces of school girls? I'd kill them myself given the chance. To stopping suicide bombers who kill their own people indiscriminately? I'd happily blow them to kingdom come. 
Do you think I should stop voting? When good women have suffered and even died to get me that vote, oh no not a chance. Mouthing 'withhold your consent' is meaningless I'm afraid, it's nothing more than cant.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The world is full of people who mean well and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.



The "good intentions" are some of the illusions of which I speak and "hell" is the result of believing in illusions.  

Ultimately, you have to judge for yourself.  So, what is the truth?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2012)

On withholding consent.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html#_ftn1



> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Resolve                      to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask                      that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but                      simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold                      him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled                      away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.[/FONT]



Perhaps an Englishman can read the words of a Frenchman without holding their nose too high...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> On withholding consent.
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html#_ftn1
> 
> ...



You make too many assumptions and some of them are insulting. You believe too many fallacies such as that of English people and the French, shame on you.

You also talk in generalities, what dictators, consent to what, serve who? Man up and say what you actually mean...if you actually mean anything.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 5, 2012)

Steady now, ladies and gents - I get the distinct impression here that your arguments are passing over each others shoulders rather than meeting in the middle before your eyes so that you can consider what you are talking about intelligently and reasonably.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2012)

I'm afraid you're a bit off there, I'm immensely amused. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, I don't mind a good argument but how anyone can argue intelligently against things as vague as 'don't consent', 'there's evil leaders about' 'get rid of your illusions' and keep a straight face is beyond me. there is no intelligent argument to be made against or for such statements. What can you say about 'rid yourself of illusions about religions'...is it the illusions they don't exist, they don't work or that they do exist and they do work? What illusions? As for illusions about governments and our glorious leaders, good grief who on earth has illusions about them anymore? Good intentions are evil? Really? 
All I want is a reasonable argument, straight forward statements, I don't want vague words that have been waved about in a hippie tent over a smoke or two of some illegal substance. Say what you mean and stand by it. We might not agree but it will be a down to earth discussion rather than an ethereal one.


----------



## K-man (Nov 5, 2012)

This confusion is all the fault of the English.  If it wasn't for language we wouldn't be having this fascinating exchange. I think we should take a look at definitions. (I've taken the liberty of using the US version of the Oxford dictionary as I am aware that Americans don't always use the meaning of words as they understood in the UK and countries with strong British links, like Australia.      )  




> Definition of illusion
> noun
> a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses:
> the illusion makes parallel lines seem to diverge by placing them on a zigzag-striped background
> ...



I feel in this thread the words are being mixed.  For example, religion is being called an illusion.  Is it really illusion, or is it delusion?  Are our leaders creating an illusion, or are they deluding us?


Then we have conspiracy theory.  What is the reason for the US involvement in Afghanistan? Initially 9/11 and Al Qaeda, but what are we there for now? Bin Laden is dead and Al Queda has moved to other countries. So *Makalakuma*is right in saying we shouldn't still be there.  If you want conspiracy theory, how about this? American arms manufacturers would go out of business if there were no wars and American politics are oiled by donations from such companies. Or, the US uses a disproportionate amount of natural resources, eg oil, and rather than upset the US voters by restricting supply to suit local production.  That is why we are all mired in the Middle East. If we were really concerned with right or wrong wouldn't we be involved in Somalia or Zimbabwe?


But let's look at the situation. What ever the cause of the conflict, we are in the ***** together. 



> *NATO-ISAF aims to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists, to help provide security, and to contribute to a better future for the Afghan people. NATO-ISAF, as part of the overall international community effort and as mandated by the United Nations Security Council, is working to create the conditions whereby the government of Afghanistan is able to exercise its authority throughout the country.*




Our presence in Afghanistan is not an illusion. We may be deluded in thinking we can impose our way of life on people who really have no intention of changing their way of thinking but we are not there because 'evil' leaders have sent us there.  We have made terrible mistakes. Innocent civilians have lost their lives and homes at the hands of our troops, but tens of thousands more have lost their lives and freedom to the Taliban.  The Afghan government is corrupt and when our troops do withdraw, I predict there will be massive unrest and loss of life as the warring factions try to take control.


But, I am squarely behind *Tez* when it comes to backing our troops.  They are under strict rules of engagement and unless there is a deliberate flouting of those rules we should not be prosecuting them when mistakes are made under the stress of war. There are examples where courts martial is appropriate, such as the incident in Iraq, exposed by Wikileaks, that severely embarrassed the US government. How many other cover ups have there been?


Then we have this, old news I know, but interesting nevertheless.




> In case you missed it:
> 
> 
> *US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war:*
> ...



We have been lied to by the US government, but that does not make all those politicians evil.  There may be some that believe the end justifies the means, but that would not be the majority.  And, have they been spun a pack of lies by vested interests in the Pentagon?  Did they inadvertently mislead the world?  


Regardless, this is not a black and white issue.  But Tez is right on the money when she says that the British troops are honourable.  Along with the Australian and other coalition troops they are trying to play the best hand they can with a stacked deck. The question is, who stacked the deck?  Mmm!   :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2012)

You can always trust an Aussie to put his finger exactly on the point, no bluster, no spin just plain truth in plain language. Cheers!

and the Aussie troops are second to none, enterprising, brave and the holders of the most amazing sense of humour. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> All I want is a reasonable argument, straight forward statements, I don't want vague words that have been waved about in a hippie tent over a smoke or two of some illegal substance. Say what you mean and stand by it. We might not agree but it will be a down to earth discussion rather than an ethereal one.



Okay, so here is a recap.

1.  A thread was started with the title "Defending your country is not murder" and I clicked, because, on the surface, I would agree with that statement.  

2.  I continued reading and discovered that the "defense" in question was Afghanistan and that we were discussing the details of five Marines who were awaiting trial for a particular killing of an armed resistor.  

3.  I challenged the concept of "defense" and showed how this war was actually an act of aggressive nation building, which makes the details of why the victim died unimportant.  Then, I listed a basic moral principle that was being violated, thus all of the killings could be considered murder.

4.  I took the point further and listed the various evil acts that were occurring.  I listed acts from the double tap drone strikes, to the night raids, to the use of DU in the field, showing that the war was unquestionably immoral.  Then, I wondered out loud how people could continue to participate in this when it was so obviously immoral.

5.  I was told my several posters that it was something I couldn't understand because I had not pledged myself to serve a higher ideal.

6.  I challenged this by showing how these higher ideals served the government and by showing the convoluted reasons why the governments in questions may actually be participating in the war.  (Unocal/Pipelinistan, CIA drug dealing to the tune of 500 billion dollars, and one of the largest concentrations of rare earth elements - the kind that make this computer possible - that are located in Afghanistan.)  

7.  It was responded that the "higher ideals" were separate from the government and even though all of those reasons I listed were valid reasons corrupt governments actually were involved in Afghanistan, it didn't matter.  There was a "higher ideal" to serve and it wasn't possible to simply quit or immediately pull out.

8.  I responded that I thought those "higher ideals" were illusions and that the only thing that really mattered was the results on the ground.  Then, I listed the various evil acts, showed how the war was not only an aggressive act of nation building, but also an extension of the same mercantilistic foreign policies that have dominated western nations for centuries.

9.  Then, it was argued that I simply didn't understand Afghan and that our presence was important there for human rights.

10.  To which I replied that it was no longer possible to call this war a "defense of the country" and then I listed the human rights abuses that were caused by our side for the last 40 years and that we had created the very problems that were taking place now.  Taking it further, I suggested again that people involved should not serve a government that would have you engage in these evil acts because democracy had failed to stop the corrupt governments up to this point.  

11.  Again, "higher ideals" were brought up and I riposted that these were illusions and if you really wanted to make a moral calculation, you needed to look at the results.

12.  Then, I post materials on how withholding your consent from evil is one way to take away it's power.  I opined that people should quit, resign, and not even enlist in the military if they wanted to remain morally good in this kind of environment.

This is all paraphrased of course, but maybe now you can see how this train of thought developed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Okay, so here is a recap.
> 
> 1.  A thread was started with the title "Defending your country is not murder" and I clicked, because, on the surface, I would agree with that statement.
> 
> ...



Or maybe I could have saved my time and posted this article.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/11/05/270612/invade/

"Study: Britain invaded 90% of the countries in the world. Only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain."

Can you call it defense when this is your history? How much propaganda did it take to convince people that you could call it defense despite the history?

BTW - I'll take the Beatles, Iron Maiden, Motörhead, etc as a British Invasion. I bet even the Afghans would have liked John Lennon. Send in the Beatles!

Oh, and I like these guys because I think they may have an answer to the questions I posed above.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U


----------



## K-man (Nov 6, 2012)

Sorry but, although I can agree with some of your statement, I cannot accept all of what you say. Let's look back.



> In the end, NATO is the aggressive force occupying Afghanistan. The people living there, with the drone strikes, the night raids, and wedding massacres, have every right to defend THEIR HOMES. They can change the rules and make whatever kind of crazy "rules of engagement" they want and it doesn't matter. NATO needs to do the right thing and leave Afghanistan. The people who put the troops in this situation need to be held responsible.


That might be your opinion but I doubt it can stand scrutiny.  People living in a war zone take their lives in their own hands if the choose to open fire on occupying forces.  The fact is, the forces are there.  I happen to agree with you that we should not be there and for that you can blame the 50% of eligible American voters who could not be bothered voting. If the American public wanted out, they can make it happen. But is won't happen unless the US public get of their collective arses and demand withdrawal.  This is nothing to do with NATO.  The coalition forces are there because America is there! Australian forces are not there because of NATO. We are there to show support for the US in combatting terrorism.  I don't believe the UK is there because of NATO either.  IMO they are also there to back the US.

in the end it is not NATO that is the aggressive force occupying Afghanistan.  The US is the aggressive force and they do not occupy Afghanistan.  They are there bogged down as they were in Vietnam 45 years ago. Talk about repeating mistakes!  


So let's look at 'rules of engagement'.  I can only surmise what they are as they are not publicly available for obvious reasons.  However, they are based on the Geneva convention and they are designed to give protection to civilians and forces alike. They also include treatment of the enemy and that is what this is all about.  


Now, you might know something that I don't, but the details of this incident have not been made public.   From my reading you can have the situation where a Taliban fighter can kill as many coalition forces he likes then when it looks like he is in trouble, he throws away his weapon and surrenders.  I wouldn't blame any soldier for killing such a person on the spot if he has just seen his mates killed by this person.  These Taliban fighters are not 'protecting their homes'.  They are actively trying to kill our forces and I would give our forces full support in getting rid of such people.  


So, back to this situation.  The guy was shooting at British troops who returned fire. The guy is wounded. We don't know whether his injuries are life threatening or not.  There is something on a computer that shows British troops discussing what they should do but not what caused the death of the man.  Was he killed or just left to die?  Do you know what actually happened?  You are judging these guys without knowing any of the facts apart from the fact that you believe they shouldn't have been there in the first place. 


Now, let's look at who put the troops there as you say they are responsible.  Well, when the World Trade Centre came down your fellow citizens were the ones who sent in the troops.  Nearly 3,000 civilians died that day and Geoge Bush's approval rating rose to 90% with his declaration of war on terror.  Congress passed the Unlike Iraq which was invaded on a bunch of lies, Afghanistan was targeted because of their harbouring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  Would you have turned the other cheek and waited for them to blow up another four airliners? Perhaps even take out the White House?  What do you imagine Russia would do if some terrorist group blew up the Kremlin, or the Indians if the same group took out the Taj Mahal. Most of the world supported US action in Afghanistan but it should have been short and sharp.


You also say NATO should do the right thing and get out.  There are a about 130,000 troops in Afghanistan. Of these 90,000 are US, 10,000 UK, Germany 5,000, Italy 4,000 and France and Australia around 3,000 each. That leaves about 15,000 from the other 44 countries.  In one form or another, 49 countries are supporting the US, not NATO.  The US President was the one who put the troops there after Congress passed the act supporting intervention against countries harbouring terrorists.


> On September 14, 2001 a joint resolution was passed by the United States Congress authorizing U.S. Presidents to fight terrorists and the nations that harbor them called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.


 Are you really suggesting that these elected people of your country and President Bush should be held responsible when they had the support of 90% of your citizens?  I know you don't really have a democracy (I was told some time back that you have a Representative Republic), but I would think a majority of nine to one would pretty much authorise the use of force in this situation.



> Which brings me around the Royal Marines. It doesn't matter if they shot that guy in accordance with the rules of engagement. It's wrong no matter what. The poor sods signed their lives away to a corrupt government that fed them a bunch of lies and sent them away to kill people over a boogeyman myth. If they are being victimized in any way, it's by the twisted corporate bureaucrats with their obfuscated convoluted self serving agendas. The soldiers, the civilians, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda are merely pawns to them.


no wonder *Tez* took offence.  What is written here is an emotive untruth.  In war it is not wrong to kill the person who is trying to kill you, within the rules of engagement.  And, they did not sign their lives away to a corrupt government.  To suggest the British Government is corrupt is just plain garbage. That the government fed them lies is also wrong. Intelligence was right that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were, at that time based in Afghanistan, aided and harboured by the Taliban and Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Where are the lies and who is the bogeyman? Where is the myth?  And, who are these 'twisted corporate beurocrats with their obfuscated, convoluted self serving agendas'? Now, I can't speak for the US but in Australia and I also believe in Britain, the Public Service does a fantastic job in keeping our politicians informed and advised.  I have seen no evidence to back your extravagant claims.



> So, anyone who shoots back at an aggressor is an "enemy soldier"? That's ridiculous. I don't think NATO know who the "bad guys" are anymore. They've aggressed against so many people and turning the population against them. Here is an example of a simple moral principle in regards to self defense, If I pick a fight with you, you defend yourself, and I kill you, is it morally justifiable for me to call you my "enemy" and walk away? If a man initiates force in response to NATO's aggression, in response to the constant terror of living with drones flying overhead, night raids, and family members dying unjustly, that man is justified in taking up arms. If NATO invaded Texas and did the same damn things, you'd have cowboys doing what any red blooded man has a moral right to do.
> 
> 
> That said, I'm not willing to overlook the broader context in favor of arguing about the minutiae of a convoluted system of engagement. Even when NATO soldiers follow the rules, they're still committing an evil act. The only reason NATO has the rules in the first place is so they can pretend it's justifiable. "Enemy" is simply a convenient label that has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong.



So, how do we define 'aggressor'?



> *aggressor* - someone who attacks
> assailant, assaulter, attacker
> offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
> ambusher - an attacker who waits in a concealed position to launch a surprise attack
> ...


Which one of these describes the British troops involved in this incident? Remember, they were the ones fired upon. (It is a separate argument if they should be in Afghanistan.)

This guy was an insurgent. 


> Definition
> Noun:
> A rebel or revolutionary.


He was not supporting his government, however flimsy that government may be. In this situation, he was the aggressor. He fired on the troops first. He was supporting the Taliban and it was the Taliban supporting Bin Laden that initiated the conflict in the first place.  


So, to your analogy.  If the good citizens of Texas authorised the hijacking of four airliners and flew them into heavily populated centres killing 3,000 innocent people, there would be no response from your National Guard? And if there was, that the good citizens of Texas would be justified in doing what 'every red blooded man has the moral right to do'? I don't think so.

Come on mate, these servicemen are being hung out to dry for some nefarious reason.  They are not murderers, they were doing their job to the best of their ability and they are innocent until proven otherwise and I believe the authorities are doing them a grave injustice, them and the rest of the coalition forces.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Okay, so here is a recap.
> 
> 1. A thread was started with the title "Defending your country is not murder" and I clicked, because, on the surface, I would agree with that statement.
> 
> ...



No I can't see, you have twisted and turned people's words into something you think we mean. You've cause major thread drift just to go on your hobby horse about how stupid you think we all are.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

Oh and in case you think our 'rulers' leave all the fighting to the minions http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19516079.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2012)

K-man said:


> I have seen no evidence to back your extravagant claims.



We are all typing this on computers right?  What are they made of? How do we get to work? Who is Hamid Karzai's again? How many times is the past have empires gone to war to plunder other people's stuff? How many of those wars were based off of false pretenses? Go back and check out some links and have a little less faith in your governments.

In the end, let's assume that the 9/11 story is straight and upstanding against all scrutiny, except let's pin it on a group of religious fanatics in Texas or Britain or Austrailia. Now, lets imagine that a hyper power demands that you hand over your own people without any sort of evidence and then invades when you balk. Maybe it's still justifiable at this point. Maybe. In 2006, a poll was conducted and the average Afghan tribesman knew nothing about 9/11.

Now, ten years later, the war has expanded, we've got double tap drone strikes, night raids, and DU sprayed everywhere. The war has expanded to not just the particular group of religious fanatics, in your home land. People you know are getting killed everyday. Your children can't go to school because it'll be bombed. You can't walk around in a group larger than three or you'll be bombed. You can't open your mouth and complain or some neighbor might take reward money and claim you've been working with the "enemy" bringing a night raid to your household where who knows is going to get shot, maybe your daughter.

Maybe you come home from work one day and your house is destroyed and the only thing that is left of your family are bits and pieces of their clothing fluttering in the trees?

Would you pick up a weapon and repel the invaders? Would you want revenge? How do soldiers on the other side know who is an enemy and who is simply a guy who had enough and decided to sell his life to remove this threat to everyone he knows? If you would attempt to repel this threat, then the rules of engagement don't matter. You agree that it's justifiable, you agree that you would do the same. Therefore it doesn't matter why or how the insurgent died, because the resistance is justified.

Your point about democracy is valid, maybe if we don't consider propaganda and vote rigging, but lets assume that democracy is clean and squeaky and always results in the will of the people. The soldiers on the ground, when faced with an obvious case of being thrust into an immoral situation by there governments have a choice to end the war, at least for themselves. They could quit. They could leave the field. They could refuse to engage. Vietnam probably ended because of this more than anything else. People weren't willing to fight anymore. It's the individual that could make a difference in the end.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

Ok I start a thread on a simple premise..that if a country sends it's soldiers to fight ( on whatever pretext etc) it should then look after those soldiers. It has turned into a mire of nonesense about computers, illusions and goodness knows what else. 
I don't actually care about the politics at this moment and the attempt to portray us as the poor dumb stooges of the whoever is plotting to take over the world this week. It's simple, the military is sent to do a job and they should, with the proviso that they behave withing the bounds of all acceptable treaties, conventions and rules of engagement, be looked after by those that sends them to do this job.

*This thread is about the Covenant with the Armed Forces of Great Britain being broken, please start a new thread if you want to bang on about legalities of war, illusions and the corrupt press.



*


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Would you pick up a weapon and repel the invaders? Would you want revenge? How do soldiers on the other side know who is an enemy and who is simply a guy who had enough and decided to sell his life to remove this threat to everyone he knows? If you would attempt to repel this threat, then the rules of engagement don't matter. You agree that it's justifiable, you agree that you would do the same. Therefore it doesn't matter why or how the insurgent died, because the resistance is justified.



One last question then. How does this not relate to the topic in question?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> One last question then. How does this not relate to the topic in question?



How do you know that the Taliban soldier that was killed/died from wounds received was an Afghan? Half of the Taliban in Afghan aren't from afghanistan but Pakistan. The Taliban is seeking to regain the power in Afghanistan it lost. They gained that power orginally by overthrowing the legitimate government there so who then is the invader? If only things out there were as simple as you seem to think they are. 
However this thread isn't about the insurgents or enemies real and imagined it's about the duty a country owes to it's service personnel. Even if the Afghan were illegally invaded, that they were completely innocent the fact a country sends it's soldiers to fight means that the country then owes those soldiers an obligation to look after them. It's as simple as that, you send your army to work for you you look after them. Argue the toss about the invasion and everything else in another thread.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2012)

K-man said:


> So, to your analogy.  If the good citizens of Texas authorised the hijacking of four airliners and flew them into heavily populated centres killing 3,000 innocent people, there would be no response from your National Guard? And if there was, that the good citizens of Texas would be justified in doing what 'every red blooded man has the moral right to do'? I don't think so.



My analogy is that the good citizens of Texas had no idea of what happened, watched their country be invaded, watched their kinsman be slain, heard a story about some group of religious fanatics did something wrong far away. Watched as more neighbors were mistakenly lumped in with a group of religious fanatics...and then decided to fight back. 

The Taliban are not Al Qaeda. The Taliban offered the Americans Osama Bin Laden. America invaded anyway. America installed a representative as puppet dictator from the same oil company that was frustrated by the Taliban. Imagine if a foreign power did that in Texas? Imagine if a foreing power decided to get rid of the Texan government by force so that they could install a more friendly government?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> My analogy is that the good citizens of Texas had no idea of what happened, watched their country be invaded, watched their kinsman be slain, heard a story about some group of religious fanatics did something wrong far away. Watched as more neighbors were mistakenly lumped in with a group of religious fanatics...and then decided to fight back.
> 
> The Taliban are not Al Qaeda. The Taliban offered the Americans Osama Bin Laden. America invaded anyway. America installed a representative as puppet dictator from the same oil company that was frustrated by the Taliban. Imagine if a foreign power did that in Texas? Imagine if a foreing power decided to get rid of the Texan government by force so that they could install a more friendly government?




Imagine keeping to the spirit of the thread ie the covenant between a country and it's military......


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Imagine keeping to the spirit of the thread ie the covenant between a country and it's military......



What if the covenant was undermined from the very beginning?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> What if the covenant was undermined from the very beginning?




No, it says if the country sends it's troops to fight it damn well looks after them. No clauses, no ifs, no buts. If you use the military, you look after them.


----------



## K-man (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> In the end, let's assume that the 9/11 story is straight and upstanding against all scrutiny, except let's pin it on a group of religious fanatics in Texas or Britain or Austrailia. Now, lets imagine that a hyper power demands that you hand over your own people without any sort of evidence and then invades when you balk. Maybe it's still justifiable at this point. Maybe. In 2006, a poll was conducted and the average Afghan tribesman knew nothing about 9/11.
> 
> 
> Let's forget about imagination and stick to facts, not conspiracy theory. A group of religious fanatics based in the Middle East hijacked four airliners. They flew two into the World Trade Centre, one into the Pentagon and were probably trying to put the last one into the White House. This group of fanatics, led by Bin Laden, claims responsibility for the attacks and gives his reasons. This caused the death of nearly 3000 innocent people. If a foreign power did this it would most likely have led to an immediate declaration of war and massive retaliation.  Whether the average Afghani tribesman knew or not is irrelevant.  (The fact is, the average Afghani tribesman and his family was under constant threat from the Taliban anyway.) However, the Taliban government did know and offered sanctuary to Bin Laden and his terrorists. They allowed terrorists from around the world access to his traing camps. They had the same blood on their hands.
> ...


Which brings me back to where I left off.  A government that sends its country's troops to war has an obligation to support those troops to the best of its ability. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.   :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

We shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter but we did, the country sent the troops in rightly or wrongly and now they should look after those troops. 
Cameron promised that wounded soldiers who could do their military job would be kept in the military but he's kicked them out. Service personnel serving in Afghan have received redundancy notices despite being told they wouldn't. Equipment needed to protect soldiers hasn't been supplied. Royal Marines are arrested for doing their job, the job their country asked them to do, their country shouldn't then penalise them. Pay has been frozen, the military get very little extra for fighting, they stil have to pay all taxes including council tax even though they aren't in the UK. Compensation given to the wounded is cut and in some cases the government has gone to court to try and cut it further.


http://anordinarysoldier.wordpress.com/page/2/


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2012)

Two things of import here that I think really do apply to the topic of this thread.



K-man said:


> The Vietnam war didn't end as you suggest. The  Vietnam war ended with the defeat of the US forces on Vietnamese soil.  Nothing to do with the individual. The South Vietnamese regime was a  corrupt puppet of the US administration, (which was obsessed with  Communism being evil). It was a war that was promoted with lies and  misinformation.
> 
> Which brings me back to where I left off.  A government that sends its country's troops to war has an obligation to support those troops to the best of its ability. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.   :asian:



I completely agree and I agree with the parallels to Vietnam.  Now, take a look at this.

http://www.sirnosir.com/the_film/synopsis.html



> In the 1960&#8217;s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course of  history. This movement didn&#8217;t take place on college campuses, but in  barracks and on aircraft carriers. It flourished in army stockades, navy  brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It  penetrated elite military colleges like West Point. And it spread  throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one  expected, least of all those in it.  Hundreds went to prison and  thousands into exile.  And by 1971 it had, in the words of one colonel,  infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the  GI movement against the war in Vietnam.



Rather than put up with the mistreatment.  Rather that attempt to fight a limited imperial war of aggression and corporatism where you can get thrown in jail for simply doing your job.  Do what the vets in Vietnam did and end the war yourselves.  

"Sir, no sir."

I like that.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Two things of import here that I think really do apply to the topic of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that our service people would prefer not to end a war by losing it. They have their pride in a job done properly and losing a war that way would offend them.
You lost the war, the service people didn't end it. Your army was one of conscripts not professional soldiers, there's no comparison. Again you are trying to derail the thread.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think that our service people would prefer not to end a war by losing it. They have their pride in a job done properly and losing a war that way would offend them.



How about losing the war the old fashioned way?

http://rt.com/news/taliban-us-nato-afghanistan-869/



> Many analysts also believe that the Taliban will quickly recapture  power in Afghanistan no sooner than the core of the foreign combat  forces leaves. By the end of this year, only 108,000 allied troops,  including 68,000 from the US, will remain. Their main task is to train  the Afghan National Security Forces that are to replace them after a  total withdrawal in 2014.
> 
> Washington and NATO hope Afghan  forces will take over the fight against the Taliban after 2014. But many  analysts see a multi-factional civil war ahead.



It's not a derailment.  I'm simply putting forward another option to be considered rather than keep fighting a limited war where simply doing your job can land you in jail.  

"Who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake?"  John Kerry


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> How about losing the war the old fashioned way?
> 
> http://rt.com/news/taliban-us-nato-afghanistan-869/
> 
> ...



Professional soldiers fight, it's what they do and their country should look after them, simples. They fight and do nasty things so the rest of us don't have to. The war doesn't matter, it's the way the country treats it's service people that does. the country decides where, who and what they fight, they do it and the country looks after them.


Your quote just contains stuff that is common knowledge, here at any rate, everyone knows what is likely to happen. We've also known it for a long time. This is why many of us are actually training the Afghan army and police to take over in the hope that yes they do manage to not to descend into the hell that is the Taliban controlled Afghanistan. To up and leave now is irresponsible. 
It's just another derailment. Start another thread and leave mine to the discussion of how the military should be treated by their country.

To lose a war means actually being beaten in warfare not leave a country and then them go ape.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> "Study: Britain invaded 90% of the countries in the world. Only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain."



That's seriously badass.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The war doesn't matter...



This has been a long contentious thread. I'm sure you didn't mean something this extreme. Surely, there is a line you would not cross.

That said, don't look for the government to tell you where that line is. They always find ways to make anything they want hold to the letter of the law.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2012)

arnisador said:


> That's seriously badass.



Unless your skin is brown...


----------



## K-man (Nov 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> This has been a long contentious thread. I'm sure you didn't mean something this extreme. Surely, there is a line you would not cross.
> 
> That said, don't look for the government to tell you where that line is. They always find ways to make anything they want hold to the letter of the law.


I'm sure *Tez* did mean that, exactly.  It is the principle here that is important.  It doesn't matter if it was the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or Timbuktu. Any country that sends its troops out onto the battlefield, under stress most of us will never have to endure, to see things we hope never to see and to carry out duies that we hope we never have to do ourselves, owes its troops the total support of the nation. Unless someone has experienced such a situation first hand, I don't believe that person is in a position to judge.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2012)

K-man said:


> I'm sure *Tez* did mean that, exactly. It is the principle here that is important. It doesn't matter if it was the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or Timbuktu. Any country that sends its troops out onto the battlefield, under stress most of us will never have to endure, to see things we hope never to see and to carry out duies that we hope we never have to do ourselves, owes its troops the total support of the nation. Unless someone has experienced such a situation first hand, I don't believe that person is in a position to judge.



That's exactly what I meant. Perhaps I should have said  'which war doesn't matter' but *it is *the principle, we ask so much of our military yet often give so little back. We don't just ask them to go to war, we ask them to help in disasters, not just here but abroad, they fill in when there's strikes (my husband went firefighting with four hours training), they give up their leave and work as security for the Olympics ( no, they didn't get paid extra) they do much and don't actually ask for much back just what the Aussies call a 'fair go'.  


Yes Great Britain has invaded all those places, sometimes by war sometimes not, it's always punched above it's weight but that's the past. I don't think quite honestly an American has any place in making comments about 'brown skinned people', we outlawed slavery a long time before America, we've never pursued a policy where had separate toilets, cafes, schools etc for white people and black so don't go down that route of criticising our past. It's the present we are talking about. We've learnt from the past and the one good thing we have from it is the Commonwealth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> That's exactly what I meant. Perhaps I should have said  'which war doesn't matter' but *it is *the principle, we ask so much of our military yet often give so little back. We don't just ask them to go to war, we ask them to help in disasters, not just here but abroad, they fill in when there's strikes (my husband went firefighting with four hours training), they give up their leave and work as security for the Olympics ( no, they didn't get paid extra) they do much and don't actually ask for much back just what the Aussies call a 'fair go'.
> 
> 
> Yes Great Britain has invaded all those places, sometimes by war sometimes not, it's always punched above it's weight but that's the past. I don't think quite honestly an American has any place in making comments about 'brown skinned people', we outlawed slavery a long time before America, we've never pursued a policy where had separate toilets, cafes, schools etc for white people and black so don't go down that route of criticising our past. It's the present we are talking about. We've learnt from the past and the one good thing we have from it is the Commonwealth.



I don't really want to get into the racism aspect. Just note that all of the wars of conquest seem to be following a historical pattern when it comes to recent colonialism. 

Anyway, I do think the war does matter. There is one obvious reason, but i won't Godwin this thread. here is a more subtle, but impactful reason. People come home from these with incredible hurts and they need our care, because, at least on paper they signed up to protect us. That said, lets consider the cost. For the war in Iraq, the US has spent trillions of dollars. When you consider the hurts that soldiers received there and the long term care, that will cost us more trillions. When you consider that all of this was paid for in debt, the interest payments will balloon the cost. Now, add in all of the wars we're fighting at this time. 

What will you tell the unborn who will have to sacrifice and pay for this? What will you say to them in order to explain why their standard of living is so much lower? What will you say to their face when they can't afford an education, when they can't afford a home, when they can barely afford to have children? This is not hyperbole. I am still paying taxes to pay for Vietnam. These wars have a social cost that goes far beyond the span that they take place. What will you tell the children who aren't even born?

Fill in the "insert explanation here".  I really want to see how you will justify this to the future. To people who never had a chance to vote. To people you will love in your own family. To people that may be taking care of you in your old old age, if they are still able.

Please fill in the quotation marks.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2012)

You really want to derail this don't you? Okay I'll play. You're waffling, all this emotive stuff about the unborn etc. We've had wars in our country for a couple of thousand years now, if you have a while I'll recite all of them. We still have babies being born and we still manage to pay for their care and everyone elses. Our standard of living has got better and better over those couple of thousand years so it's a nonsense to say one war will bankrupt us. If you remeber we had the Falklands War a little while ago too, that didn't bankrupt us either and standards of living have gone up since then too.
Btw on the cost of wars you did very nicely financially out of us for the Second World War we only finished paying you a couple of years ago. Fifty odd million pounds a year since the war, not bad eh. Got you out of that recession in the forties. Beggered us of course but we bounced back as we always do. Your military is hugely bigger than ours and therefore costs more. The way we organise things here such as the NHS etc is different so what you say is perhaps relevant to the USA but not here.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2012)

In my lifetime we have been looking after the survivors of the First World War, the Second, Greece, Palestine, Korea, Aden, Cyprus (twice), Malaya, Northern Ireland, Oman, the Falklands, the Balkans, 1st and 2nd Gulf war. 
Not all wars are about conquest, four of those conflicts were where our troops wore the UN beret. Often we go in to act as a buffr between warring factions, what that actually means is that both sides get to shoot at us.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2012)

You know the pound has inflated because of the wars? Imagine where you'd be with different policies. How much more wealthy could you be if people had been more discerning about the war itself. 

Anyway, this is all a hidden cost and if we're going to talk about supporting the the troops, let's get real about what that means. It means forcing the unborn to pay.  And I'm still curious what you would tell your great grandchildren. Would you say that everything was right and true and that you were protecting them against a grave threat or would you explain that the war was a fraud and that the government of the time dragged us into a mess? What do you think they would say?

Remember, these are the people who will really be supporting you. Justify it.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2012)

It's all about the money with you isn't, not honour, not freedom, not anything but the money. The price I assume of being capitalist. How much does it cost, let's throw money at it, lets buy it, it's all money money money.
The pound 'inflated', what it blew up? there's a great number of things that cause inflation and recession much of it coming from America. The war hasn't caused that much of a dent in the economy.
You sound like one of those preachers who love the over dramatic 'statements' and whipping the crowd up into a frenzy, very much the American telly evangelist in fact. However the world doesn't work the way you think it should and all this over dramatic stuff about telling your great grandchildren ( at my age it's not likely I'd be around when they are born especially as I don't have grandchildren so yet another over dramatic sweeping statement) about the war is nonsense, pure fantasy to be honest. You are still assuming we are stupid which offends me, we all know what politicians are, we know how the world works, we know how and why these wars are started and finished, what we are asking is that if the country uses it's troops it looks after them.

It seems to me you think you are the first one who has realised that governments are at best useless at worst corrupt, do you know how many governments we've had? More than enough to have long ago realised what politics is about. We are pragmatic and cynical about politics and you are teaching your grnaparents to suck eggs when you claim to educate us about politics and big business. We know that the first Iraq war was for oil and the second because Bush jnr wanted to finhed what his father had started. Our troops went because we have pledged to support the USA and we did now we need the troops looking after. We are the USA's best friend and ally and we hope that we keep our promises which is worth far more than money.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2012)

Like the love parents have for their children love for one's country isn't conditional.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/covenant.shtml

[h=3]_Military covenant_[/h]_"Britain has a 'duty of care' to its armed forces. This began as an unspoken pact between society and the military, possibly originating as far back as Henry VIII's reign. The pact was formally codified as a 'covenant' in 2000. It is not a law but is reinforced by custom and convention._
_The covenant only officially applies to the army, but its core principles are taken to extend to the air force and navy too._

_Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces._
_In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service._
_In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation._
_This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action._
_Army Doctrine Publication Volume 5_​
_The 'duty of care' to troops includes paying towards healthcare, which can be physical care for injuries or mental support for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other problems. The Ministry of Defence also provides support for bereaved families._
_The law gives the government 'combat immunity', which prevents soldiers from claiming compensation for injuries they received in combat except under official compensation schemes. Because soldiers cannot take the Crown to a civil court, the covenant is viewed as important in protecting soldiers' rights to compensation."_


----------



## K-man (Nov 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> You know the pound has inflated because of the wars? Imagine where you'd be with different policies. How much more wealthy could you be if people had been more discerning about the war itself.


This is just not true.  The pound has not inflated. In fact the Australian dollar has even risen against the pound. The Euro has devalued thanks to Greece and a few other countries that don't believe in paying tax.  But the US dollar is down because of 'fiscal easing'.   You can't just keep printing money to pay for services.  Every time you print more money the value of the currency falls.  Best example would be the Zimbabwe dollar. ($1 US  =  $373 Zim)

But, this thread is *not* about justifying war, Afghanistan or other.  It is not about past colonial ambitions.  It *is* about the treatment of service personal both during and after their service career.  

So back on thread, we have 5 Royal Marines who are in custody over the death of an insurgent after a fire fight. We don't have all the facts.  Do you think they are being treated fairly, based on what we do know?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2012)

K-man said:


> This is just not true.  The pound has not inflated. In fact the Australian dollar has even risen against the pound. The Euro has devalued thanks to Greece and a few other countries that don't believe in paying tax.  But the US dollar is down because of 'fiscal easing'.   You can't just keep printing money to pay for services.  Every time you print more money the value of the currency falls.  Best example would be the Zimbabwe dollar. ($1 US  =  $373 Zim)
> 
> But, this thread is *not* about justifying war, Afghanistan or other.  It is not about past colonial ambitions.  It *is* about the treatment of service personal both during and after their service career.
> 
> So back on thread, we have 5 Royal Marines who are in custody over the death of an insurgent after a fire fight. We don't have all the facts.  Do you think they are being treated fairly, based on what we do know?



Fair enough.  I think I've seen enough to really understand where people stand.  You are absolutely wrong about the pound though and other currencies.  They have inflated and a major reason is because of war.  

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/watson070805.html






> A  rare and desirable coin was sold on eBay recently. It was an English  Edward VI gold pound coin minted in 1550. When it sold for £1,379  ($2,500), the spot price of gold was about £237 per ounce. Weighing  11.31 grammes and being 22 carat gold would give this coin a gold  content of about 0.3334oz or a current metal value of £79.
> 
> Now think about this. For the next 400 years the value of that gold  pound (or sovereign) would fluctuate according to the various wars that  Britain got involved in until 1931. In that year, Britain went off the  gold standard and the last monetized sovereign weighed 0.2354oz. This is  only a devaluation in gold terms of 30% but what happened next as a  fiat money regime was introduced for the next 70 years?
> 
> A British pound is now valued at 0.0042oz, in other words, a 2005  British pound has 1.26% the purchasing power of the 1550 pound in terms  of gold. More worrying is the fact that it only has 1.78% the purchasing  power of the sovereign we mentioned from 1931. This was calculated by  dividing the 0.0042oz into 0.2354oz. As a confirmation of this, the  British Office For National Statistics was consulted to determine the  official purchasing power of the British pound. They published a  document in 2004 detailing pound inflation since 1750, which can be  found here.  The numbers for 1931 and 2004 given in table 3 are 602.8 for 1931 and  14.0 for 2003. We can estimate that 2005 is probably 13.5 based on  continuing deterioration of the pound. This makes the 2005 British pound  worth 2.24% of a 1931 pound. This contrasts with the 1.78% for gold  value. As you can see, gold has reflected the depreciation of the  British pound very well despite being decoupled from the monetary  system.



Inflation is how government steals money from the unborn in order for oligarchs to pay for their wars.  

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-and-inflation.html



> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Consider Thomas  Paine: "Paper money is like dram-drinking, it relieves for a moment by  deceitful sensation, but gradually diminishes the natural heat, and  leaves the body worse than it found it. Were not this the case, and  could money be made of paper at pleasure, every sovereign in Europe  would be as rich as he pleased&#8230;. Paper money appears at first sight to  be a great saving, or rather that it costs nothing; but it is the  dearest money there is. The ease with which it is emitted by an assembly  at first serves as a trap to catch people in at last. It operates as an  anticipation of the next year's taxes."[/FONT]



Beautiful analogy and well understood by America's Founding Fathers.  Too bad we lost our way and dragged the rest of the world with us.  Sorry guys.


----------



## Instructor (Nov 7, 2012)

I wonder what Thomas Paine would think of our current state of affairs?


----------



## K-man (Nov 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Fair enough.  I think I've seen enough to really understand where people stand.  You are absolutely wrong about the pound though and other currencies.  They have inflated and a major reason is because of war.
> 
> http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/watson070805.html
> 
> ...



Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems to me that the article is talking about depreciation of the pound against gold, not inflation.  Inflation causes the value of the currency to go down, not up.   In other words, since the abolition of the gold standard countries can do what they like with their currency. It's a lot to do with smoke and mirrors.  The US dollar only has the value it has because a lot of foreign countries believe the US economy is stronger than it really is.  They buy US dollars to protect their own financial position as their own currency drops in value.

The strength of the pound now has nothing to do with war. (Your article doesn't say war inflates the pound, it says it fluctuates.) it is because the Poms were sensible enough to stay away from a common European currency and the unsustainable debt and 'fiscal easing' of the US.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2012)

K-man said:


> Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems to me that the article is talking about depreciation of the pound against gold, not inflation.  Inflation causes the value of the currency to go down, not up.   In other words, since the abolition of the gold standard countries can do what they like with their currency. It's a lot to do with smoke and mirrors.  The US dollar only has the value it has because a lot of foreign countries believe the US economy is stronger than it really is.  They buy US dollars to protect their own financial position as their own currency drops in value.
> 
> The strength of the pound now has nothing to do with war. (Your article doesn't say war inflates the pound, it says it fluctuates.) it is because the Poms were sensible enough to stay away from a common European currency and the unsustainable debt and 'fiscal easing' of the US.



The depreciation of currency against gold is a measure of inflation.  Inflation has always been tied to war because governments "print" the money to pay for it. Both articles describe the relationship between inflation and war. One gives you a physical standard to measure and the other provides the economic theory to explain it. Historically, governments decouple their currencies from tangible substance in times of war in order to pay for it and the resultant fiat money always inflates to nothing because there is no restraint. The end result is that the oligarchs get their war and the people get poverty and paper. Inflation is theft. Almost all war is murder for profit by few. Nationalism is an illusion used to prop the whole scheme up.


----------



## K-man (Nov 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The depreciation of currency against gold is a measure of inflation.
> 
> Spot on.
> 
> ...



Your last para is perhaps a tad cynical, but I ask you once more.  What is your opinion on the plight of the British servicemen in custody?    :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2012)

It may surprise many in the States who have always thought of us as a poor relation but Britain is a rich country, one reason we are asking for the troops to be well looked after. The Afghan war has cost so far £20 billion (for the ten years), every year however we give £12.4 billion in foreign aid....charity. If anything is costing us money and should be seriously looked at is the fact we pay £40 million a DAY to the EU! The estimated net worth in the UK has risen by 81% since 1995 and that's in a recession. Being honest the financial cost of the war is a drop in the ocean, here the cost of the EU is far more likely to be the cause of our unborn not having houses etc. The cost of foreign aid is also a contentious one. Our government, Conservative of course, is set on making the working class pay for the rich, as it has always done, it's an old story and as usual they are treating the military badly, no surprise they always do it. They didn't win the last election by the way, they enticed the Lib Dems to join them and we have a Coalition, and it's not going well, it's as amusing as it's tragic.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> the Falklands



Might be time to just let Argentina have them, by the way. That one was not worth fighting over.


----------



## K-man (Nov 7, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Might be time to just let Argentina have them, by the way. That one was not worth fighting over.


Did you happen to run that suggestion past the British citizens that live there?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2012)

K-man said:


> Did you happen to run that suggestion past the British citizens that live there?



Yeah, both of them were OK with it, but a few of the sheep had reservations about how the different tax treatments could affect their investment accounts.

The Falklands War was just sad. It isn't a great example to bring up.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Yeah, both of them were OK with it, but a few of the sheep had reservations about how the different tax treatments could affect their investment accounts.
> 
> The Falklands War was just sad. It isn't a great example to bring up.



It's more justified than Iraq and Afghan and certainly more justifiable than invading Grenada.

The people on the Falklands are British, wish to remain that way and will as long as it can be done. Would you hand Hawaii over to another country who decided to claim it? Would you hand Alaska over to the Russians? The Argentinians killed _civilian_ Falkland Islanders, that's how peaceful their intentions were, at the time though the Argentinians government were merrily killing off a lot of their own people so how do you think the rest of the Islanders would have fared? Genocide most likely and the Islanders replaced by Argentinians, now if you're happy with that outcome...... that really is sad. You don't have to like what happened, we don't actually care, we did what had to be done to save British people, if you wouldn't do the same for Americans then I'm sorry but there's no way you are going to rubbish the job the troops did in the Falklands


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's more justified than Iraq and Afghan



Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Someone hiding in Afghanistan bombed the U.S. and killed thousands. That's a different story.



> The people on the Falklands are British, wish to remain that way and will as long as it can be done. Would you hand Hawaii over to another country who decided to claim it?



The Argentines didn't just suddenly "decide to claim" the Malvinas. The age of empire is over--do the right thing, United Kingdom.



> Would you hand Alaska over to the Russians?



When did you purchase the Falklands?


----------



## K-man (Nov 8, 2012)

arnisador said:


> The Argentines didn't just suddenly "decide to claim" the Malvinas. The age of empire is over--do the right thing, United Kingdom.
> 
> When did you purchase the Falklands?


When did the US purchase Texas?    

The Argentinians have as much claim to the Falklands as Australia has to Hawaii. That is none!  

Others with claims to the Falklands?  
France .. maybe. 
 Spain ... maybe. 
They were both there at some time.

And while I'm thinking of Hawaii, just how did that become US territory?     

I'm reminded of people who live in glass houses!     :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2012)

Glass houses indeed!

However the basic mistake you are making is that in thinking the Falklands are a colony. They aren't. They have their own government and make their own decisions. I suggest you do what we do and ask them how they see their future. While they want to stay British we will honour their wishes, if they want independance they will have it but we don't have the power nor the will to hand them over to anyone else. We can't legally do it and nor will we morally abandon them. The choice I can assure you is all theirs. If the Argentinians took the Falklands they would indeed become a colony which I repeat they aren't now, why would they give their freedom up? You would prefer these British people to become an Argentinian colony even though you think colonism should be finished with?
The Islanders have an independance to run their own lives in a way that Americans should be pleased about yet you would have their autonomy taken away and have them ruled from Buenos Aires? 

http://www.falklands.gov.fk//Government.html

_"Though an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, the Falkland Islands enjoys a large measure of internal self government. Negotiations with Her Majesty's Government have resulted in a new Constitution that will further strengthen this position. 

There is a Legislative Assembly which is Chaired by the Speaker and includes two ex-officio members: the Chief Executive and the Director of Corporate Resources. The Attorney General and Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands (CBFSAI) are also entitled to attend Legislative Assembly meetings. 

Each year the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) elect three of their number to the policy making body of the Government, Executive Council. Executive Council is chaired by HE the Governor. Membership includes the same ex-officio members who sit on the Legislative Assembly. In addition, the Attorney General and CBFSAI may attend and speak on any matter. 

The Legislative Assembly is empowered to pass legislation for the peace, order and good government of the Falkland Islands, subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, acting through her Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Legislative Assembly meetings are held in public, usually bi-monthly. 

Executive Council normally meets monthly, but more often if required. It is responsible for the formulation of strategy and policy, and for high level management decisions. Under the Falkland Islands Constitution the Governor retains responsibility for various issues, particularly external affairs and defence. The Governor nevertheless consults regularly with MLAs on these issues. 

All members are elected as independents, as there are no political parties. There is no formal opposition. Each MLA takes responsibility for a particular portfolio and works closely with the relevant departments, but does not have the role of a Minister; instead, questions of policy are considered by the Executive Council. "_

*The Constitution*

_A new Constitution for the Falkland Islands came into operation on 1 January 2009. It was agreed by the UK Government and the Falkland Islands Government. The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 was made on 5 November 2008 by Her Majesty the Queen in the Privy Council.

The new Constitution can be viewed here: The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 - Final Version.

The Falklands have developed considerably both economically and socially since the previous Falkland Islands' Constitution came in to operation in 1985, and the new Constitution reflects this. The Islanders' right to determine their own future has been reinforced, as self-determination is now embedded in the main body of the Constitution. The Constitution enhances local democracy, while retaining sufficient powers for the UK Government to protect UK interests and to ensure the overall good governance of the territory. It provides for greater transparency and accountability through the creation of a Public Accounts Committee and a Complaints Commissioner, and the rights chapter has been brought up to date to bring it into line with international agreements.

The new Constitution makes much clearer Councillors' responsibility for most domestic policies and that, in general, the Governor will now have to abide by the advice of the Executive Council on such matters. But the new Constitution will also enshrine a power for the Governor not to act upon Executive Council's advice "in the interests of good governance", or in relation to external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police), the administration of justice, audit, and management of the public service.

Other important changes include: recognition is given to the Chief Executive as head of the public service, but under the authority and direction of the Governor; and it is in line with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. There are also some changes to who has Falkland Islands Status (which brings with it the right to vote) through the Constitution - references to Commonwealth citizens are replaced by British citizens, British Overseas Territories Citizens will now have to apply for status rather than get it automatically on naturalisation/registration, and spouses will also now have to apply for status.

The previous Falkland Islands Constitution had been in force since 1985 (amended in 1997).

In April 2000, a Select Committee on the Review of the Constitution was set up by Legislative Council, following the suggestion in the 1999 UK White Paper on the Overseas Territories (OTs). It recommends that all OTs should examine their Constitutions and constitutional relationships with the UK to ensure that they suited all the current day circumstances.

The first formal report of the Select Committee was published in October 2005. Following the General Election in November 2005, the Select Committee reconvened to enable the new Council to consider the Report and propose amendments to it.

The Second Report was published in August 2006.

Falkland Islanders were consulted throughout the process through the publication of several documents raising particular subjects for consideration as well as discussions held between Councillors and groups of constituents.

A Final Report was submitted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in May 2007.

Following negotiations between the Select Committee and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a draft Constitution was produced for public consultation. All Falkland Islanders had opportunity to discuss and comment on it at all stages before it was finalised.

_and you would take their freedom away from them, interesting. I would have thought an American who believe imperialism was dead would be pleased that the Falklands govern themselves, make their own decisions and actually have a far greater say in what goes in their country than either most Americans or Britons.

If they wanted to be Argentinians they would be it really is as simmple as that. If and when they become an independant state will you still say they should be given over to Argentina?

And if you are thinking of the British interest in the oil and minerals in that area you should know that Britian offered and negociated for Argentina to have half of whatever is there, it was negociated with the Presidents husband. However the President later reneged on the deal.

and talking of colonies and glass houses.

_"Islands in the Pacific Ocean_

_American Samoa: (since 1898): locally self-governing under a constitution last revised in 1967.[SUP][14][/SUP] _
_Swains Island: Annexed by the United States on March 4, 1925, currently administered by American Samoa, and claimed by Tokelau (a dependency of New Zealand)._

_Wake Island: no longer under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy, now only inhabited by civilian contractors. It is now primarily a wildlife refuge._
_Midway Islands: no longer under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy, now inhabited only by caretakers. It is now primarily a wildlife refuge._
_Johnston Atoll: last used by the Department of Defense in about 2005._
_Baker Island: now uninhabited_
_Howland Island: now uninhabited_
_Jarvis Island: now uninhabited_
_Kingman Reef: now uninhabited_
_Islands in the Caribbean Sea_

_Bajo Nuevo Bank: uninhabited; also claimed by Colombia, by Nicaragua, and by Jamaica._
_Serranilla Bank: currently the site of a Colombian naval garrison; also claimed by Nicaragua, and by Honduras._
_Navassa Island: uninhabited; claimed by Haiti.
_
Not to mention this one



The United States exercises some degree of extraterritorial jurisdiction over its embassy, overseas military, and leased areas such as:


Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (since 1903): A 45 sq mi (117 km[SUP]2[/SUP]) area of land along Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to which the United States holds a perpetual lease.[SUP][15][/SUP] This is disputed by the Cuban government. The U.S. pays its annual lease payment by check, but the Cuban government has refused to cash them for decades.
Certain other parcels in foreign countries held by lease, such as military bases, depending on the terms of a lease, treaty, or status of forces agreement with the host country


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2012)

American set great store by their Constitution, should they not also then respect the Falkland Islands Constitition and stop thinking they are a colony? It demans the Falkland Islanders especially the ones who died in the Falklands war and those who have given their lives in two World Wars. They govern themselves under a British umbrella, why should they have their rights taken way?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2012)

K-man said:


> What is your opinion on the plight of the British servicemen in custody?    :asian:



I think they should be released. I don't see what they did as any worse than what anyone else is doing. If the war is unjust in the first place, no amount of rules of engagement are going to make it just.

That said, much has been said about the ideals that people stand for in this thread. Much has been claimed about service to this or that country and what it represents.

I would wager that there are no principles that a nation claims that aren't completely contradicted by it's actions. Which leads me back to my original question that sparked so much controversy. Why do people fight for this in the first place? Why is "nation" placed above one's own personal principles? 

I've never understood why my fellow humans do this. 

So, yeah, I hope they are released. I hope they realize the error of serving a fundamentally corrupt institution. I hope they someday try to make personal amends with the people they slew unjustly.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2012)

By people I mean kin, fyi. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> However the basic mistake you are making is that in thinking the Falklands are a colony. They aren't. They have their own government and make their own decisions.



I was impressed by the way they used their own military to defend themselves, too. And remind--they have their own king, right?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> American set great store by their Constitution, should they not also then respect the Falkland Islands Constitition



Oh please. It's part of the U.K. Let's not pretend otherwise. 




> It demans the Falkland Islanders especially the ones who died in the Falklands war and those who have given their lives in two World Wars.



How on earth does it demean World War veterans? Would they not have deserved respect if they had been Argnetinian?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Much has been claimed about service to this or that country and what it represents.
> 
> I would wager that there are no principles that a nation claims that aren't completely contradicted by it's actions. Which leads me back to my original question that sparked so much controversy. Why do people fight for this in the first place? Why is "nation" placed above one's own personal principles?
> 
> I've never understood why my fellow humans do this.



Because they're primates, and tribal urges rule.

More high-mindedly, if others are going to attack you then you either have to give in and fight. I wouldn't want to be speaking German right now--not that I have anything against the language, but because of the politics of those who would've brought it.

I'm not fond of attacking others, but in Afghanistan the first blow was struck by bin Laden in this round--yes, there's a long history, but I can't change that at this point--and going there made sense. Not everything that happened thereafter did, of course, but to fail to but bin LAden on the defensive would have left us open to more attacks.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2012)

You can't forget the previous history. That explains much about the quality of the pretenses. Regardless, I supported going after OBL in the beginning, before I knew better, but this quickly moved beyond him and AQ after Tora Bora and the so called "air lift of evil". The truth is that the government was intent on "nation building" before 9/11.

So, when do the false pretenses finally get taken into account.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2012)

Oh, and the Germans could never have invaded the US.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Oh, and the Germans could never have invaded the US.



Under your defense plan they could've done it with a single platoon, no?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Oh, and the Germans could never have invaded the US.



They couldn't? Perhaps you mean to say they could not *occupy* the US. They certainly could have invaded, at least in small areas.
You doubt? Consider the number of U-Boats that occupied (and nearly devasted the shipping in) US territorial waters during WWII. The eastern seaboard is littered with the wrecks of the ships they sank, as well as a few of the U-Boats. 

Could we have repulsed the invasion? Certainly, but had the Germans been able to consolidate their hold on Europe, our ability to prevent an invasion could have been much less clear.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Under your defense plan they could've done it with a single platoon, no?



Ninja please. Self defense is a holy sacrament for libertarians. We shoot anarchy bullets at force initiators faster than Abe Lincoln can slay vampires. Lol.

Seriously...

I think a robust national defense is necessary. I like how Switzerland does it, everyone gets trained, you keep your arms at home and the country keeps it's nose out of others business. Also, I do believe the Founding Fathers had a brilliant idea with our second amendment. Generals in the past have commented that they would never invade America because every bush would have a gun behind it. Damn right!


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> They couldn't? Perhaps you mean to say they could not *occupy* the US. They certainly could have invaded, at least in small areas.
> You doubt? Consider the number of U-Boats that occupied (and nearly devasted the shipping in) US territorial waters during WWII. The eastern seaboard is littered with the wrecks of the ships they sank, as well as a few of the U-Boats.
> 
> Could we have repulsed the invasion? Certainly, but had the Germans been able to consolidate their hold on Europe, our ability to prevent an invasion could have been much less clear.



Even their top generals said it was impossible. Too many people. Too many guns. Too big. Too wealthy. Same with the Japanese.

That said, WWII was much more justifiable then the wars that followed, much less Afghanistan and Iraq or the five other countries where we have forced killing others.

I often joke that we should rename water Al Qaeda and divert a portion of the debt to building Freedom Pools in every neighborhood. We'd deal with a threat thousands of times greater than anything one of these poor Pashtun men would ever pose to us. No need to hide behind the circumference of the Earth and blast away with robots....

But this assumes this war is about defense...which it isn't.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I think they should be released. I don't see what they did as any worse than what anyone else is doing. If the war is unjust in the first place, no amount of rules of engagement are going to make it just.
> 
> That said, much has been said about the ideals that people stand for in this thread. Much has been claimed about service to this or that country and what it represents.
> 
> ...




So what you are saying then is that the British are corrupt and its forces all murdering bastards. Interesting. I think that places the conversation at a close between us because frankly such rot actually manages to turn my stomach.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I was impressed by the way they used their own military to defend themselves, too. And remind--they have their own king, right?



Yep, just like Guam, American Samoa and the American Virgin Islands and all those other American colonies. And of course Kuwait, nice of the Americans to go in there defending them and it wasn't even their 'colony' oh and Grenada which is a constitutional monarchyas is the Falkland Islands are but it didn't stop you invading did it? Such a big country taking on such a very tiny one! Grenada must have been such a huge threat to the USA.

Perhaps though human rights and the wishes of a people to govern themselves and belong to who they want mean little to some, perhaps because the Falklands is such a small place the people don't deserve respect and should just be handed over to another country aganist their will because after all they are just the little people in the scheme of things. They were invaded, Islanders were killed, beaten up and locked up. Their houses were ransacked and items stolen or smashed up. They would have been forcibly removed off the Islands perhaps to disappear as so many Argentinians had, if that's fine with you then perhaps freedom isn't something you prize after all.

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/10/19...alklands-arrested-for-human-rights-violations


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/05...ificance-of-the-referendum-to-latam-countries

&#8220;We know what we want and we will show the world in 2013 that we don&#8217;t depend politically from Argentina or the United Kingdom. From the British we only depend on foreign affairs and defence&#8221;, said Falklands elected lawmakers Dick Sawle and Barry Elsby currently in Bogotá, Colombia where they were interviewed by the leading newspaper _El Colombiano._
Sawle added the Falklands government was working following international standards on the preparation of next year&#8217;s referendum &#8220;to make it clear to the world that we are exercising our self determination and that this is our right&#8221;.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> So what you are saying then is that the British are corrupt and its forces all murdering bastards. Interesting. I think that places the conversation at a close between us because frankly such rot actually manages to turn my stomach.



No, that isn't what I said. Your government is corrupt. It sent it's troops to fight an unjust war. Why punish a few on a technicality when the whole thing is rotten?

And then, how do you make peace afterward?  If you know the nature of government and it's politicians and you volunteer to serve them still, or at least do what they say, you own a piece of making it all possible. That is just philosophy and it isn't limited to the British.

I hope someone will make amends in the future, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> No, that isn't what I said. Your government is corrupt. It sent it's troops to fight an unjust war. Why punish a few on a technicality when the whole thing is rotten?
> 
> And then, how do you make peace afterward? If you know the nature of government and it's politicians and you volunteer to serve them still, or at least do what they say, you own a piece of making it all possible. That is just philosophy and it isn't limited to the British.
> 
> I hope someone will make amends in the future, but I won't hold my breath.



What rot. Spare me your patronising, our government isn't corrupt, it's misguided, mistaken and often just plain incompetent but you have absolutely no right nor the proof to accuse anyone elses government of anything. sort out your own backyard before you have the nere to criticising us. 
and for the record.... I'M PROUD OF MY MILITARY SERVICE AND MY SERVICE NOW and nothing you can say will ever stop that being the truth, because your truth isn't THE truth.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

The Badge I'm proud to wear.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> What rot. Spare me your patronising, our government isn't corrupt, it's misguided, mistaken and often just plain incompetent but you have absolutely no right nor the proof to accuse anyone elses government of anything. sort out your own backyard before you have the nere to criticising us.
> and for the record.... I'M PROUD OF MY MILITARY SERVICE AND MY SERVICE NOW and nothing you can say will ever stop that being the truth, because your truth isn't THE truth.



Why are you proud of it? I'm curious...

You have said that you know it's corrupt. You've typed the meme BLiar in other threads. You keep chastising me for being patronising when I bring up examples and then you say that you already know that stuff. Guess what? That's worse, because now you really are responsible for your actions in an obviously corrupt war. It's like joining the mob. You know what they are going to do...organized crime.

If you had simply bought into it, were lied to, were propagandized from childhood, which is what I honestly believe despite your protestations, you could say something different. You could say I am stuck. I found out about this later. I put my name down and I can't just get out. It's too big a part of my life now.  THAT is the truth. I have a lot of sympathy for that. A lot of my friends are in that position...or were there.

Search the term cognitive dissonance. These situations are ripe to put a lot of people in that boat.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Why are you proud of it? I'm curious...
> 
> You have said that you know it's corrupt. You've typed the meme BLiar in other threads. You keep chastising me for being patronising when I bring up examples and then you say that you already know that stuff. Guess what? That's worse, because now you really are responsible for your actions in an obviously corrupt war. It's like joining the mob. You know what they are going to do...organized crime.
> 
> ...



I think you are confused and_ clearly_ not understanding what I write. You think because Blair lied *all* the governments are corrupt? We've had Godon Brown and David Cameron since Blair. You are also stuck in that circle of the conspiracy/neurotic/paranoid theorists where the Illuminati etc etc are taking over the world. Our government is made up of human beings of various colours, races and religious beliefs (or none) they have various political views which actually are quite wide ranging. They above all are human therefore they are ambitious, greedy, avaricious,humane, inhumane, sympathetic and unsympathic, some care very much for the people, others don't give a toss. They aren't clones of an evil would be world dictator. They are just like the rest of us, not especially corrupt, not especially dishonest, just human. some are very patriotic, some not so much, many claim fake expenses, some no expenses at all. 
You have the attitude that only you are correct and everyone else is wrong and brainwashed, it reminds me of the guy who asks girls out and when they decline shouts that they must be lesbians because it's unthinkable that he could be wrong. We see our politicians for what they are, and a lot of the time we don't care if they lie cheat etc if it's good for the country, that's human nature btw.
See, the one thing you can't understand is that people make mistakes, people do the wrong things for the right reasons and people mean well but cause havoc, you can't accept the randomness of all that it has to be deliberate corruption and deliberate conspiracies against the 'people', it doesn't occur to you that the people might just actually have the upper hand because that doesn't fit in with your superior thoughts and behaviour, my, it must be really lonely up there on your high horse.
Oh and remind me when you became a Brit and how long you have lived here which enables you to be so 'expert' on British politics?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You are also stuck in that circle of the conspiracy/neurotic/paranoid theorists where the Illuminati etc etc are taking over the world.



Lol. I'm no David Icke. Hahaha...


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You are also stuck in that circle of the conspiracy/neurotic/paranoid theorists where the Illuminati etc etc are taking over the world.



I guess the ZOG redirection is working then.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Lol. I'm no David Icke. Hahaha...



You think? Seriously, you are saying much the same things as him.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

*"1. Arrogance. *They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc." 



"3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
_Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals_."


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Or you simply don't want to consider what I'm saying so you compare me to a guy that talks about 12 foot tall shape shifting reptile aliens. Lol.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Or you simply don't want to consider what I'm saying so you compare me to a guy that talks about 12 foot tall shape shifting reptile aliens. Lol.



and that's different to saying all governments are corrupt gangsters and all service personnel murderers? Really?

What you can't accept is that the majority of governments aren't so much corrupt as just behaving in the way that human beings do, governments are no different from any group of people you will find anywhere. The biggest problems with governments is sheer incompetence, the sheer size of them and the red tape.  Our politiicans gangsters, yeah right when they get caught fiddling their petty cash, you'd think such 'gangsters' would be able to at least manage that wouldn't you!
Do you think that when the Allies went into 'save' Kuwait which we all know was actually for the oil, that it was just the government that benefitted or did you think that the fuel you put in your car should be more expensive than it is because that's what would have happened if the Gulf War didn't happen, you benefit as much as any from these 'gangsterish' activities of your government. If the gangster polititicians hadn't decided to fight the UK for your freedom you'd still have our monarch as your head of state. If the gangster polititians hadn't declared war on Grmany many more than 6 million people would be dead, there most likely would be no Jews in Europe or the UK. 
No, it's not I who doesn't listen, I've listened far more than many would but you are so convinced of your beliefs you don't actually question whether you are right or not, at least I do, I also accept that people are human and behave as humans do.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

*Self-defence by Violence*
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.
Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by *****. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.
But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself. He is a stranger to nonviolence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to his nature. Before he can understand nonviolence, he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away from nonviolence.
Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind nonviolence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.
Self-defence....is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.
Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery.* Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.*
_Source: The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi_​


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

This song describes how I feel about these ridiculous wars and lying governments.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=orlE6bVKzE0&desktop_uri=/watch?v=orlE6bVKzE0

I'm more like Bob Dylan without the talent. Lol.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> and that's different to saying all governments are corrupt gangsters and all service personnel murderers? Really?
> 
> What you can't accept is that the majority of governments aren't so much corrupt as just behaving in the way that human beings do, governments are no different from any group of people you will find anywhere. The biggest problems with governments is sheer incompetence, the sheer size of them and the red tape.  Our politiicans gangsters, yeah right when they get caught fiddling their petty cash, you'd think such 'gangsters' would be able to at least manage that wouldn't you!
> Do you think that when the Allies went into 'save' Kuwait which we all know was actually for the oil, that it was just the government that benefitted or did you think that the fuel you put in your car should be more expensive than it is because that's what would have happened if the Gulf War didn't happen, you benefit as much as any from these 'gangsterish' activities of your government. If the gangster polititicians hadn't decided to fight the UK for your freedom you'd still have our monarch as your head of state. If the gangster polititians hadn't declared war on Grmany many more than 6 million people would be dead, there most likely would be no Jews in Europe or the UK.
> No, it's not I who doesn't listen, I've listened far more than many would but you are so convinced of your beliefs you don't actually question whether you are right or not, at least I do, I also accept that people are human and behave as humans do.



I see you question a lot and I see lots of rationalization. Don't you think that at some point we need to draw a line and say enough is enough?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> *Self-defence by Violence*
> I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
> The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.
> Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by *****. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.
> ...



I believe in self defense. I understand self defense. What is the fundamental principle that must be violated for self defense to exist? 

This principle, which i have mentioned many times, has been the point the entire thread.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I see you question a lot and I see lots of rationalization. Don't you think that at some point we need to draw a line and say enough is enough?



I see that you haven't answered any question I've asked you. You have taken seriously complicated situations and reduced them to 'the government is corrupt and the service people murderers' end of.  Life isn't like that
I do question a lot, in fact I question everything, all the time, I acccept nothing until I have looked at it, thought about and researched it if I haven't had experience of it. I suggest that's a good way to understanding life (the universe and everything) either that or read all of Terry Pratchett's books.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Tell you what...you hand me the proof that the British government is corrupt and I will personally see that something is done, it will be handed over to the police and the Parliamentary committees as well as the press. Or you can do it yourself.
http://www.parliament.uk/pcs
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ns-select/standards-and-privileges-committee/
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/

and in case you don't trust the police  http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Tell you what...you hand me the proof that the British government is corrupt and I will personally see that something is done, it will be handed over to the police and the Parliamentary committees as well as the press. Or you can do it yourself.
> http://www.parliament.uk/pcs
> http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ns-select/standards-and-privileges-committee/
> http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/
> ...



Well, don't you already know this?



Tez3 said:


> It seems to me you think you are the first one who has realised that governments are at best useless at worst corrupt, do you know how many governments we've had? More than enough to have long ago realised what politics is about. We are pragmatic and cynical about politics and you are teaching your grnaparents to suck eggs when you claim to educate us about politics and big business.



Lol


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I believe in self defense. I understand self defense. What is the fundamental principle that must be violated for self defense to exist?
> 
> This principle, which i have mentioned many times, has been the point the entire thread.



This is the point. This is what got me riled in the first place.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> This is the point. This is what got me riled in the first place.



So I start a thread about something and you are telling it me I don't know what it's about? that it's actually about something *you* say it is? You're doolally mate.

Sorry, my thread so it's about what I bloody well say it is....the treatment of service personnel by the government.


----------



## K-man (Nov 9, 2012)

Alarm bells are ringing. "Zeitgeist"!       :lurk:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

K-man said:


> Alarm bells are ringing. "Zeitgeist"!       :lurk:



The communist robots are coming...lol.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The communist robots are coming...lol.



What is it with you lot and communists?

Ah, I see, you think we are all socialists in the UK and therefore are obviously corrupt, penny drops.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> What is it with you lot and communists?
> 
> Ah, I see, you think we are all socialists in the UK and therefore are obviously corrupt, penny drops.



It has nothing to do with the UK. The "zeitgeist" movement includes this thing called the Venus Project, which literally says it will redistribute all property with communist robots. The association with me is a really funny strawman. Lol.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It has nothing to do with the UK. The "zeitgeist" movement includes this thing called the Venus Project, which literally says it will redistribute all property with communist robots. The association with me is a really funny strawman. Lol.



Oh wow, imagine that, and you thought I was so ignorant I didn't know, how kind you are to inform me....again. Patronise much?
 Actually you've missed my point....again and gone off on a tangent as usual. I do wish you'd actually read what I wrote instead of reading it while composing an answer that expounds your theories.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 9, 2012)

Folks, this seems to be getting a little tense, and some of the comments are riding the ragged edge of ending up in the moderator forums. Please, let's all try to keep it civil, shall we?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2012)

"All veterans are saints" on one side, and "All veterans are criminals" on the other.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2012)

arnisador said:


> "All veterans are saints" on one side, and "All veterans are criminals" on the other.



That's not what I'm saying at all. Some violence is obviously legitimized. Some is not. What is the benchmark?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> That's not what I'm saying at all. Some violence is obviously legitimized. Some is not. What is the benchmark?



The point of the thread is simple, you have repeated wandered off topic. It's not about whether the military or governments are good or bad but the covenant between the country and the military. Everytime we try to haul it back on topic it's disrailed. it's not about what is 'legitimate' violence and what isn't. It's not about good soldiers or bad soldiers, surely we are adult and wise enough in the ways of the world that we know life isn't black and white. It's actually a very simple subject and I've asked repeatedly that you start your own if you want to talk politics, I want to just talk about the care of the military when they need it, that's what this thread is about.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The point of the thread is simple, you have repeated wandered off topic. It's not about whether the military or governments are good or bad but the covenant between the country and the military. Everytime we try to haul it back on topic it's disrailed. it's not about what is 'legitimate' violence and what isn't. It's not about good soldiers or bad soldiers, surely we are adult and wise enough in the ways of the world that we know life isn't black and white. It's actually a very simple subject and I've asked repeatedly that you start your own if you want to talk politics, I want to just talk about the care of the military when they need it, that's what this thread is about.



The title of this thread is "defending your country is not murder" it's about some royal marines who killed someone, apparently unjustly, in Afghanistan.

I have questioned the word "defense" in the title of this thread and held up some examples that paint a bleak picture. 

If you want to talk about a covenant between soldiers and the government, you are in luck. That's what I've been discussing the entire time. The covenant was broken before the war even started. 

How about a new conenant where the government doesn't define "defense" as the old imperialistic foreign policy? 

The essential question of this thread remains, "What is the benchmark required for something to be called defense?"

Otherwise, it's just murder.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

No you are wrong again. The Royal Marines were doing what their country required of them, defending themselves in a time of war, just because you define that war as illegal, just because you decide that defence is wrong doesn't make it so. This country decides what it does, not you, this country decides how it utilises it's troops, not you. The country has the loyalty of it's troops who believe in their country, albeit in their own disrespectful way, you have an agenda to push that doesn't and shouldn't involve Her Majesty's troops.
I'm not as perhaps some think being acrimonious about this, I'm just very tired of being patronised by you and with having you preach on something that is very little to do with this thread. The premise is simple, the country uses it's troops it should look after them, that's it, no arguments, no who's right, who's wrong. You use the troops you owe it to them to look after them and if they are killed in action their families, it really is as simple as that. the covenant isn't political, it's practical, it's about looking after the troops. The issue of whether they should be used in such wars is the subject of other discussions, other movements and certainly has nothing to do with the practical care of our troops. Our government used the Royal Marines in a war therefore they should treat them correctly not use them to score political points, again it really is as simple as that. The point of whether they should be there or not is a different discussion.
If you want to start a thread about defence, imperialism etc be my guest but don't keep derailing this one to harrass and badger me. I understand your point of view, I even respect it but again your points aren't the point of this thread. The fact is there is a war, the troops are fighting in it and therefore the government has to treat the troops properly. It really is as simple as that.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

I ask you to stand with me 

For both the injured and the lost 

I ask you to keep count with me 
Of all the wars and what they cost 

I ask you to be silent with me 

Quietly grateful for our lot 

As I expect you're as thankful as me 

For the health and life we've got 

I ask that you wish them well with me 

All those still risking their all 

And I ask that you remember with me 

The names of those that fall 

I expect that you are proud like me 

Of this great nation of ours too 

So enjoying all its freedoms like me 

Support those upholding them for you 

I hope that you are hopeful like me 

That we'll soon bring an end to wars 

So you'll have to stand no more with me 

And mourning families no different from yours 

Til then be thankful you can stand with me 

Thinking of those who now cannot 

For standing here today with me 

At least we show they're not forgot 

Dave
(Royal Marines)


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 10, 2012)

Unfortunately, at times we have done the same in this country as well.  We ask young men and women to serve our country in war, then want to ignore the results of that upon thier bodies and minds.  The term that pops to my minds is using them as "fodder."  If a country asks it soldiers to risk or give up thier lives, it is the country's obligation to take care of those soldiers afterwards, or thier families if the soldier dies.  If a country doesn't have enough money to do this, then it doesn't have enough money to go to war.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

The Supreme Court here is to hear the case of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan, the gist of the case is whether the military has a 'right to life' in a war zone. If its ruled that they do under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights it's going to change a lot of things.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rule-on-a-soldiers-right-to-life-8301316.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> No you are wrong again. The Royal Marines were doing what their country required of them, defending themselves in a time of war, just because you define that war as illegal, just because you decide that defence is wrong doesn't make it so. This country decides what it does, not you, this country decides how it utilises it's troops, not you. The country has the loyalty of it's troops who believe in their country, albeit in their own disrespectful way, you have an agenda to push that doesn't and shouldn't involve Her Majesty's troops.
> I'm not as perhaps some think being acrimonious about this, I'm just very tired of being patronised by you and with having you preach on something that is very little to do with this thread. The premise is simple, the country uses it's troops it should look after them, that's it, no arguments, no who's right, who's wrong. You use the troops you owe it to them to look after them and if they are killed in action their families, it really is as simple as that. the covenant isn't political, it's practical, it's about looking after the troops. The issue of whether they should be used in such wars is the subject of other discussions, other movements and certainly has nothing to do with the practical care of our troops. Our government used the Royal Marines in a war therefore they should treat them correctly not use them to score political points, again it really is as simple as that. The point of whether they should be there or not is a different discussion.
> If you want to start a thread about defence, imperialism etc be my guest but don't keep derailing this one to harrass and badger me. I understand your point of view, I even respect it but again your points aren't the point of this thread. The fact is there is a war, the troops are fighting in it and therefore the government has to treat the troops properly. It really is as simple as that.



I understand this point of view and agree. If a country must have it's soldiers to fight, it has to take care of them the best it can. I don't see this happening here as well and I think it's wrong.  Here's the problem, as I see it, and it deals with the core issues I've been hammering at this entire thread.  When a government sends in it's soldiers for imperialistic reasons, taking care of the soldiers becomes a question of money.  Everything that happens becomes a question of how much can we afford, how much can we cut, what's more important.  Often, keeping the people settled and happy is more important than caring for it's soldiers because a minority is trying to maintain it's power and keep reaping the benefits of promoting empire.  This is why soldiers get cast away and this is why the "guns and butter" always flows from imperial impulses in government.  The politicians will say that they care for the troops, but they care about power more and they care about money more and they care about the empire more.  The politicians will act like scoundrels wondering what they can get away with.

In a real defensive situation, a country is going to do what it takes to win.  With real defense, there is no such thing as a limited war for political reasons.  All attackers are fair game and no one is going to get thrown in prison for killing them.  If the people of the country can take care of people afterward, I'm sure they will, but that isn't a priority at the time.  Defending against the attack is the priority.  Depending on the severity of the threat, it might be THE ONLY priority.  Here, politicians will act like leaders who will do whatever it takes to keep their people safe.  So, there is a huge difference in the political realities when it comes to offensive and defensive war.

That said, the title of this thread is spot on. The idea that we can order our soldiers to attack a country and call it anything other than murder is a good starting point to begin to address the political realities I've mentioned above. It is entirely relevant to the subject of this thread.  I think we would be missing an enormous piece of this discussion if we didn't talk about the political realities of the word "defend".


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The point of the thread is simple, you have repeated wandered off topic. It's not about whether the military or governments are good or bad but the covenant between the country and the military.



But they're getting a fair trial--how is that not keeping the agreement? Surely the actions of soldiers will at times be judged by their superiors? I don't understand your complaint--a trial is exactly our (Western) system for sorting these things out.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> That said, the title of this thread is misleading. The idea that we can order our soldiers to attack a country and call it anything other than murder baffles the mind. That's why I questioned the word "defend" from the very beginning.



Should we have fought Al Qaeda here in the U.S. instead after 9/11? Sometimes you have to take out the enemy's base to defend against future attacks.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The Supreme Court here is to hear the case of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan, the gist of the case is whether the military has a 'right to life' in a war zone. If its ruled that they do under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights it's going to change a lot of things.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rule-on-a-soldiers-right-to-life-8301316.html



Fascinating--that really _could _change a lot of things.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> This country decides what it does, not you, this country decides how it utilises it's troops, not you.



What other countries do with their militaries does affect other countries. Everyone has a right to an opinion about that. The U.K. has been a great ally for us in what has happened since 9/11 and I'm appreciatiev of that. But looking more broadly beyond just the U.K., to say it's a country's military so no one else should say anything doesn't wash. How often do we criticize a country--take Iraq before the invasion--for using its military against its own civilians? Your statement is much too broad. 



> The premise is simple, the country uses it's troops it should look after them, that's it, no arguments, no who's right, who's wrong.



But you seem to think that means they can't be put on trial for anything that goes on in a war zone--that anything goes. That's how it seems to me and that I don't agree with.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The Supreme Court here is to hear the case of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan, the gist of the case is whether the military has a 'right to life' in a war zone. If its ruled that they do under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights it's going to change a lot of things.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rule-on-a-soldiers-right-to-life-8301316.html



This article only bolsters the point I made in my last post.



> Then defence secretary Liam Fox described it as a victory for common  sense, adding: &#8220;It is right that orders given in the heat of battle  should not be questioned by lawyers at a later date. It would have been  absurd to try to apply the same legal considerations on the battlefield  that exist in non-combat situations.&#8221;
> 
> 
> But John Wadham, General  Counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission explained that  Article 2 does not offer absolute protection but simply places a  responsibility on the state to protect life in the context of the  situation.
> ...



This debate is an example of the political realities surrounding an imperial soldier's life.  The country is sending it's soldiers into offensive wars to nation build and do all of the things that empires do.  What people are really arguing about is "workers rights" for soldiers not "human rights".  The *job *of sending people to ATTACK others is dangerous and the citizens would like the people who perform this job to be well prepared with the proper training and equipment.  This is exactly akin to working other dangerous jobs where people can easily get killed or maimed.  Maybe the soldiers should unionize and go on strike!  LOL.

Again, it all goes back to the nature of the conflict.  If it's offensive for imperialistic reasons, the troops are going to be just another special interest group vying for "rights". If it really is defensive, that **** doesn't matter.  Troops fight back however they possibly can.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Should we have fought Al Qaeda here in the U.S. instead after 9/11? Sometimes you have to take out the enemy's base to defend against future attacks.



I support the use of force against a group like AQ, but this issue is for more complicated than this.  The current war in Afghanistan, and many of the other actions being taken around the world have little to do with groups like AQ.

Constantly boiling it down to 9/11 and AQ and excusing everything that followed is fallacious reasoning.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

arnisador said:


> But they're getting a fair trial--how is that not keeping the agreement? Surely the actions of soldiers will at times be judged by their superiors? I don't understand your complaint--a trial is exactly our (Western) system for sorting these things out.



They aren't getting a fair trial where you are believed innocent until proved guilty, they are facing court martial where it's done on the balance of probablity. The judge is civilian not military. We are also having to raise money for their defence, otherwise they don't get a barrister to represent them. It would be a military officer othrwise with little or no legal experience. The prosecution doesn't have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt only that on the balance of probability the Marines are guilty. It's generally accepted here that a court martial is to decide punishment not to prove or disprove innocent or guilt because the facts of the case have already been examined. In 40 years I've never known a court martial to go any other way than decide punsihment which admittedly could be very lenient if they decide the Marines deserve it. So fair? No.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I support the use of force against a group like AQ, but this issue is for more complicated than this. The current war in Afghanistan, and many of the other actions being taken around the world have little to do with groups like AQ.
> 
> Constantly boiling it down to 9/11 and AQ and excusing everything that followed is fallacious reasoning.



This and your previous post  
:-offtopic

Please start another thread if you wish to discuss the legalities or otherwise of the Afghan war and any other wars you have a mind too. This has nothing to do with this thread, please respect that and continue your discussion of this in another thread.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> This and your previous post
> :-offtopic
> 
> Please start another thread if you wish to discuss the legalities or otherwise of the Afghan war and any other wars you have a mind too. This has nothing to do with this thread, please respect that and continue your discussion of this in another thread.



This has everything to do with the topic at hand.



Makalakumu said:


> I understand this point of view and agree. If a  country must have it's soldiers to fight, it has to take care of them  the best it can. I don't see this happening here as well and I think  it's wrong.  Here's the problem, as I see it, and it deals with the core  issues I've been hammering at this entire thread.  When a government  sends in it's soldiers for imperialistic reasons, taking care of the  soldiers becomes a question of money.  Everything that happens becomes a  question of how much can we afford, how much can we cut, what's more  important.  Often, keeping the people settled and happy is more  important than caring for it's soldiers because a minority is trying to  maintain it's power and keep reaping the benefits of promoting empire.   This is why soldiers get cast away and this is why the "guns and butter"  always flows from imperial impulses in government.  The politicians  will say that they care for the troops, but they care about power more  and they care about money more and they care about the empire more.  The  politicians will act like scoundrels wondering what they can get away  with.
> 
> *In a real defensive situation, a country is going to do what it takes to  win.  With real defense, there is no such thing as a limited war for  political reasons.  All attackers are fair game and no one is going to  get thrown in prison for killing them.*  If the people of the country can  take care of people afterward, I'm sure they will, but that isn't a  priority at the time.  Defending against the attack is the priority.   Depending on the severity of the threat, it might be THE ONLY priority.   Here, politicians will act like leaders who will do whatever it takes  to keep their people safe.  So, there is a huge difference in the  political realities when it comes to offensive and defensive war.
> 
> That said, the title of this thread is spot on. The idea that we can  order our soldiers to attack a country and call it anything other than  murder is a good starting point to begin to address the political  realities I've mentioned above. It is entirely relevant to the subject  of this thread.  I think we would be missing an enormous piece of this  discussion if we didn't talk about the political realities of the word  "defend".


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> This has everything to do with the topic at hand.




No it doesn't. I know what this thread is about because it's my thread not yours, please start another thread for your political hectoring. This isn't about the point of war, the reasons for war or the excuses for war,* it's about the covenant between the British people and it's Armed Forces. *You are off topic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> No it doesn't. I know what this thread is about because it's my thread not yours, please start another thread for your political hectoring. This isn't about the point of war, the reasons for war or the excuses for war,* it's about the covenant between the British people and it's Armed Forces. *You are off topic.



The covenant is political and my last post exposes the nature of the covenant.  If you don't want to talk about this, fine, but it's related to this topic.  People should discuss the reason why troops are used as a political football.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

I'm not sure if you have the balance of probablity thing ( I expect your military has trials on par with the civilian system) and whether I explained it properly. At the risk of telling you what you already know I'll explain it like this. If I, when on a patrol, come across you standing over a dead body the civilian system would have you questioned etc and if there was sufficient compelling evidence that you had murdered that person you would be charged and sent for trial. The balance of probability way is to charge on the basis that if you are found standing over the body and there's no one else around you, the balance of probablity is that you murdered them and you will be charged. The onus then is on you to prove you're innocent. Sorry if you already knew this.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The covenant is political and my last post exposes the nature of the covenant. If you don't want to talk about this, fine, but it's related to this topic. People should discuss the reason why troops are used as a political football.



I agree that it should be discussed but not here. The Covenant isn't political it's moral. Please start your own thread to discuss your political theories.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> They aren't getting a fair trial where you are believed innocent until proved guilty, they are facing court martial where it's done on the balance of probablity. The judge is civilian not military. We are also having to raise money for their defence, otherwise they don't get a barrister to represent them. It would be a military officer othrwise with little or no legal experience. The prosecution doesn't have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt only that on the balance of probability the Marines are guilty. It's generally accepted here that a court martial is to decide punishment not to prove or disprove innocent or guilt because the facts of the case have already been examined. In 40 years I've never known a court martial to go any other way than decide punsihment which admittedly could be very lenient if they decide the Marines deserve it. So fair? No.



So are you against the whole British military law system--whatever the equivalent of the UCMJ is here--or just in this case? Is that how it usually goes in a court martial there--civilian judge, get your own lawyer? Here it's usually military judge, with a military lawyer provided if desired.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

arnisador said:


> So are you against the whole British military law system--whatever the equivalent of the UCMJ is here--or just in this case? Is that how it usually goes in a court martial there--civilian judge, get your own lawyer? Here it's usually military judge, with a military lawyer provided if desired.



It's all cases, in some things such as allowing gays to serve we are in the 21st century, others like courts martial in the 18th. The civilian judge doesn't decide on the verdict, the majority ( officers and just recently warrant officers now and again) in the court does, the judge is for the sentencing not the verdict. You can have a barrister if you pay for one, hugely expensive though. We don't have military lawyers, the defendants can have an officer to assist if they wish though. In the UK the charges in the courts martial are all against military law. Under the UK's civil law its unlikely the Marines would have been charged unless it could be proved the enemy soldier was actually killed in cold blood when there wasn't a fire fight going on.
I've been to several courts martial as a witness and frankly they are archaic, in the Navy they actually have a sword on the table in front of the trying officers, if you are guilty it's turned one way, innocent the other. Military law contains a greta many 'offences' that aren't in civvy street. You can still be sentenced to ten years inprisonment for failing to escape from the enemy and you can get two years for failing to send a captured ship or aircrafts papers to the Prize Court. If you allow fuel to overflow when refuelling a vehicle you can be court martialed and dismissed the service, yep really. It's misuse of public or military property.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2012)

Sounds like a system in need of modernization. Ours isn't perfect, but you are offered a JAG (military lawyer). But then the covenant you speak of has not been fully and legally in place for some while, no?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Sounds like a system in need of modernization. Ours isn't perfect, but you are offered a JAG (military lawyer). But then the covenant you speak of has not been fully and legally in place for some while, no?



There's still a lot of things that need updating badly. 'Tradition' is a word used a lot, it's been like that for centuries and 'if it was good enough for my 6 time grandfather it ought to be good enough now'! The RAF luckily doesn't have that problem being so young!
I think there's a groundswell of support for the Forces among the public, the Afghan war is very high profile here, the media is very on top of it, the stumbling block is that as always the government doesn't want to spend money, nothing new. The Duke of Marlborough had the same problems trying to get support for ex soldiers in the 17th century, Wellington too after the Napoleonic Wars. Henry the Eight was petitioned many times for help for old soldiers, you would have thought we'd have sorted by now but the same old excuses come up. The public raises millions for service charities but really it must be the government's responsibility in that disabled housing, the best prosthetics, medical care both physical and mental etc are made available. The cry after the First World War was 'a world fit for heroes', the heroes are still waiting.

The need is for support for the troops both ex and serving, it's not just about the Afghan war. One of our dog handlers has PTSD, he was in the Pioneer Corps one of who's jobs was to bury the fallen Argentinian soldiers in the Falklands ( yes they were treated with great respect) then his unit went to the Balkans where their job was to dig up the bodies of those massacred. the bodies had to be identified by survivors then reburied. We have people who went though very bad times in Northern Ireland. They need understanding and support. It has taken this country a very long time to relaise that PTSD isn't just another word for skiving off.
When soldiers especially, not so much the RAF or Navy as they have trades, leave the military they are literally just told goodbye, they get a few days job hunting days and a few courses but they after 22 years have little idea how to manage in civvy street. Many have been divorced because mailitary life doesn't go well with family life and back to back tours are hard. People can say well they know what to expect when they join up but thats not fair, they know about the danger but the rest they find out the hard way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...Ex-Servicemen-Please-read-carefully--all.html
http://www.combatstress.org.uk/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/11/charities-troops-need-more-support if you note the last paragraph in this where where Cameron is being urged to not cut the Forces pensions. the government has actually been to court to have the compensation cut of a seriously wounded soldier, things like this are what need sorting.

Right, I will come back to this but I need to watch the television, it's the Royal British Legion (saints) Festival of Remembrance ahead of  Remembrance Sunday tomorrow.


----------



## K-man (Nov 11, 2012)

On top of the first case we now have ...



> The wife of an SAS soldier has accused Army chiefs of 'betrayal' after he was jailed for illegally possessing a pistol given to him for his work in Iraq.
> Sally Nightingale spoke out as her husband Danny, a special forces sniper, began an 18-month sentence in military detention.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2012)

K-man said:


> On top of the first case we now have ...



This is what I was saying about courts martial. Despite expert medical opinion they still convicted him. The weapon was presented to him by the Iraqis and he intended to give it to his mess to display. What gets me is that he had to plaed guilty because if he'd pleaded not guilty they would have given him a longer senrence, as I said courts martial are basically there to decid punishment not guilt or innocence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9669410/SAS-war-hero-jailed-after-betrayal.html


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2012)

Guys, please help. Sign the petition. The SAS is world renown for it's actions, signatures from around the world will be influential in persuading our government they are wrong.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 29, 2012)

Few minutes ago the Appeal Court announced a suspended sentence for Danny Nightingale, he's out of nick! Next it will be the appeal of the sentence itself. Especial thanks go to the American Spec Forces who added their support to the campaign, I can tell you it's appreciated as is all the help.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 29, 2012)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-call-to-free-SAS-hero-Danny-Nightingale.html 

One free, five to go.


----------

