[Closed] Our War BBC Three now

They can't pick and choose their conflicts

I think this is a fundamental point and something i'd like to see change, how you'd work it dunno, that's open for discussion. But it seems all too easy to send the army to war on a whim, afghanistan certainly was, (the mission may well have changed due to governments inheriting the war(personally I doubt that it's just developed into a PR war and they'll withdraw as soon as they can save face), but afghanistan was a bloodlust reaction to 9/11, it should have never have happened.) Iraq was also started for the flimsiest of reasons, and imo went ahead vastly against public opinion.

Our politicians clearly can't be trusted.

The system is broken and imo therefore everyone has a duty to say so until things change. And those in the army really should bear more responsibilty as they are the ones doing the bidding, and there is such a thing as conscientious objection(If enough objected they couldn't jail them all.). So therefore while they blindly do the bidding imo those in the army are as culpable as the government.

Btw regarding insurgents killing 81% of civilians, that wouldn't be happening if not for the invasion, it's a direct result of western action

Some of us may not like the proposed reforms/sell offs to the NHS, but we don't demand those public sector workers down tools or expect them to take responsibility above and beyond voting, just because they are at the sharp end implementing the changes, getting on with their job, doing what they are trained to do.

Some of us may not like the proposed reforms/sell offs to the NHS, but we don't demand those public sector workers down tools or expect them to take responsibility above and beyond voting, just because they are at the sharp end implementing the changes, getting on with their job, doing what they are trained to do

And I don't know about you, but i'd like to think NHS workers would be up in arms if ever there was a danger of it getting taken from us.

Why is it different, apart from the Forces not being even able to strike? We don't demand NHS workers strike do we? Nor hold them accountable if a reform is not to our liking?

Why is it different

because of the death tolls involved, whether directly or indirectly.

If only we could get our military to kill as many as the NHS do.

Joke. My partner works for the NHS, and the front line medical staff are superb. It's all the admin that are generally shite.

My Wife and many like her form part of the front line staff on the wards, effectively working for the NHS, when not in Foreign Fields.

I take your point but we are still talking about public employees. Where do we draw the line regarding the number of deaths in deciding the military to be held responsible particularly with hindsight being a wonderful thing?

TuckerUK - Member
...But I don't think our retaking of the Falklands was questionable. I don't think the original Gulf War was questionable. I support actions in support of NATO or the UN where they are legal and we aren't bearing a disproportionate load

so are you saying that the mission in afghan is neither UN mandated nor NATO led?

This article gives a few insights into the clusterf*** that the war in Afghanistan is/was/will be:

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/12/afghan-war-lost-who-blame-squandered ]Afghan war lost who is to blame?[/url]

'Among many sad anecdotes, he notes that 27% of British helicopter flights in Helmand carried (mainly military) VIPs, while politicians were being denounced for under-equipping the forces. The RAF spent £70m widening taxiways in Kandahar so it could fly Tornado jets for which there was no call beyond the spurious claim they might cheer up the British squaddies they overflew. Or the tale of the commander who joked that injuries would work wonders for Britain's Paralympic team in 2012. Cowper-Coles restates the claim that troops were sent to Afghanistan in a bid to "use them, or lose them" to Treasury cuts.'

I think being called America’s Lackey is a starter for ten, thinking the UK military sit in their back pocket and bow to the US foreign policy is quite an offensive thing to accuse us of.

'On his first day on the job as Her Majesty's ambassador to Kabul in 2007, Sherard Cowper-Coles told the mission's top SIS (MI6) officer that his priority would be to develop a good relationship with President Hamid Karzai. The gruff northern spy quickly puts him right. "Oh no it won't," he says. "Your key relationship will be with the American ambassador. He matters most to us"'

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/politics/9780007432028/cables-from-kabul-britains-afghan-envoy ]Cables from Kabul[/url]

In my opinion the military have to take their share of the blame. At the end of the day it's the soldiers on the ground that are the basic instruments of war and the ones who suffer on all counts. It's not a situation I'd put myself in and find it incredible that people do.

so are you saying that the mission in afghan is neither UN mandated nor NATO led?

We're supporting the US, and as we all know the US is now (since 2002) an outlaw country who refuses to accept the authority of the UN World Court and their conviction by it. How can it be legal for us to be helping an outlaw country?

We allow ourselves to be dry bummed by the US to ensure our place at their feet.

Makes me proud

The only thing I'm proud of is our armed forces. Hats off to all the guys and gals doing their bit. You are in our thoughts always