http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4188147.stm

This got a mention on Radio 4 today. Basically the soldier concerned said he would refuse to go to Iraq if called up. He also states that he doesn't want to resign. The TA soldier claims to have a lot of support but from what I've read I think he might come unstuck with this.

Really hate having your radar avatar watching me all the time.

Sincerely stops me responding to your posts.

If my fingers can sustain the trauma of the outrageous comments I shall top up my posts. ;)

If the guy has issues with fighting a particular nation he should just quit, and stop making political capital out of it.

In the words of some long forgotten philosopher, either p**s or get off the pot.

Many moons ago I found myself in a situation where I had to decide whether my principles won out or whether I took a piece of work on that MIGHT have impacted my principles. I hose to not take on the job - I have every respect for someone dealing with private principles in a private manner.

I have no respect at all for prima-donnas who seem to think that the rest of us give a toss as to whether they can meet the needs of their voluntary sign up to teh TA or not. If they don't wnat to do their duty, quit. Who WOULD he have been happy fighting? He's been in the TA how long? 5 years? And for the last 15 years we've spent time peace keeping in Bosnia and fighting a series of larger or smaller wars in Iraq.

Joe

Joe

I thought the purpose of soldiers was to fight when needed.

OK, there are political reasons behind his decision but at the end of the day when he signed up (and took the pay, by the way) he must have known that the possibility might arise. By signing up for the army, you're signing up to do the Government's wishes.

I've no sympathy with either him or anyone else who whinges about our soldiers having to go and fight. When they sign, they must know what thy're letting themselves in for.

Originally posted by Clumber
I've no sympathy with either him or anyone else who whinges about our soldiers having to go and fight. When they sign, they must know what thy're letting themselves in for.
They do know - it's to defend your right to say those things about them by risking their lives while you sit at home in front of your computer - toss pot!

Originally posted by Clumber
I thought the purpose of soldiers was to fight when needed.

OK, there are political reasons behind his decision but at the end of the day when he signed up (and took the pay, by the way) he must have known that the possibility might arise. By signing up for the army, you're signing up to do the Government's wishes.

I've no sympathy with either him or anyone else who whinges about our soldiers having to go and fight. When they sign, they must know what thy're letting themselves in for. thats correct,when you sign on you take an oath to protect the queen and her members of parliament,to obey orders when given,its a legal contract although in the t.a. you can give notice and buy your self out, he,s drawn the pay over several years of reletive quiet times,now he is supposed to do what he has been paid for he backs off, sounds like he likes to wear the uniform and play at soldiers, but when the real stuff comes along he wants to put his toys away and sit back and let his mates do his job for him.hes let himself down and his regiment, not to mension his country

Its not a simple issue.

My initial reaction was "tough, you joined up, either quit entirely or do as you're told"

But then the further thought I had was, well, maybe soldiers thinking for themselves about whether what they are doing is right could be a good thing.

Generally, the defence "I was only obeying orders" doesn't get you very far at a court martial or a war crimes tribunal. I know thats taking things a little to extreme, but potentially soldiers can be held accountable for their actions in war, so if they don't think they should be fighting then you could say that should be their perogative.

I don't suppose the soldier himself is trying to make political capital out of it (maybe just financial capital!).

Originally posted by DaBouncer
They do know - it's to defend your right to say those things about them by risking their lives while you sit at home in front of your computer - toss pot!

Err, come on DB - this thread is about a soldier who obviously DOESN'T understand that.

Originally posted by Tony
Err, come on DB - this thread is about a soldier who obviously DOESN'T understand that.
That's very true but when someone makes a generlist comment about sympathy (or lack thereof) for our soldiers who DO go out and fight and get killed in the name of our country (with right or wrong government policy) and slate them it ****** me off.

People have shed blood, been killed and left behind families and children just so this idiot can slate them.
I'm sorry HE gets no sympathy from me Tony.

I can understand the argumentsfrom all sides. However, as I think Clumber said, a soldier's duty is to obey orders without questioning the reasoning behind it. I can understand the fear this man's protest may have instilled in the minds of military top brass. What if, they may well be asking themselves, this starts a trend? Soldiers can't be allowed to "pick and choose" as if they were at Woolworths! Perhaps the main problem here lies in the lack of clear objectives for our soldiers?

I have no military experience [though I was in the elite 61st Cub Scouts, Lower Wincobank Division], but I can sympathise with people who have a moral dilemma when it comes to killing other human beings. These types do not belong in the Army. Nor, in my view, does anyone who is not fit enough to fight hand to hand, if necessary. Going slightly off track, the recent calls to make the Army more "inclusive" re the disabled appalled me. It is a question of degree of disablement. At the Battle of Admin Box, Burma, WW2, cooks, clerks etc joined forces with regular soldiers to help throw back a tidal wave of Japanese . The point is, these were all fit, strong men who could fight hand to hand if required, and on this occasion I believe it was. Imagine the scenario had there been people in wheelchairs etc. No offence intended to those with disabilities that restrict movement, or to "conscientious objectors", but the Army requires fit, able-bodied, unquestioning fighters/killers. Anybody who does not fit the description should follow a different career path.

Was he saying that though DB? The moan was about soldiers and others that complain when they are required to go and do the job for which they are there. I also would have no sympathy, but I have respect for those who go and do it.

It's a funny job being a soldier, because at the end of the day they are there to be shot at. It's a bit like being a fireman - you almost don't want people that think for themselves, just those that you can drill to follow instructions properly and fully.

The new recruitment ad's seem to be more realistic than those in the past where the Army was basically portrayed as paid windsurfing opportunities around the world.

Dont get me wrong I have no issue slating this TA soldier who should obey order (which incidentaly he hasn't received yet) but to generalise and say he has no sympathy for ANY soldier who signs up to the army because 'they know what they're getting into' gets my back up.

Like I say people have and do die for the right for his small mind to say those things because we're a free country and the least he can do is appreciate what these men and women do for us (whether the governments agenda is a good one or bad one - it's not the soldiers choice where they have to fight).

Originally posted by timo
I have no military experience [though I was in the elite 61st Cub Scouts, Lower Wincobank Division], but I can sympathise with people who have a moral dilemma when it comes to killing other human beings. These types do not belong in the Army.

What if someone only discovers they have a moral objection to what they are doing once they are already in the army, and has never really thought about anything like that before?

Lets face it, you are not really going to know how you will react to being sent into a war until it actually happens to you, and lots of people suffer psychological damage from warfare.

Originally posted by Yodameister
What if someone only discovers they have a moral objection to what they are doing once they are already in the army, and has never really thought about anything like that before?
Tough.

Originally posted by Yodameister
What if someone only discovers they have a moral objection to what they are doing once they are already in the army, and has never really thought about anything like that before?

Lets face it, you are not really going to know how you will react to being sent into a war until it actually happens to you, and lots of people suffer psychological damage from warfare. in which case you state your case and ask to be seconded to the medical units where you become a stretcher bearer or train as a medic,you dont have to be a killer just because your in uniform,concienciouse objectors such as jehovas witnesses join up to do just that type of job.

and i think it would take a lot of guts to be unarmed in a war zone carrying people off the battle field on a stretcher.

you can still serve your country and believe me you can earn some real respect off the front line troops who know you are there for them 24 hours a day.

Originally posted by depoix
in which case you state your case and ask to be seconded to the medical units where you become a stretcher bearer or train as a medic,you dont have to be a killer just because your in uniform,concienciouse objectors such as jehovas witnesses join up to do just that type of job.

and i think it would take a lot of guts to be unarmed in a war zone carrying people off the battle field on a stretcher.

you can still serve your country and believe me you can earn some real respect off the front line troops who know you are there for them 24 hours a day.

Thats not really addressing my point, I was talking about someone taking a moral objection to a particular conflict.
Going and helping patch up our boys while they carry out the actual shooting etc. would be helping the effort which you have a moral objection to.

I'm not really talking about "cowardice" here, that is a seperate issue. I think in the first world war a lot of people died because they were too scared to object to some of the more stupid orders (with good reason, you may say, because the alternative was probably being shot for desertion)

It's a good job Operation Overlord wasn't postponed untill all the self thinking soldiers sat with their thumbs up their 'arrises wondering whether they objected or not.

DB please refrain from calling names like toss pot; it's inappropriate for a family forum, don't you know?

When I worked in A/E I objected strongly to the drunks & druggies that would come in each at least once a day, threatening & abusing, causing chaos in the waiting area. Allways ab/using the limited emergency ambulance service as a free taxi service.... :rant:

But I did the duty for which I was being paid, that I was accountable for.
I didn't jump up & down waving my handbag.

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
DB please refrain from calling names like toss pot; it's inappropriate for a family forum, don't you know?
If it was I'm sure an actual moderator would have removed it by now.

here we go handbags at dawn

Originally posted by Yodameister
Thats not really addressing my point, I was talking about someone taking a moral objection to a particular conflict.


Can a solidier have moral views about the right of any conflict? I don't think they can.

A soldier signs up, is trained to kill and is paid for his pains They surely understand that that is their basic function.

A member of the TA is IMO no different. They are part-time soldiers who can be drafted up as a reserve force as and when required.

Soldiers kill.

In any case how can an army operate with such a potentially unreliable workforce. Soldiers just can't pick and choose which wars they will fight in.

Originally posted by Mo
Can a solidier have moral views about the right of any conflict? I don't think they can.

A soldier signs up, is trained to kill and is paid for his pains They surely understand that that is their basic function.

A member of the TA is IMO no different. They are part-time soldiers who can be drafted up as a reserve force as and when required.

Soldiers kill.

In any case how can an army operate with such a potentially unreliable workforce. Soldiers just can't pick and choose which wars they will fight in.

Well, every soldier has the right to conscientiously object to a conflict - although weirdly it's a brave soldier who will do that, as his unit is going to take a particularly dim view of him skiving off whilst they get shot at. And quite rightly so.


I think the difference in this case is that the individual questioned hasn't been called up yet, and has held a press conference to say that if he is, he won't go to Iraq.

I don't think he will:
a)get call up papers now
b)stay in the TA for very long, for precisely the reasons you outlined above.

This is attention seeking, and not a real news story as nothing has actually happened IMO.

But soldiers must have a mechanism for disobeying direct orders, if they believe those orders are illegal. What is "illlegal" I understand falls under a pretty strict definition. This guy says that the Iraq war was illegal. Whilst I do agree with him the Attorney General has concluded the opposite, and it's his opinion that counts as far as the Army is concerned.

In fact the British Armed Forces insisted on this confirmation from the AG before they consented to a full scale deployment.

i believe that it's a soldiers duty to disobey an illegal order.
We even had a class on what an illegal order might be when I was in the reserves.

A moral objection however is not the same as having received an illegal order.
And since this guy hasn't been called up as Tony has pointed out, he should have just resigned or spoken to his CO about it.

Surely if he has refused to fight, then he has obtained money by false pretences and in doing so has committed an offence, and ought to be charged, or made to pay back any monies he has accepted.

Originally posted by Yodameister
What if someone only discovers they have a moral objection to what they are doing once they are already in the army, and has never really thought about anything like that before?

I don't know if you (or anyone else) noticed, but this chap is a *medic*.

He's already in a Conchy role, and his "day job" is an ambulance man.

How can he suddenly decide he's not up for this, just because of the location, this one really doesn’t wash.

Originally posted by owdlad
Surely if he has refused to fight, then he has obtained money by false pretences and in doing so has committed an offence, and ought to be charged, or made to pay back any monies he has accepted.

he hasn't been asked to fight yet, and can resign at any point up until he receives his papers.
He will still be elligible for callup for 5 years after that though.

Originally posted by Cyclone
he hasn't been asked to fight yet, and can resign at any point up until he receives his papers.
He will still be elligible for callup for 5 years after that though.

Thanks Cyclone, then why the F didn't he just resign, it's nothing more than a publicity stunt.
I wonder if he is affiliated to any political party.

Originally posted by Cyclone
he hasn't been asked to fight yet
OK, I'll repeat myself...

...he's not being asked to fight at all...

...he's a *medic*.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
That's very true but when someone makes a generlist comment about sympathy (or lack thereof) for our soldiers who DO go out and fight and get killed in the name of our country (with right or wrong government policy) and slate them it ****** me off.

People have shed blood, been killed and left behind families and children just so this idiot can slate them.
I'm sorry HE gets no sympathy from me Tony.

First of all I don't want or need your sympathy DB.

And secondly it wasn't a 'generlist' comment about our soldiers - I have the utmost respect for the vast majority of them. But what really ticks ME off is those who join up and then complain about having to go and fight!! FFS thats what the army's ultimate job is!!

IMO Owdlad had it right -Surely if he has refused to fight, then he has obtained money by false pretences and in doing so has committed an offence, and ought to be charged, or made to pay back any monies he has accepted.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
OK, I'll repeat myself...

...he's not being asked to fight at all...

...he's a *medic*.

moot point, supporting people doing the fighting is exactly the same as fighting yourself, be it loading ammo, stopping them bleeding to death or ordering them to fight. It's all towards the same end.

I've read that he has been called up twice before but deferred on the basis of him training to be a para-medic. And now he is claiming to be a conscientious objector, but only for this war and doesn't want to resign from the Territorial Army.

This man is a medic, a very experienced one at that. He could probably have achieved a lot of good in Iraq - putting it politely, I think that most soldiers will think that he is thinking only of his own welfare - I tend to agree with them.

What is also strange is the timing of the story breaking to coincide with the court martial which is going on on Osnabruck. Some cynical people might suggest political manipulation going on.

Originally posted by Cyclone
moot point, supporting people doing the fighting is exactly the same as fighting yourself, be it loading ammo, stopping them bleeding to death or ordering them to fight. It's all towards the same end.
Not a moot point at all,

1) He signed up to be a medic

2) In civvy street he is one, it obviously not the job that bothers him

3) He's not been sent to Iraq

It's all BS.

Conchys have always served as medics, why does that suddenly change now.

Your points above are very silly, ammo loaders, and officers ordering/planning action, are *very* different to medical staff, the geneva convention recognises this (but typically, you don't).

In my experience they could do without him. As a regular I had to work with the TA on a number of occasions and found them to be totally inpept in all departments. Weekend rambo's who lacked the courage to sign up properly or old soldiers who just haven't moved on yet.

you know me well enough to say that "typically" i ignore the geneva convention, I don't think so.

My point is perfectly valid. Medics enable soldiers to carry on fighting, or to get back to the fighting quicker than they otherwise would have done.
It doesn't matter what status they have in the Geneva convention, they contribute materially to the objectives of the army, which generally involves killing the opposition.

Medics may not actually fight or kill anyone, but my sentence where i said "called up to fight" was clear enough to anyone who didn't want to turn this into a semantic argument that detracts from the point.
He has not been called up "to fight, to not fight, to plant daisies or whatever". So he is causing a fuss because he likes the attention. Does that clearly indicate what I was trying to get across?

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Not a moot point at all,

1) He signed up to be a medic

2) In civvy street he is one, it obviously not the job that bothers him

3) He's not been sent to Iraq

It's all BS.

Conchys have always served as medics, why does that suddenly change now.

Your points above are very silly, ammo loaders, and officers ordering/planning action, are *very* different to medical staff, the geneva convention recognises this (but typically, you don't).

Originally posted by Cyclone
My point is perfectly valid. Medics enable soldiers to carry on fighting, or to get back to the fighting quicker than they otherwise would have done.
It doesn't matter what status they have in the Geneva convention, they contribute materially to the objectives of the army, which generally involves killing the opposition.

Medics may not actually fight or kill anyone, but my sentence where i said "called up to fight" was clear enough to anyone who didn't want to turn this into a semantic argument that detracts from the point.
He has not been called up "to fight, to not fight, to plant daisies or whatever". So he is causing a fuss because he likes the attention. Does that clearly indicate what I was trying to get across?
Cyclone, I fully agree with you that the chap is not doing this for the reasons he states.

Regarding medics contributing to the war effort, does your argument extend to wage clerks, farmers at home who grow the food soldiers eat, factory workers who can the food or make the uniforms, etc.

My argument was not a semantic one, the GC clearly defines combatants and non-combatants for a reason, following your logic opens up all sorts of issues.

it defines them for the purpose of the conflict and in order to set out guidlines of what is legal and not in a time of war.

But stepping back from that (not actually being at war myself), it's perfectly reasonable to argue that every member of a country that elected a government that sent the army to war is responsible for it.
And yes, the farmer producing food, the weapons factory producing shells, and most other activities could and can be considered as contributing to the war effort.

Originally posted by Cyclone
But stepping back from that (not actually being at war myself), it's perfectly reasonable to argue that every member of a country that elected a government that sent the army to war is responsible for it.
And yes, the farmer producing food, the weapons factory producing shells, and most other activities could and can be considered as contributing to the war effort.
...and so by logical extension, the chap in question should not only profer his resignation over this issue, but emigrate to a country which is not involved.

Is that what you mean ?

Originally posted by Cyclone

But stepping back from that (not actually being at war myself), it's perfectly reasonable to argue that every member of a country that elected a government that sent the army to war is responsible for it.
And yes, the farmer producing food, the weapons factory producing shells, and most other activities could and can be considered as contributing to the war effort.

The biggest load of crap I have ever read....the farmer is producing food to enable him to pay his bills, and to feed the population..he cant determine who buys the food can he? So how is he supporting the war effort...unless you mean indirectly by simply producing food which enable our Army to survive whilst fighting? So should the farmer stop producing food and thus starve himself and others in the process?

Also how many people would have voted warmonger Blair in if they knew he would ruin the world by going to war? Do you have any hindsight pills? I feel that your implication is ridiculous and wouldnt hold water even if you studied philosophy at some crappy uni and had the greenham common posse marking your essays..

Do you live in the real world? Or do you just love to annoy sane people?

if you don't like it, don't read it.
It's not crap it's taking an argument to it's logical extreme.
Everyone who's a citizen is responsible for the actions of the government and the government is responsible for the actions of the army.

I didn't say that it was an argument that had any bearing on how we should live our lives, I didn't say that a farmer should starve or that the guy should emmigrate. But to get slightly back towards the point, are you arguing that a medic in no way helps the war effort when he patches up wounded soldiers? If you are then it's you who needs to have a reality check.
Hindsight has nothing to do with it, the argument 'I didn't know that would happen' is the sort of excuse children come up with.

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
The biggest load of crap I have ever read....the farmer is producing food to enable him to pay his bills, and to feed the population..he cant determine who buys the food can he? So how is he supporting the war effort...unless you mean indirectly by simply producing food which enable our Army to survive whilst fighting? So should the farmer stop producing food and thus starve himself and others in the process?

Also how many people would have voted warmonger Blair in if they knew he would ruin the world by going to war? Do you have any hindsight pills? I feel that your implication is ridiculous and wouldnt hold water even if you studied philosophy at some crappy uni and had the greenham common posse marking your essays..

Do you live in the real world? Or do you just love to annoy sane people?

Originally posted by foo_fighter
...and so by logical extension, the chap in question should not only profer his resignation over this issue, but emigrate to a country which is not involved.

Is that what you mean ?

no, I wasn't trying to say that he should do anything. Just defending my point that a medic working for the military is actively aiding the war effort and thus the killing of enemy troops even though they never directly cause anyone harm.

Originally posted by Cyclone
no, I wasn't trying to say that he should do anything. Just defending my point that a medic working for the military is actively aiding the war effort and thus the killing of enemy troops even though they never directly cause anyone harm.
We both know what we're saying.

I know what your argument is, but the chap in question wasn't draughted, he hasn't been ordered to Iraq (or anywhere for that matter), he is the one that volunteered for service (in the medical corps). He has not been asked to kill anyone.

If he were ordered to Iraq (and lets not forget, he hasn't), he'd only be doing the same job he is here. If any of our troops were returned to the hospital he works at now, will he refuse to treat them as a protest at the war ?

As I said above, it's total BS

I agree completely with that.