All but two of us are pro-war

[dallas]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4818672.stm

So there you have it...

I would have preferred "Reid Doesn't Know What Troops Think of War"

or "Troops Can't Actually Say What They Think of War".

I'm a bit annoyed he feels we are pro-war just because we're not all quitting. As said in previous threads, morals don't pay the mortgage

[sooms]

Absolutely gobsmacked by the article- does he really believe it?
Virtually everyone I know is sick to the back teeth of the middle east and quite frankly I don't believe we're there for the reasons the politicians say.

Are the politicians told this c**p by our leadership or am I and everyone I work with in a minority in HM Armed Forces?

[Tombstone]

What else did you expect to come out of the Labour Party Propaganda machine??

[Duckbutt]

What else did you expect to come out of the Labour Party Propaganda machine??

And under the Bernard Ingham regime of a few years back it would have been different?

[JessTheDog]

I did a straw poll as part of a discussion exercise during instructional training.

The group was a mixture of ranks, branches and trades. The criteria were "Moral, Legal and National Interest".

40% thought the war was a bad idea.
60% thought the war was a good idea.

This was September 2003, after the death of Dr Kelly and the inception of the Hutton Inquiry, but pre-Butler and before strategic failure became evident.

Most of those who supported the war had been in uniform during the various Balkans civil wars and this undoubtedly played a part in forming their views.

I suspect the percentages are at least reversed by now.

[southside]

but you could argue, Is it our job to agree or disagree? If you feel that strongly about it then you know where the door is.

As said in previous threads, morals don't pay the mortgage

If the only reason you are in the AF's is for the money you may be missing the point.

[tablet_eraser]

Southside strikes again!

I don't remember being told I wasn't entitled to my own opinions when I joined up. You've missed the point - many of us who disagree will still serve with zeal and determination in Iraq because our job is to DO what we are told, not to BELIEVE what we are told. When you get to the stage where personnel cannot disagree with Government policy as private citizens, you create an automaton army.

I think that would go against even Mr Blair's "principles".

[Maple 01]

And if the interweb had been around during Maggie's little South Atlantic adventure and beyond how many chaps/chapesses would be described as 'pro war?' No-one I was down there with (after all the shooting had stoped I hasten to add)- it's only afterwards things come into perspective, unless this is another ‘Labour are the anti-Christ, everything under Maggie was wonderful’ thread – in which case crack on.

[BenThere]

Anyone got surveys of British troops at the Somme?

How about the months after Dunkirk?

The singular thing about British troops through the ages is they never give up, they follow orders, and ultimately win. Please be careful about not letting go of that.

We won't be able to judge this war for 20 years, when its effect is settled. Even then we won't know what might have been had Hussein not been overthrown.

[FJJP]

Has Bliar even GOT any principles?

[Newforest]

Mr Reid told PM: "To the best of my knowledge out of the 80,000 troops who have come through Iraq, there have been two cases of people saying they did not want to come back and resigning from the Armed Forces.

Go to Israel and see the deserters there. Why did Bush have an item in a bill about stopping potential draft dodgers moving to Canada if he instigates a draft.

[Maple 01]

Newforest, we're not Israelis or Yanks, we just get on with the job. I forgot to add, we have an unalienable right to winge and moan, don't mistake that for Vietnam era unprofessionalism.

[brickhistory]

Originally Posted by Newforest

Why did Bush have an item in a bill about stopping potential draft dodgers moving to Canada if he instigates a draft.

If HE instigates (not sure of your choice of verb here, but I digress) a draft?
You do realized that it takes both the the Congress AND the President to make a law?
It will never happen.
Also, do you have a basis for your allegation?

[Zoom]

Originally Posted by Duckbutt

And under the Bernard Ingham regime of a few years back it would have been different?

Certainly would have been, Duckbutt, because despite Maggie's other errors she wouldn't have got us involved in this mess in the first place.

[brickhistory]

Originally Posted by Maple 01

Newforest, we're not Israelis or Yanks, we just get on with the job. I forgot to add, we have an unalienable right to winge and moan, don't mistake that for Vietnam era unprofessionalism.

Or that Crimean war unprofessionalism. And say, how'd that trench warfare work out in WWI?

Admittedly, that's really going back but it can be just as telling as your Vietnam comparision. We all have our 'not so finest' hours.

[Pontius Navigator]

That would be the 1917-1918 War?

When you are up to your neck in mud and bullets it is a bit difficult to see where the trees had been.

[SASless]

Tablet,

Just when did a serving member of the military become a private citizen? Perhaps you mean "after" your service one can have a public opinion as a private citizen.

[threepointonefour]

Originally Posted by southside

If the only reason you are in the AF's is for the money you may be missing the point.

I guess most of us are these days then. Perhaps someone could enlighten the masses?

[tablet_eraser]

SASless, we are all entitled to our own lives as private citizens, but that is modified by our being subject to military law. No-one can tell us what opinions we are to have - that would be absurd. Our opinions do not come into play until they affect operational effectiveness in the form of "conscientious objection" or desertion.

The proposed law in the US does not, I believe, refer specifically to draft-dodging, but to any military personnel who desert the US Armed Forces. To suggest that Bush is preparing to reinstate the draft on the basis of a law proposed by Congress is absurd. That said, every nation will have dormant legislation to reinstate conscription if it becomes necessary, and any other military law must take such legislation into account.

[Maple 01]

Admittedly, that's really going back but it can be just as telling as your Vietnam comparison. We all have our 'not so finest' hours.

which is what I get for not explaining myself clearly - it wasn't meant as a cheap bit of Spam baiting, - we are (or in my case, were) volunteers, back then most armies of that era relied on conscription, we only got rid of it ourselves in1962, conscript armies are more prone to discontent, usually stirred up by a minority of political gobsheens. Think German navy 1918 etc.
Now think what kind of damage the constant drip-drip-drip of anti-American propaganda emanating from our gloriously ‘free’ and ‘independent’ (and unelected) media would do to a conscript army. Perhaps you can see the Vietnam link? Even when you win (Tet 68) you lose. because the press say so.

The point you didn't pick up on is that both Crimea and WW1 relied on conscripts led by poorly trained officers, nowadays the British armed forces (even the RAF) are a well led bunch of professionals (well, sometimes) and will not (with the odd exception) fold-up and provide more ammunition for the 'Stop the War' nutters (note to said nutters, the war is over, you can go home and concentrate on making better tin foil hats.)

Edited to add: The army in the Crimea was volunteer - but as the option was frequently hang, starve, go to Gaol or join the army it counts as conscription in my book