This is just not right!

[seanworth]

I think WW1 is the classic example of the potential disaster of blindly "following orders".

World Wars are a vastly different proposition from peace-keeping ones. Neither have any redeeming features but in both
World wars your country is under attack, not just some one else's. Conscription is also a different proposition to those who join the armed forces as chosen careers. There's no easy answer to any of it, but, in the former, the choice is that of the individual.

Excuse me? Not sure I am following you here.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I think WW1 is the classic example of the potential disaster of blindly "following orders".

World Wars are a vastly different proposition from peace-keeping ones. Neither have any redeeming features but in both
World wars your country is under attack, not just some one else's. Conscription is also a different proposition to those who join the armed forces as chosen careers. There's no easy answer to any of it, but, in the former, the choice is that of the individual.

I would have thought that peace-keeping had some redeeming features. Civilian lives saved for decades in Cyprus, minefields removed in the former Yugoslavia, etc.

[TANGODANCER]

I think WW1 is the classic example of the potential disaster of blindly "following orders".

World Wars are a vastly different proposition from peace-keeping ones. Neither have any redeeming features but in both
World wars your country is under attack, not just some one else's. Conscription is also a different proposition to those who join the armed forces as chosen careers. There's no easy answer to any of it, but, in the former, the choice is that of the individual.

Excuse me? Not sure I am following you here.

Would have thought it clear enough. All involved get attacked and bombed as enemies. The conscription bit should have also explained. Choice against little choice. Monty. There are few redeeming features for any war. I didn't say those involved had no merit, just the whole concept of war is wrong. It happens, people have to live with it. Twould be a much better world if we didn't.

[Lord Kangana]

Honestly! if this bloke felt this strongly about it surely he should have left the feckin' army? I suspect the unfortunate deaths of a few brave lads recently has put the willies up him.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx? ... =148879923

Hmmm. He has a view and is making his point. From that article it is a bit unclear what his "point" is though....

Its a tough one. You join the army so you know what you are signing up for. But if things happen that you don't like, should you just grin and bear it, or should you take a stand?

Of course you should

The day soldiers start deciding which wars they'll bother with, lunatics and asylums spring to mind

By all means, don't join up - good God I couldn't do the job - or get out as soon as you can, but until that day, get on with it

Isn't that the "just following orders" excuse that was so ridiculed after World War II?

Its called the Nuremberg Defence..."I was only following orders". Someone needs to check either the Hague or Geneva conventions, as I'm pretty sure there are moral and ethical grounds upon which a soldier can refuse an order (and has been so for decades).

[Worthy4England]

Honestly! if this bloke felt this strongly about it surely he should have left the feckin' army? I suspect the unfortunate deaths of a few brave lads recently has put the willies up him.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx? ... =148879923

Hmmm. He has a view and is making his point. From that article it is a bit unclear what his "point" is though....

Its a tough one. You join the army so you know what you are signing up for. But if things happen that you don't like, should you just grin and bear it, or should you take a stand?

Of course you should

The day soldiers start deciding which wars they'll bother with, lunatics and asylums spring to mind

By all means, don't join up - good God I couldn't do the job - or get out as soon as you can, but until that day, get on with it

Isn't that the "just following orders" excuse that was so ridiculed after World War II?

Its called the Nuremberg Defence..."I was only following orders". Someone needs to check either the Hague or Geneva conventions, as I'm pretty sure there are moral and ethical grounds upon which a soldier can refuse an order (and has been so for decades).

I think they could refuse to follow an order that was in itself in contravention of the conventions.

[Lord Kangana]

Some of the rules are set out here in the Nuremberg Principles:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390

Effectively, if a soldier believes an act/order to be unlawful, he can refuse to carry it out.

[Worthy4England]

Some of the rules are set out here in the Nuremberg Principles:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390

Effectively, if a soldier believes an act/order to be unlawful, he can refuse to carry it out.

It doesn't say anywhere in there that soldiers can refuse to carry out orders - it just points to the fact that follwing orders in certain circumstances could constitute a crime for which the individual could be held responsible.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Some of the rules are set out here in the Nuremberg Principles:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390

Effectively, if a soldier believes an act/order to be unlawful, he can refuse to carry it out.

Except that these principles were developed after the war, nor would they have the force of law. Refusing to obey an order generally got you shot prior to this, and still could. The principle recognizes that moral choices are not always possible.

[seanworth]

I think WW1 is the classic example of the potential disaster of blindly "following orders".

World Wars are a vastly different proposition from peace-keeping ones. Neither have any redeeming features but in both
World wars your country is under attack, not just some one else's. Conscription is also a different proposition to those who join the armed forces as chosen careers. There's no easy answer to any of it, but, in the former, the choice is that of the individual.

Excuse me? Not sure I am following you here.

Would have thought it clear enough. All involved get attacked and bombed as enemies. The conscription bit should have also explained. Choice against little choice. Monty. There are few redeeming features for any war. I didn't say those involved had no merit, just the whole concept of war is wrong. It happens, people have to live with it. Twould be a much better world if we didn't.

Sorry I was taking it as the country was directly and physically under attack. Where in fact many Canadians lost their lives in both wars yet Canada was never physically attacked. We entered the wars to support our Allies (primarily England).

[Montreal Wanderer]

I think WW1 is the classic example of the potential disaster of blindly "following orders".

World Wars are a vastly different proposition from peace-keeping ones. Neither have any redeeming features but in both
World wars your country is under attack, not just some one else's. Conscription is also a different proposition to those who join the armed forces as chosen careers. There's no easy answer to any of it, but, in the former, the choice is that of the individual.

Excuse me? Not sure I am following you here.

Would have thought it clear enough. All involved get attacked and bombed as enemies. The conscription bit should have also explained. Choice against little choice. Monty. There are few redeeming features for any war. I didn't say those involved had no merit, just the whole concept of war is wrong. It happens, people have to live with it. Twould be a much better world if we didn't.

Sorry I was taking it as the country was directly and physically under attack. Where in fact many Canadians lost their lives in both wars yet Canada was never physically attacked. We entered the wars to support our Allies (primarily England).

Well, not attacked since 1812... Bloody yanks.

[Lord Kangana]

To answer both, no its not meant to be an exhaustive list, merely to highlight the principle that can/has been applied in other treaties. I haven't the time (nor, at this moment the patience) to trawl all conventions, though I would have thought Monty may have some knowledge of the American soldier who attempted to gain asylum in Canada. He lost the judgement being:

An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper

Interesting.

[Montreal Wanderer]

To answer both, no its not meant to be an exhaustive list, merely to highlight the principle that can/has been applied in other treaties. I haven't the time (nor, at this moment the patience) to trawl all conventions, though I would have thought Monty may have some knowledge of the American soldier who attempted to gain asylum in Canada. He lost the judgement being:

An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper

Interesting.

I know of a fair number of deserters who have come to Canada to avoid service in Iraq or Afghanistan. They claim refugee status. In most cases they have lost their appeal and been ordered deported (only one or two have actually been deported I think). This was unlike Vietnam when they were allowed to stay. The difference then was that unwilling people were drafted into the army, while these people voluntarily joined the army. The only reason we do not deport Americans who come here illegally is if they will face the death penalty. Assurances were received that these deserters would not face such a punishment.

It's a tricky question. In some cases the individuals had joined their national guard (home defense) and were subsequently re-assigned to foreign combat zones. There is a difference in defending your homeland and fighting an aggressive war abroad. It seems to me a waste of a young life to imprison these people in Fort Leavenworth or wherever for years. They are not bad or evil people - just kids who were confused or misinformed. I would be tempted to not deport them myself.

[TANGODANCER]

I think the case of deserters (draft dodgers?) is highlighted more in America due to its sheer size and population. In a small country such as ours it must be far easier to identify and catch deserters. I also think the recent case of the Gurkha soldiers shows well that the British people appreciated greatly all their allies, even if the politicians tend to conveniently forget them at times.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I think the case of deserters (draft dodgers?) is highlighted more in America due to its sheer size and population. In a small country such as ours it must be far easier to identify and catch deserters. I also think the recent case of the Gurkha soldiers shows well that the British people appreciated greatly all their allies, even if the politicians tend to conveniently forget them at times.

Deserters and draft dodgers are different - the latter never having been in the service. You would have no draft-dodgers in the UK because you have no draft - nor does the US currently. Deserters tend to get a year or two in the stockade if caught, followed by a dishonourable discharge. This can have negative consequences for the rest of their lives. It is easy enough to identify deserters in the US I imagine - which is why they come to hide in Canada. Hundreds have not yet been located I believe.

[TANGODANCER]

I think the case of deserters (draft dodgers?) is highlighted more in America due to its sheer size and population. In a small country such as ours it must be far easier to identify and catch deserters. I also think the recent case of the Gurkha soldiers shows well that the British people appreciated greatly all their allies, even if the politicians tend to conveniently forget them at times.

Deserters and draft dodgers are different - the latter never having been in the service. You would have no draft-dodgers in the UK because you have no draft - nor does the US currently. Deserters tend to get a year or two in the stockade if caught, followed by a dishonourable discharge. This can have negative consequences for the rest of their lives. It is easy enough to identify deserters in the US I imagine - which is why they come to hide in Canada. Hundreds have not yet been located I believe.

Yes, fair enough, I did put a question mark after it because I wasn't sure. Years ago there were suddenly a lot of student American flamenco guitarists in Spain and the term was bandied about a lot. I don't speak from knowlege, just rumour.

[William the White]

I've been away and out of news-shot for a few days so don't know this case, but it looks like, from this thread, this soldier is not a deserter or draft dodger, and i don't know how that discussion is relevant. He's a courageous protestor, who has experienced the horrors of a war we have no reason to fight, and has witnessed, as we all have, the recent waste of our soldiers' lives and is saying he'll have no part of it any more, is denouncing the reasons for it, making his viewpount public and is prepared to risk the trial and punishment awaiting him.

I find this utterly admirable - he's refusing to do what he thinks is wrong and is prepared to face a powerful authority knowing he is almost certain to be seriously punished. That takes great courage and commitment. Outstanding.

[Lord Kangana]

That would then effectively rank him as a conscientious objector. In which case, it changes the rules of the game, as there are protocols in place within the British Army for dealing with that.

[a1]

I've been away and out of news-shot for a few days so don't know this case, but it looks like, from this thread, this soldier is not a deserter or draft dodger, and i don't know how that discussion is relevant. He's a courageous protestor, who has experienced the horrors of a war we have no reason to fight, and has witnessed, as we all have, the recent waste of our soldiers' lives and is saying he'll have no part of it any more, is denouncing the reasons for it, making his viewpount public and is prepared to risk the trial and punishment awaiting him.

I find this utterly admirable - he's refusing to do what he thinks is wrong and is prepared to face a powerful authority knowing he is almost certain to be seriously punished. That takes great courage and commitment. Outstanding.

GAY. :/

will he give his wages back ?

who would he go to war against ?

"oh theyre communist , so i dont like shooting my mates"

"Them fascist bastards want blowing up"

or is he just frightened of dying ?

i say shoot him so he's in the papers less.

[William the White]

I've been away and out of news-shot for a few days so don't know this case, but it looks like, from this thread, this soldier is not a deserter or draft dodger, and i don't know how that discussion is relevant. He's a courageous protestor, who has experienced the horrors of a war we have no reason to fight, and has witnessed, as we all have, the recent waste of our soldiers' lives and is saying he'll have no part of it any more, is denouncing the reasons for it, making his viewpount public and is prepared to risk the trial and punishment awaiting him.

I find this utterly admirable - he's refusing to do what he thinks is wrong and is prepared to face a powerful authority knowing he is almost certain to be seriously punished. That takes great courage and commitment. Outstanding.

GAY. :/

will he give his wages back ?

who would he go to war against ?

"oh theyre communist , so i dont like shooting my mates"

"Them fascist bastards want blowing up"

or is he just frightened of dying ?

i say shoot him so he's in the papers less.

Spent much time on the front line, then a1?

Tell us about how brave you were there.

We're all ears.

go ahead...

[a1]

Spent much time on the front line, then a1?

Tell us about how brave you were there.

We're all ears.

go ahead...

eulogising him like that was OTT . imo.

he's either frightened of dying, the "war" is against his 'politics' , possibly both.. theres loads of stories of folk being in the army wussing out once war starts.

i'd not be in the army coz i'm frightened of dying in some war in some shithole country i aint used to.

but i'd never think of joining up just to coin it in , to then piss off when war starts. thats taking the piss. this nice person'll sue someone and win millions , while someone who had his feet blown off gets nowt. it seems to me like it was engineered to play out like this from the start.

smuggle drugs + get caught = book deal.

i'd have no qualms killing nazis/commies (whats it called , conditioning folk to shoot folk without having mental breakdowns) i'd 'get used' after about two minutes.

but

i dont wanna die in no war.