This is just not right!

[seanworth]

If soldiers are allowed to speak out and object it will likely result in increasing the risk to the safety of the soldiers in the field.

[Worthy4England]

I disagree but hey thats my right.

I think that someone in the army if they feel very strongly should be allowed to voice their views without being forced to leave the armed forces. But thats my opinion.

I don't buy the whole "well he signed up so he knew what to expect". He signed up presumably to fight for what he believes in, perhaps he feels things have changed. Perhaps, people should listen to him and see if he actually has any valid points or not?

So when we've listened, and our strategy hasn't changed because of what he had to say we can just pack the fecker off then? Or can he then pick and choose whether he want's to go or not? If he wants to pick which fights he wants to be in, he shouldn't join up. Period. If I don't believe the direction my Company is going in, I have the right as a free person to tender my resignation.

If I went public against the Company strategy, I'd be sacked - how is this any different?

He'll be sacked, that's pretty certain. He may even be facing a much, much tougher sanction than that (I'm not sure what measures the army can take against a soldier disobeying orders). So, no or little difference there.

That doesn't make it right, though. Whistleblowers are rarely popular with authority. (I do realise he isn't quite this, but it's analagous, i feel). They are also often essential to expose what is being hidden, or to say 'This is not right'.

This is nothing whatsoever akin to whistleblowing.

It was fairly publically stated that we were going into Afghanistan as part of the coalition against terrorism in 2001 and has received plenty of publicity since. This person has an objection to us still being there - that's fine - I have no major problem with that. He should resign (or buy himself out as SOTWA suggested he was able to do) and make his point.

[Prufrock]

I don't know enough about the specifics of the particular guy to comment on him personally, but it seems clear to me that if he had resigned and then shared his concerns, he would be on page 17 between Peter Andre's new astrology column and adverts for vintage train sets. As it is there is a lot of publicity around a cause he clearly feels strongly about. Unless he has uncovered hidden things then I think he should be sacked, because as many have said, it's the army, but I don't understand the moral indignation. This talk of cowardice regarding a man who has already been and done one tour strikes me as odd, not to mention the fact that given the current propoganda pro-army and heroes wave of publicity, it strikes me as the braver option to stand up and say no.

[Bruce Rioja]

I don't know enough about the specifics of the particular guy to comment on him personally, but it seems clear to me that if he had resigned and then shared his concerns, he would be on page 17 between.....

What on Earth have column inches to do with it ?

[Prufrock]

Everything. Or else surely he would have posted his letter and not taken it by hand to 10 Downing Street. Or he would have just resigned. It's a cause he feels needs highlighting, one which would have received no publicity had he raised it as a civilian.

[TANGODANCER]

Everything. Or else surely he would have posted his letter and not taken it by hand to 10 Downing Street. Or he would have just resigned. It's a cause he feels needs highlighting, one which would have received no publicity had he raised it as a civilian.

Or could it be that he just didn't want to go back there and took the moral high-ground by staying in the army and blaming it for disagreeing with him? Not saying this is the case, but it does smack of it. He'd have a pretty uneven fight on his hands if he took on the army as a civilian and he'd pretty much know he'd get support from all the anti war contingent (no disrespect meant) if he went public and became an icon for them whilst astill a protesting soldier. Meanwhile, a man has to get a wage....so..cake and eat it. Just a view.

[Bruce Rioja]

Everything. Or else surely he would have posted his letter and not taken it by hand to 10 Downing Street. Or he would have just resigned. It's a cause he feels needs highlighting, one which would have received no publicity had he raised it as a civilian.

OK, so what are we discussing here, here on this thread? The war to which he objects or the fact that a serving soldier is picking and choosing his preferred deployment? His 'cause' isn't being furthered one iota by what he's done, but what he's done, or is looking to do, is! And it is, is it not, the war in Afghanistan that he's actually protesting about and not a Squaddie's right to shout the odds?!

[Prufrock]

Everything. Or else surely he would have posted his letter and not taken it by hand to 10 Downing Street. Or he would have just resigned. It's a cause he feels needs highlighting, one which would have received no publicity had he raised it as a civilian.

Or could it be that he just didn't want to go back there and took the moral high-ground by staying in the army and blaming it for disagreeing with him? Not saying this is the case, but it does smack of it. He'd have a pretty uneven fight on his hands if he took on the army as a civilian and he'd pretty much know he'd get support from all the anti war contingent (no disrespect meant) if he went public and became an icon for them whilst astill a protesting soldier. Meanwhile, a man has to get a wage....so..cake and eat it. Just a view.

Well that's it, it's your view, based on supposition mixed with made up-ery. That article doesn't even say why he is doing it beyond thinking we are the Yank's lapdog. I don't know enough about it to decide which side, if any, I am on, merely pointing out what seems to be the obvious reason why he hasn't, as suggested, resigned. There are that many stories regarding equipment, deaths, tactics at the moment that it takes something special to be big news. If he had resigned then it surely wouldn't have been as big news, there wouldn't be this thread and no-one would be talking about him and his cause.

If as seems to be assumed he is just doing it for the money, again, why make all the fuss. It is surely blindingly obvious his main concern is publicity, hence the non-resignation, the newspaper stories, and the delivering of the letter personally.

In the mad rush to lambast his cowardice, human rights, and, bizzarely, pollitical correctness, no-one even seems to have discussed whatever point it is he is making.

Trifling over pennies going to somebody standing up for what they believe in on the same day the banks announce ridiculous profits and bonuses, again, and yet not a mention, seems odd. Too many folk getting carried away on this 'help the heroes' propoganda angle that's everywhere at the moment whilst folk desperately pray no-one is going to notice it's feck all use compared with tactics and equipment. Folk wearing red every friday isn't going to stop a bullet going in someone' brain who didn't have a fitting helmet. Perhaps this guy is in fact a penny pinching coward. Why the shock? I find it bizarre every one killed in the wars is a 'brave familly loving caring never in trouble' stand up guy. The law of averages say some must have been bastards. Now I'm not suggesting they print that, because I do truly believe we should honour all those killed on our behalf. My point is, you know the papers WOULD print it if they thought that's what would sell. There are five pages of rant against this guy from one tiny NOTW article without any direct quotes, and without even going fully into what he is saying. Objectivity folks.

[Hoboh]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/0 ... rter-court


http://www.newstin.co.uk/rel/uk/en-010-016893835

[William the White]

OK - so the press says he's facing potentially two years in gaol.

So we know the additional price he pays - potentially - for using his opposition to the government's policy to make his point, rather than resigning and not being listened to by anyone.

Thanks, hoboh, for those links.

I wonder if there will be public/press access to any military trial. And public reporting of it. Hope so.

[TANGODANCER]

Or could it be that he just didn't want to go back there and took the moral high-ground by staying in the army and blaming it for disagreeing with him? Not saying this is the case, but it does smack of it. He'd have a pretty uneven fight on his hands if he took on the army as a civilian and he'd pretty much know he'd get support from all the anti war contingent (no disrespect meant) if he went public and became an icon for them whilst astill a protesting soldier. Meanwhile, a man has to get a wage....so..cake and eat it. Just a view.

Well that's it, it's your view, based on supposition mixed with made up-ery. .

That's exactly what it is. Not a statement, not the truth (which none of us really know), but just a view. Could be an entirely wrong one. Since I don't have to fight in Afghanistan, that aspect of it doesn't count for anything. A lot of lads do though and, if they all protested about being in every trouble area then, as someone remarked, we might as well not have an army at all if they're going to choose to fight in whichever battle suits them. Bullets don't differentiate between the good and bad guys. Being a soldier is a career choice; this guy chose it. He didn't, and doesnt, have to carry on doing that. . That's what I don't understand.

[Worthy4England]

Funny smell round here - must be burning martyr...

As far as I can tell, any "additional price" he'll pay will probably be for deserting for two years - interesting that his "true reasons" have taken this long to come out. I'd be tempted to give him double just for making political captial out of a position he holds.

His view that the Army mission might/will fail in Afghanistan isn't his to make (maybe Bolton should stop playing top 4 teams on the same basis?) - for one, he's not in full possession of all the facts (I happen to think that he might be right - that doesn't condone his actions). He also seems to be suggesting that Governments have a duty to ensure that the cause is "just and right" and for the protection of life and liberty - which I wouldn't disagree with but he must've forgotten already that when we announced we would be part of the coalition fighting against terrorism that it was on the basis that 3,000 people had just died in the US. The coalition force is made up from 42 countries so any contention that somehow "just the UK" is being used as a tool of US foreign policy is a bit thin. We're actually there because of our foreign policy.

Should this be reported in the press - it will be because the press is still relatively free - something which we fought to keep free in the last world war.

[InsaneApache]

Just read through this thread again. An observation. People say that if we'd lost the last war that we'd be speaking German by now. I have some bad news for you.

The West Germanic languages constitute the largest of the three traditional branches of the Germanic family of languages and include languages such as English, Dutch and Afrikaans, German, the Frisian languages, and Yiddish. The other two of these three traditional branches of the Germanic languages are the North and East Germanic languages.

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

Looks like 1939-45 was a waste of time then.

[Worthy4England]

Just read through this thread again. An observation. People say that if we'd lost the last war that we'd be speaking German by now. I have some bad news for you.

The West Germanic languages constitute the largest of the three traditional branches of the Germanic family of languages and include languages such as English, Dutch and Afrikaans, German, the Frisian languages, and Yiddish. The other two of these three traditional branches of the Germanic languages are the North and East Germanic languages.

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

Looks like 1939-45 was a waste of time then.

Indeed - unless within these sceptered isles, your first language happens to be Welsh or Gaelic.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Funny smell round here - must be burning martyr...

As far as I can tell, any "additional price" he'll pay will probably be for deserting for two years - interesting that his "true reasons" have taken this long to come out. I'd be tempted to give him double just for making political captial out of a position he holds.

He obviously needed to clear his head with a 2 year holiday:

"He handed himself in after two years and six days' absence, during which he went to south-east Asia and Australia."

[H. Pedersen]

Look, you need to have laws in place to prevent soldiers from deserting or to prevent people from dodging the draft. If a person is willing to run afoul of these laws and accept the punishment because he believes the cause to be unjust, what is the problem? You can disagree with his objections but stating that he's in the wrong just for protesting is disgusting. Any soldier who shuts off his brain and his morals and kills civilians based on the lies of psychopath leaders deserves nothing but the gallows.

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

Look, you need to have laws in place to prevent soldiers from deserting or to prevent people from dodging the draft. If a person is willing to run afoul of these laws and accept the punishment because he believes the cause to be unjust, what is the problem? You can disagree with his objections but stating that he's in the wrong just for protesting is disgusting. Any soldier who shuts off his brain and his morals and kills civilians based on the lies of psychopath leaders deserves nothing but the gallows.

What fxcking draft? Someone left a door open?

[TANGODANCER]

Look, you need to have laws in place to prevent soldiers from deserting or to prevent people from dodging the draft. If a person is willing to run afoul of these laws and accept the punishment because he believes the cause to be unjust, what is the problem? You can disagree with his objections but stating that he's in the wrong just for protesting is disgusting. Any soldier who shuts off his brain and his morals and kills civilians based on the lies of psychopath leaders deserves nothing but the gallows.

If you read all the views here you'll realise that quite a few people accept that he may have some justification for his views from a personal point of view. No one is arguing or denying that. Who really ever wants to try justifying war? Serving soldiers don't join up to go to war, they join up to fight for, and keep, peace. War happens, and when it does servicemen go where they are sent and do what they have to. That's their job.

What is wrong about it is that he should obviously be complaining from a position as an anti-war protestor, not a serving soldier. Way I understand it, he left Afghanistan and disappeared to Australia? for two years, thus avoiding his military duties. He then hands himself in and starts a protest against government policy on war from his position as a soldier. I think that's what most people seem to find difficult to understand. It's certainly what I do, because, effectively he'll now have to protest at every cause he thinks is unjust. If that's the case he shouldn't be in the armed forces. Solution, leave.

As for Pru's statement that not all soldiers are good guys, maybe not, but the same good and noble people of Afghanistan keep sending our lads home in boxes from being shot and blown up. Let's keep that in proportion too.

[William the White]

Look, you need to have laws in place to prevent soldiers from deserting or to prevent people from dodging the draft. If a person is willing to run afoul of these laws and accept the punishment because he believes the cause to be unjust, what is the problem? You can disagree with his objections but stating that he's in the wrong just for protesting is disgusting. Any soldier who shuts off his brain and his morals and kills civilians based on the lies of psychopath leaders deserves nothing but the gallows.

If you read all the views here you'll realise that quite a few people accept that he may have some justification for his views from a personal point of view. No one is arguing or denying that. Who really ever wants to try justifying war? Serving soldiers don't join up to go to war, they join up to fight for, and keep, peace. War happens, and when it does servicemen go where they are sent and do what they have to. That's their job.

What is wrong about it is that he should obviously be complaining from a position as an anti-war protestor, not a serving soldier. Way I understand it, he left Afghanistan and disappeared to Australia? for two years, thus avoiding his military duties. He then hands himself in and starts a protest against government policy on war from his position as a soldier. I think that's what most people seem to find difficult to understand. It's certainly what I do, because, effectively he'll now have to protest at every cause he thinks is unjust. If that's the case he shouldn't be in the armed forces. Solution, leave.

As for Pru's statement that not all soldiers are good guys, maybe not, but the same good and noble people of Afghanistan keep sending our lads home in boxes from being shot and blown up. Let's keep that in proportion too.

I'd much rather we brought them home on planes. The sooner the better. How many invasions of Afghanistan does it take by how many countries to realise this is not a place amenable to foreign occupation? The British had two failed attempts at it in the 19th Century, the Russians one in the 20th, and a 'coalition' one in the 21st. You cannot occupy for ever - not without paying a large price in blood. There've been enough bereaved families already.

[H. Pedersen]

We need to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq like yesterday. These are backward, tribal societies with deep irreconcilable divisions due to artificial national boundaries. We'll never impose true democracy or equality on them. We're just throwing our money into a 13th century hole.