This is just not right!

[BWFC_Insane]

Shame a few more didn't as the world may well be a better place had the "empire" never existed!

If you read the history of it all I think you'll find it was much a case of "Do unto others before they do unto you" BW.

Disagree. What we did was no better than Hitlers attempts to conquer Europe during the second world war!

[BWFC_Insane]

Shame a few more didn't as the world may well be a better place had the "empire" never existed!

In the realms of the purely hypothetical - correct, I agree.

Either way to suggest that we've "historically" been a pacifist country that only goes to war in the direst of circumstances I think is historically not true.

I suppose LK is referring to "post WW2" and to that end he is probably right. We are certainly far more cautious than the Americans are.

[Worthy4England]

Shame a few more didn't as the world may well be a better place had the "empire" never existed!

If you read the history of it all I think you'll find it was much a case of "Do unto others before they do unto you" BW.

Disagree. What we did was no better than Hitlers attempts to conquer Europe during the second world war!

It was way better - we got away with it for ages.

Just to extend this a little, is the suggestion that the countries we occupied as part of our Empire building were incorrect to have the various revolutions they had to displace us?

I suspect LK would argue that indeed they should have just continued to accept the status quo?

[TANGODANCER]

Shame a few more didn't as the world may well be a better place had the "empire" never existed!

If you read the history of it all I think you'll find it was much a case of "Do unto others before they do unto you" BW.

Disagree. What we did was no better than Hitlers attempts to conquer Europe during the second world war!

Live under Hitler or Queen Victoria? Place your bets.

[ratbert]

Did Queen Victoria order the mass extermination of an entire race of people? We might have set up concentration camps in the Boer War, but perspective, please!

[BWFC_Insane]

Did Queen Victoria order the mass extermination of an entire race of people? We might have set up concentration camps in the Boer War, but perspective, please!

You might want to read about the millions of Indians who perished as a deliberate result of British policy. The thousands murdered and tortured during the Boer war.

Were we any better than Hitler? Not really IMO. Perhaps we were a bit less calculating. But the results were more devastating and far wider reaching!

[seanworth]

Did Queen Victoria order the mass extermination of an entire race of people? We might have set up concentration camps in the Boer War, but perspective, please!

You might want to read about the millions of Indians who perished as a deliberate result of British policy. The thousands murdered and tortured during the Boer war.

Were we any better than Hitler? Not really IMO. Perhaps we were a bit less calculating. But the results were more devastating and far wider reaching!

Actually the English did seem to try to learn from their mistakes during their colonial period. Many of those changes came about in the 2nd half of the 1800's if I recall right which of course resulted in further unforeseen problems such as what happened in Malaysia and Fiji. Still the objective was always to make money to fund the Empire and England. Hitler I believe was far worse, but I agree that the results of colonialism were far more reaching and devastating as you mentioned.

[TANGODANCER]

Not sure why we've reverted to historical war, since World War II is as far back as any of us can remember. Many, many changes in everything have occured in a hundred years and it's little use comparing the present day with then. The world has moved on and, hopefully, a lot of lessons have been learned. The Empire umbrella has long since been put down and we're honouring many of our responsibilities. To blame us for past sins is useless, as is blaming anyone else. The only way forward is peace but it's a hard won commodity, usually the end product of war.

[BWFC_Insane]

Not sure why we've reverted to historical war, since World War II is as far back as any of us can remember. Many, many changes in everything have occured in a hundred years and it's little use comparing the present day with then. The world has moved on and, hopefully, a lot of lessons have been learned. The Empire umbrella has long since been put down and we're honouring many of our responsibilities. To blame us for past sins is useless, as is blaming anyone else. The only way forward is peace but it's a hard won commodity, usually the end product of war.

And isn't one of those lessons to afford people the right of free speech unconditionally?

Therefore if this soldier wants to protest he should be allowed to unconditionally.

Those who seem to think shooting him or beating him senseless for doing so, are surely no better than the taliban, the nazis etc etc?

[TANGODANCER]

Not sure why we've reverted to historical war, since World War II is as far back as any of us can remember. Many, many changes in everything have occured in a hundred years and it's little use comparing the present day with then. The world has moved on and, hopefully, a lot of lessons have been learned. The Empire umbrella has long since been put down and we're honouring many of our responsibilities. To blame us for past sins is useless, as is blaming anyone else. The only way forward is peace but it's a hard won commodity, usually the end product of war.

And isn't one of those lessons to afford people the right of free speech unconditionally?

Therefore if this soldier wants to protest he should be allowed to unconditionally.

Those who seem to think shooting him or beating him senseless for doing so, are surely no better than the taliban, the nazis etc etc?

As a civilian, yes. Then his protest might have some substance. As a soldier who doesn't want to fight he has no case when he has the option to retire not to do so. Nobody's denying his right to protest against war, just don't do it while still wearing uniform and getting paid. That's an insult to the same uniform.

[BWFC_Insane]

Not sure why we've reverted to historical war, since World War II is as far back as any of us can remember. Many, many changes in everything have occured in a hundred years and it's little use comparing the present day with then. The world has moved on and, hopefully, a lot of lessons have been learned. The Empire umbrella has long since been put down and we're honouring many of our responsibilities. To blame us for past sins is useless, as is blaming anyone else. The only way forward is peace but it's a hard won commodity, usually the end product of war.

And isn't one of those lessons to afford people the right of free speech unconditionally?

Therefore if this soldier wants to protest he should be allowed to unconditionally.

Those who seem to think shooting him or beating him senseless for doing so, are surely no better than the taliban, the nazis etc etc?

As a civilian, yes. Then his protest might have some substance. As a soldier who doesn't want to fight he has no case when he has the option to retire not to do so. Nobody's denying his right to protest against war, just don't do it while still wearing uniform and getting paid. That's an insult to the same uniform.

No its not. Its saying "I want to be a soldier and fight for what I believe in, but I don't believe in this". He takes the risks that go along with that.

If every soldier did as you suggested and simply "quit" when things happened they don't agree with we probably wouldn't have an army.

[Worthy4England]

Not sure why we've reverted to historical war, since World War II is as far back as any of us can remember. Many, many changes in everything have occured in a hundred years and it's little use comparing the present day with then. The world has moved on and, hopefully, a lot of lessons have been learned. The Empire umbrella has long since been put down and we're honouring many of our responsibilities. To blame us for past sins is useless, as is blaming anyone else. The only way forward is peace but it's a hard won commodity, usually the end product of war.

And isn't one of those lessons to afford people the right of free speech unconditionally?

Therefore if this soldier wants to protest he should be allowed to unconditionally.

Those who seem to think shooting him or beating him senseless for doing so, are surely no better than the taliban, the nazis etc etc?

No - not whilst he's serving in HM Forces.

You can't run Armed Services on the basis that it's a democratic vote for everything. The unconditional freedom is that no one is compelled to serve. If the guy bought his way out (as SOTWA pointed that he could have done) and then went on to make his point, I'm fine with him protesting.

I'm happy to get paid as a soldier but want to pick which operations I'm happy to fight in? Sorry just doesn't work.

[TANGODANCER]

Not sure why we've reverted to historical war, since World War II is as far back as any of us can remember. Many, many changes in everything have occured in a hundred years and it's little use comparing the present day with then. The world has moved on and, hopefully, a lot of lessons have been learned. The Empire umbrella has long since been put down and we're honouring many of our responsibilities. To blame us for past sins is useless, as is blaming anyone else. The only way forward is peace but it's a hard won commodity, usually the end product of war.

And isn't one of those lessons to afford people the right of free speech unconditionally?

Therefore if this soldier wants to protest he should be allowed to unconditionally.

Those who seem to think shooting him or beating him senseless for doing so, are surely no better than the taliban, the nazis etc etc?

As a civilian, yes. Then his protest might have some substance. As a soldier who doesn't want to fight he has no case when he has the option to retire not to do so. Nobody's denying his right to protest against war, just don't do it while still wearing uniform and getting paid. That's an insult to the same uniform.

No its not. Its saying "I want to be a soldier and fight for what I believe in, but I don't believe in this". He takes the risks that go along with that.

If every soldier did as you suggested and simply "quit" when things happened they don't agree with we probably wouldn't have an army.

Sorry, don't agree BW. You're defeating your own argument here. Every soldier has the right to quit, they just don't do it, or, if a few do then so be it. Soldiers can't make rules about what they believe in or which battles they join in. The rules are made for them by the Army. For this guy, even the thought of his being allowed to make his own rules, whilst in the army, is just plain silly.

[BWFC_Insane]

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?

[William the White]

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?

Good idea. And he has.

IMO.

[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?

[BWFC_Insane]

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?

It isn't. And if he's sacked from the army I have no issue at all.

Long as he isn't treated any differently from someone who has spoken out against a company which they work for I'm fine.

As you say its no different. If someone has a moral objection to what their employers are doing, surely speaking out is morally the only correct thing to do?

[William the White]

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'.

[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?

It isn't. And if he's sacked from the army I have no issue at all.

Long as he isn't treated any differently from someone who has spoken out against a company which they work for I'm fine.

As you say its no different. If someone has a moral objection to what their employers are doing, surely speaking out is morally the only correct thing to do?

Think I've already answered that if you scroll up.

I have no objection to him leaving his morally untenable post within the army then making his views known.

As for "treated any differently than someone who has spoken out against their employer" - You try it, very publically, and see how many of your company's competitors want to employ you...

[TANGODANCER]

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?

Good idea. And he has. IMO.

Exactly what valid points does he have? If they are about his being expected to obey orders he doesn't agree with (somehing that would be made very plain to him on signing up) then what exactly is his argument? This isn't an argument about the rights of civilians, it's about obeying orders as a soldier. Being deployed to fight where the army decide you are needed isn't quite the same as arguing that you're sick of bangers and mash every day is it? His whole argument is based on a claim to his thinking war in a certain area is wrong: That isn't a soldiers perogative. Getting out if you don't agree is.