General Discussion

[LordRoss]

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

---

LordRoss wrote:

---

PatC_PSN wrote:

Bear Grylls is a big girl's blouse.

---

You're just jelly of his wee drinking skills.

---

I don't think so - I've tried Cherry Coke, which is a far more disgusting thing to consume!

---

lol Yes Cherry Coke doesn't float my boat either.  Then again nor does normal Coke these days.

[PatC_PSN]

---

LordRoss wrote:

lol Yes Cherry Coke doesn't float my boat either.  Then again nor does normal Coke these days.

---

Me neither. Now I only use it to mix with Jack Daniels, which I believe is a perfectly acceptable social practice.

[That_Soton]

big girls blouse? he eats his own *****! 

[PatC_PSN]

---

That_Soton wrote:

big girls blouse? he eats his own *****! 

---

OK then, he's an attention-seeking big girl's blouse.

[hydra25]

I fail to see how drinking your ***** when you don't need to makes you tough, makes you a bit of a loon if you ask me.

[Gawge]

---

fenian wrote:

A soldiers job is to do what they are told within the bounds of human rights. A soldier does what the people of the country want. A soldier does this by obeying the legal orders of the democratically elected leader of the country.

The Soldiers of the British Army are and always have been fighting for the British people and British Interests. The British people told them that American Interests were their Interests and they should fight.

Sure we are lied to, and so are soldiers, but this is the peoples fault for voting in scumbags who are willing to let people die searching for weapons that dont exsist, but the blame is everyones to share. It was the peoples fault for every soldier who died in some messed up situation like that. The person who joined the Army didnt throw their life away, the people threw it away.

Far too easy to pass blame onto America, and its not right.

---

That's a pretty good justification of what a soldier does. Even if a soldier does not personally agree with a war, he can say that he is fighting for what the people of the country want. 

Then again, it doesn't really work that way in practice. The population generally takes a pacifist view, they do not want war. Also, when voting for a party (or somebody), you can't take into account their views on something that hasn't happened yet - I suppose you could look at their general opinions on war, but if war is not an issue at the time of the election, then it is hardly touched and circumstances can differ greatly. 

So, you are fighting based on a decision of someone who was democratically voted, but the people could be firmly against the decision. Does this justify a soldiers actions? I imagine that most people would have a limit to what they would do, even if it was democratically supported, so why should they undertake anything which they do not agree with?

I am quite interested in what accountability soldiers ought to have. Are they responsible for everything they do, and work towards - or are they just cogs in a machine, and the responsibility lies with those controlling it?

[LordRoss]

---

Gawge wrote:

---

fenian wrote:

A soldiers job is to do what they are told within the bounds of human rights. A soldier does what the people of the country want. A soldier does this by obeying the legal orders of the democratically elected leader of the country.

The Soldiers of the British Army are and always have been fighting for the British people and British Interests. The British people told them that American Interests were their Interests and they should fight.

Sure we are lied to, and so are soldiers, but this is the peoples fault for voting in scumbags who are willing to let people die searching for weapons that dont exsist, but the blame is everyones to share. It was the peoples fault for every soldier who died in some messed up situation like that. The person who joined the Army didnt throw their life away, the people threw it away.

Far too easy to pass blame onto America, and its not right.

---

That's a pretty good justification of what a soldier does. Even if a soldier does not personally agree with a war, he can say that he is fighting for what the people of the country want. 

Then again, it doesn't really work that way in practice. The population generally takes a pacifist view, they do not want war. Also, when voting for a party (or somebody), you can't take into account their views on something that hasn't happened yet - I suppose you could look at their general opinions on war, but if war is not an issue at the time of the election, then it is hardly touched and circumstances can differ greatly. 

So, you are fighting based on a decision of someone who was democratically voted, but the people could be firmly against the decision. Does this justify a soldiers actions? I imagine that most people would have a limit to what they would do, even if it was democratically supported, so why should they undertake anything which they do not agree with?

I am quite interested in what accountability soldiers ought to have. Are they responsible for everything they do, and work towards - or are they just cogs in a machine, and the responsibility lies with those controlling it?

---

If they don't do what they are told then all hell breaks loose.  Discipline is key to army success, from Roman times to modern times.

It's a tad harsh in that case holding them personally responsible.

[Mike939]

---

Gawge wrote:

---

fenian wrote:

A soldiers job is to do what they are told within the bounds of human rights. A soldier does what the people of the country want. A soldier does this by obeying the legal orders of the democratically elected leader of the country.

The Soldiers of the British Army are and always have been fighting for the British people and British Interests. The British people told them that American Interests were their Interests and they should fight.

Sure we are lied to, and so are soldiers, but this is the peoples fault for voting in scumbags who are willing to let people die searching for weapons that dont exsist, but the blame is everyones to share. It was the peoples fault for every soldier who died in some messed up situation like that. The person who joined the Army didnt throw their life away, the people threw it away.

Far too easy to pass blame onto America, and its not right.

---

That's a pretty good justification of what a soldier does. Even if a soldier does not personally agree with a war, he can say that he is fighting for what the people of the country want. 

Then again, it doesn't really work that way in practice. The population generally takes a pacifist view, they do not want war. Also, when voting for a party (or somebody), you can't take into account their views on something that hasn't happened yet - I suppose you could look at their general opinions on war, but if war is not an issue at the time of the election, then it is hardly touched and circumstances can differ greatly. 

So, you are fighting based on a decision of someone who was democratically voted, but the people could be firmly against the decision. Does this justify a soldiers actions? I imagine that most people would have a limit to what they would do, even if it was democratically supported, so why should they undertake anything which they do not agree with?

I am quite interested in what accountability soldiers ought to have. Are they responsible for everything they do, and work towards - or are they just cogs in a machine, and the responsibility lies with those controlling it?

---

Gawd dayum tree hugging hippie commy liberals

[Gawge]

---

LordRoss wrote:

If they don't do what they are told then all hell breaks loose.  Discipline is key to army success, from Roman times to modern times.

It's a tad harsh in that case holding them personally responsible.

---

Yeah, I completely understand that in practice it would be ridiculous to give soldiers the option of whether they fancy going to Afghanistan, whether they want to take part in this mission because it might be a little controversial etc... 

I just question whether, in principle, soldiers can be judged for what they do, or are they absolved of any responsibility if they were commanded to do it.

[fenian]

---

Gawge wrote:

I just question whether, in principle, soldiers can be judged for what they do, or are they absolved of any responsibility if they were commanded to do it.

---

yes a soldier can be judged and they are not absolved of any responsibility. You dont hear about it publically often but sometimes the governments war decisions pass through lawyers before they get given. 

The army can ask for legal permission to go to war or follow an order, and can and will deny any unlawful order. (they publically asked if it was legal to attack libya, once it was shown legal they followed the orders of the people).

Its not the job of the Army to protest the orders any further than their legality, if morality is an issue or the prime minister is doing something the people dont want, the people should take to the streets as is their right to protest and to call for a re-election of the government.

If the people dont do that, then the army will follow the orders.

If the Army itself questioned the prime minister or the people, only one result can happen. The overthrow of the government by the army in a Military coup. Its possible in a worst case scenario this could happen, but really its supposed to be the people who do it.