Im curious... Or at least have been for a long long time. How do soldiers really feel about their bosses. Ahem the slimy politicians that start wars that the soldiers are sent in for years to try and clean up the politicians mess. At the same time burn them when their services are no longer required.
UK soldiers to face prosecution for war crimes
- Thread starter enkoda
- Start date
Im curious... Or at least have been for a long long time. How do soldiers really feel about their bosses. Ahem the slimy politicians that start wars that the soldiers are sent in for years to try and clean up the politicians mess. At the same time burn them when their services are no longer required.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 5,607
- Location
- UK
Its pretty simple, if you don't like it, leave.
I'm never going to disagree with someones opinion on any conflict in the services but if it isn't for them they have the option to return to a civilian life at any time.
This isn't a kicking out either, choosing to leave entitles you to a period of resettlement training relative to the amount of time you have served. This includes courses, training etc.
How soldiers feel about their bosses is irrelevant. You can have bosses who make the right decisions at the cost of morale and vice versa. Most people don't walk into their CEO's office and decide to tell him they aren't happy with the way the business is being run...
Does not matter, being put in that situation in an environment like that well what would you expect, after a while killing becomes the norm, and seeing a mate being killed etc... does not make for happy times. In my opinion there should be inquiries but put anyone in that situation and expect them to use civil law is crazy. What you see and what you feel out there is different. One less enemy might mean some other soldier being saved down the line in the future.
Lets say you didn't shoot him, later on he kills one of your mates or takes out a few others how would you feel.
You cant even imagine what someone would do in that situation, look at ww1 and the mental health problems out of that war.
This country does not look after its service men, they don't care about them, in the US they spend a lot of money on after care, and education, etc... Britain its thanks a crappy medal and nothing else. Then 20 30 years down the line they forgive the enemy and given them large compensation payments, or have them in politics.
Lets say you didn't shoot him, later on he kills one of your mates or takes out a few others how would you feel.
You cant even imagine what someone would do in that situation, look at ww1 and the mental health problems out of that war.
This country does not look after its service men, they don't care about them, in the US they spend a lot of money on after care, and education, etc... Britain its thanks a crappy medal and nothing else. Then 20 30 years down the line they forgive the enemy and given them large compensation payments, or have them in politics.
Last edited:
As long as you're happy for those statements to cover enemy combatants as well.
As an example you'd have no problem with a member of ISIS shootings British soldier in the head after they surrendered if we ever send them in.
Laws have to be adhered to by all sides, including ourselves. In fact we need to provide exemplary standards for the rest of the world, otherwise we have no leg to stand on. If you don't agree then international law is kinda pointless.
A good friend of mine was in the british army, irish guards as a sniper. The rules of engagement for him were extremely strict. Before he could fire a shot at a known enemy combatant, it had to be given the green light by more senior commanders. Quite often by officers who werent on the ground when he was in contact with the enemy. It's a small part of why he left the army to pursue a career in the private security service sector.
Agreed.
The reality though is going to be the evidence having to stack up beyond any reasonable doubt for any attempted prosecutions of British forces. They will almost certainly have to be incidents like the previously mentioned execution. I'm willing to bet they aren't going to be prosecutions of split second judgements or legitimate judgements that turned out to be incorrect.
I was going to make a similar point. Our biggest selling point/export are our standards/values. Our military are essentially now a business export.
Lose the moral high ground and we have not much left, long gone are the days of the Empire and if you don't deal with these alleged crimes through law your in danger of creating a culture that will rot away in the army, seems harsh but if not we would be a much lesser nation.
And the US will happily tell it's drone operators to kill civilians by labeling them a terrorist, pathetic.
Erm in case you missed it, Islamic State do far worse to captured soldiers than "shoot them in the head" after they surrender.
International law is pointless and will always be pointless unless you have some way of actually enforcing it. Who is going to arrest these Islamic State psychos who burn captured pilots alive? Who is going to stop China destroying coral reefs in the South China Sea? Who is going to take Putin to task for his war crimes in Ukraine, Georgia and now Syria?
By playing nice we don't actually set an example, we just look weak and invite our enemies to attack and undermine us, which is precisely what is happening with the global jihad and Russia's recent activities.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 13,001
I never went to Iraq, before my time.
But this type of thing is outrageous. It almost sending people to do a job with one hand tied behind their back, worrying about being prosecuted when returning home should not be an issue.
Yes war crimes are obscene and should be dealt with, but constantly persuing ex or serving armed forces members for years and years after conflicts its sickening. Iraq, Nothern Ireland all conflicts people are sent to for a demanding job that no one can fully understand unless they are involved in being hung out to dry.
The armed forces are expected to do anything from joe public and just deal with it, almost everytime they do deal with a job that can be almost impossible to a professional standard.
Lads and lasses constantly getting spammed with jobs home and abroad and dealing with it without a voice to express personal opinions is not something most of the public could ever deal with or understand.
And you get stuff like this propping up time and time again with joe public commenting on it without a clue taking the moral high ground and taking judgement on those who have served or who had served.
Comments like "it's their job", "they knew what they signed up for"
********. Just crack on and sandbag on christmas day otherwise you could face prosecution for getting someone's christmas dinner wet. (Fabricated example of stupidity)
Some of those folk might not want a military, but will happily watch a soldier sandbag all day
But this type of thing is outrageous. It almost sending people to do a job with one hand tied behind their back, worrying about being prosecuted when returning home should not be an issue.
Yes war crimes are obscene and should be dealt with, but constantly persuing ex or serving armed forces members for years and years after conflicts its sickening. Iraq, Nothern Ireland all conflicts people are sent to for a demanding job that no one can fully understand unless they are involved in being hung out to dry.
The armed forces are expected to do anything from joe public and just deal with it, almost everytime they do deal with a job that can be almost impossible to a professional standard.
Lads and lasses constantly getting spammed with jobs home and abroad and dealing with it without a voice to express personal opinions is not something most of the public could ever deal with or understand.
And you get stuff like this propping up time and time again with joe public commenting on it without a clue taking the moral high ground and taking judgement on those who have served or who had served.
Comments like "it's their job", "they knew what they signed up for"
********. Just crack on and sandbag on christmas day otherwise you could face prosecution for getting someone's christmas dinner wet. (Fabricated example of stupidity)
Some of those folk might not want a military, but will happily watch a soldier sandbag all day
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 13,001
You literally have no idea what I was getting at.
The ICC has achieved a grand total of 8 convictions in 18 years of operation against exclusively African criminals - seems to me that the ICC is screwed when it comes to a bit more than America/Russia. Yeah I can see why the lawyers would love this grand institution, sit around all day showing off how clever they are to their peers and earning mega-bucks without having to actually achieve anything. The most significant thing the ICC has ever done is indict the President of Sudan for crimes in the Darfur region, but where is he now? When he's not at home in Khartoum he's living the life of luxury touring round Africa, the Gulf and China as an international statesman and I wouldn't expect that to change anytime soon.
In reality, institutions like the ICC are seen as examples of western imperialism by ordinary Africans, and completely ignored by the rest of the world. The only people it's relevant to are naive intellectuals, and sadly it seems that western governments these days are full of such people.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 13,001
I never said that people that commit war crimes should never be prosecuted.
To clear it up for you, I agree that if you commit war crimes then you should be prosecuted.
This whole issue though is wide open and is not just war crime or not a war crime, innocent or guilty.
Most sensible post in here. The only people being held to the lofty standards we set are...us. Nobody else gives a flying crap and will actively use our own laws against us, as we've seen with the false claims from iraqi terrorists that have been proven to be unfounded at the cost of millions of pounds.