h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I would be interested to know exactly who instigated this Court Martial, bearing in mind that it has apparently cost £20 million, which could equip every British soldier in Iraq with full Body Armour and Boots to suit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/15/dl1501.xml

Was it really a politically inspired move, or one more ill judged decision at the MoD.?

Novo

I wonder, what advantage to the government is it to have people prosecuted unnecessarily?

Since some offences of inhumane treatment certainly happened, there's at least a judgement call as to how far responsibility goes. You can't have blanket opt-out for troops in general, or for officers in particular, nor can every prosecution that fails necessarily be wrong.
However, it is possible to be overzealous, whether by a little or by an incompetently large amount. In the absence of information about what investigations actually turned up, I couldn't offer condemnation or support for the decision to prosecute all the people involved.

However, I do wonder where the cost comes from. Round numbers make me very suspicious. If it did cost £20m, my first question would be "How?"

Equally, a prosecution is either justified or not. For a serious case, money should really be a secondary consideration.

Well the article is utter tripe with a side dressing of bilge.

I'll start at the top shall I?

"When British forces are sent into battle on our behalf, they have the right to expect the unwavering support of the government whose command they are answering.

Ive got friends who were or are soldiers some of them are very bright people but offering to lay down your life for other people who you dont know is the dumbest thing I can conceive of. that they expect politicians who in the past on many occasions have shown utter disregard for the welfare of people who have died and been mentaly or physically scarred by serving in their wars is utter stupidity. That such wifukky ignorant people expect this is meaningless. I have as much sympathy for them as I would for someone who turned up on the moon moaning that they didint know what to do with all the pickle they had taken becuase they expected the moon to be made of cheese.

The article says tha the prosecution shows "unmistakeable signs" of political interference. Then goes on to list just one undocumented allegation of this. It says that despite the fact that someone was killed (Fact) by soldiers (fact) and that a prosecution follows (Fact) that there was a prosecution means that it was Tony Balir trying to please Muslims.

Please someone tell me how that *has* to add up that way. Couldnt it just be that the evidence as it stood pointed to sldiers following orders and that the investigators followed a trail cahin of commands as far as they could?


Its easy to see how this prosecution cst £20m its a long way away peole sentto do it would need to be paid extra plus what they get already, there will have been defense lawyers payed for too and the time of judges on the coutrs martial. Thing is that aside from the travell all those people would already be emplyed by the MoD so that they would have been getting theri regular salary part of the £2OM all the time the case was progressing anyway.

Thank you for bringing this peice of right wing poppycock to my attention Novo.

Personally, if I were a soldier, I'd maybe be more worried about being shafted by the MoD than by politicians.

It's "dumb" to lay down your life for others is it Blicky?

Please, visit this site, hit the link for the album "Writer of Songs" and listen to "The Soldier".
http://www.harveyandrews.com/catalogue.html

The lyrics are here http://www.royal-signals.org.uk/mar_2003.php about half way down the page.

an excerpt:



"Soldier"
© 1972 Harvey Andrews (all rights respected)


"The soldier stood and could not move, his gun he could not use
He knew the bomb had seconds and not minutes on the fuse
He could not run and pick it up, and throw it in the street
There were far too many people there, too many running feet "

The song is about an actual incident where a soldier was guarding a railway station in NI. A bomb was thrown from a passing car into the station. The soldier lay down on top of it and absorbed the blast, saving the lives of those around him.

Was he "dumb"?

An example of courage or bravery, certainly, but it doesn't necessarily prove he wasn't 'dumb'. One could be dumb and still do what he did.

Well, we need dumb people like him then. There are countless examples of "dumb" actions by soldiers like that in a similar vein. The underlying theme is that they knowingly went to their deaths that others might live.

I wish I could say that I would have the courage to be so dumb.

Of course, suicide bombers have that same 'courage to be dumb'.

No we dont need dumb people like him. Lets not forget the bomb was planted by someone trying to liberate other people he didnt know.

If there were no armies we'd struggle to get a decent sized war going wouldnt we? Im not moaning about bravery and saying that it does not exist, Im saying that offering to lay down your life and take the lives of others over things you dont understand is dumb. To put your lethal services and your mortal body at the disposal of people you dont know that s without a doubt dumb.

one love

You're welcome Blicky, gives at least two fingers some ercise

Npvo

God save us from dumb people then.

Like firemen who run into a burning building.
Like bomb disposal experts.
Like the crew of the Titanic.
Like Doctors working in disease wards in Africa
Like Aid workers in general in fact.

...but above all, God save us from dumb people with guns and bombs.

What is you always say boutbeing rude Novo


Pleased to see you've learnt to read SWL, next step understanding then thinking after which you might even manage one decent post not chock full of cobblers.

"Like bomb disposal experts.

Would we need them without similarly dumb people who built and *distributed* said bombs? My garnfather a former Royal Engineer said there are *only* bomb disposal experts, you dont meet many people in that line of work who arent good at it.


"Like the crew of the Titanic.

Who were they saving? Muslims, paedophiles, racists, belligerant people like me, rapists?

Try to appreciate context a little I was identifying the act of signing up for th armed services as dumb I know you've dont it and i know friends even members of my own family who've done it and still think that putting your life and actions at the whim of politicians is dumb.


"Like Doctors working in disease wards in Africa
Like Aid workers in general in fact.

I wast aware that working in an AIDS hospital was a definite life or death situation on the same level as fighting in a war but Im quite willing to accpet that im wrong if you can show that soldiers on th front line are in the same danger as Doctors on "disease wards".

Moreover you have failed to understandtat doctors tend to see pseak to and know the patients they are wroking for very differnt fromt he relationship between politicians and soldiers. Or am I wrong about this?



Firemen who run into burning buildings please take your time to find out a little more before you speak about what it is that firefighters do, the women included.

As you can see Ive elucidated and expanded (previous to this post) on my initial point to take in offensive action so comparing firefighters to soldiers doesnt make much sense.


one love

<>

You're beneath contempt.

Fantastic line of argument as ever SWL there is as much going on inside your head as there is hair on top of it.

Who here would advise their child to hang arond with a kid who picks fights then sends other people to do the fighting?

Yet that's precisely what happens with people who sighn up for the armed forces. Well not precisely they sevicemen and women are shouted at and bullie into doing things that dont come naturally unitl they are deemed good enough to go and risk their lives or kill other people thy have never met over issues that in most cases they dont really understand in wars tat could have been avoided with some proper diplomactic negotiations rather than the posturing and sabre rattling carried out by people willing to look tough because they have a whole of dumb people who have pledged to do the fighting for them.

Now people will say were people who signed up after Germany Invaded Poland dumb? Well Im not saying people are out and out dumb Im saying the act is dumb and their act was dependant on the dumb act of Germans siging up to do the dirty work of Hitler. Is anyone here going to suggest that siging up to do the work of the Nazi's was a smart move?

one love

Blicky - occasionally on this site you make a lot of sense and are a compelling debater...

Right now however you are talking a load of rubbish, which I personally find deeply offensive!

Just for once - shut up!

Hi Blicky,

I was thinking of typing actually, that's how I do it, which explains tyographic errors.

Novo

Kipling said it best in Tommy:

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/kipling_ind.html

Indeed.

It's easy to sneer, but things haven't changed at all since then. The forces are still badly paid and shabbily treated, the pongoes worst of all.

Well, apart from the small-scale war currently breaking out in this thread, I must say I generally agree with blicky more than I disagree with him. And although the tone isn't exactly high rhetoric, I disagree entirely with the accusation that he's "talking a load of rubbish", whether or not some may find it offensive.

I think the best example given is that of people signing up for the armed forces in Nazi Germany - it's entirely true that giving your life for a cause you believe in is a courageous and in principle praise-worthy act, but the "dumbness" comes from believing in that particular cause in the first place.

Obviously "dumb" isn't a particularly good word to use - there are all sorts of reasons why people signed up for the Nazi army, chief amongst which was probably "being misled" rather than "being dumb". But it's generally agreed in retrospect that they made the "wrong" decision at some moral level, as did the hijackers on 9/11 to give another extreme example.

Now, I do have a tendency to illustrate points with extremes, and the key question here is actually about how to distinguish those who utterly believe (to the extent they'll give their life) in the *wrong* cause. Armies function on following orders, but following orders is no excuse for acting immorally. Joining an army is to some extent a point of no return, because you can't go round questionning every order you're given; you have to put your trust in the people whose command you've signed up for.

So, I think there is a valid question of whether it is wrong to put your trust in a government's principles (or, in particular, in our government's)? My own feeling is that our government is better than most, but not perfect; which makes it something of a tough decision whether they're worth fighting under...

(My preferred solution, by the way, would be for everyone to stop fighting, but I don't really believe that's possible, so tough compromises are the order of the day.)
[IMSoP]