Soldiers To Get Life In Prison

[solo1bc]

Yet another sneaky bill being passed to erode our human rights and move the world towards chaos and false-democracy...

Life in Prison for deserters

For any who aren't clear on this then let me take a moment to explain what 'pre-emptive' war means.

It is NOT the same as 'preventative' war.

In a preventative war, then a country would be justified in going to war if it has proof that it's security was directly under threat. A build up of troops on a neighbouring border, a military fleet clearly on its way to attack etc. etc.

A 'pre-emptive' war however allows a country to attack another nation solely on the pretext that it 'may' become a threat to it's security at some point in the future!

To use an example the States and Britain have justified the war in Iraq because in the future, at some point, maybe, possibly, kind of, one day, etc. etc. an attack on us might originate from Iraq, either through the goverment or through the support of terrorist organisations!

It's a quality bit of spin if you think about it because it basically means that ANY country that isn't doing what we want can be attacked and occupied in order to prevent any future problems. If you research 9/11, 7/7 etc. then it quickly becomes obvious how much 'real' evidence is required to build this pretext as well. Very little!

When this bill passes in the house of commons it will become virtually impossible for soldiers to conscientiously object as well.

Bush and his cronies said that the war on terror will be 'perpetual war' and you'd better bloody believe it!

:@

[bucksred]

Ben, that will have summat to do with that medic who refused to serve out there, after completing one tour, in the same place, being decorated, into the bargain.

don't beleive his bull about not wanting to go....trust me, I know people who served with him. The anti war movement are using him to get at the Govt, and fair play to em, but he is I beleive being, how to our Yank friends call it......"Economical with the truth"..and he has an agenda of his own.

Because politicians are devious toerags, don't automatically assume military personnell are too. They sign on the dotted line to serve their country, and its elected (In the Wests case, dictator, for other countries) *ahem* leaders. Right or wrong, they order, the military carry out the task to their best abilities. FACT.

Truth is, as military personnel, you are NOT allowed to object to deployment anyway, for political reasons. If the military authorities see anyones deployment as a risk (Example No people with Rhodie or SA connections deployed to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe for the elections there in 80), THEY can cancel it. troops cant. FACT.

In Germany, I think, there is a law, due to their Nazi past, to avoid deployment, if they have a problem with it-a result of the "I was only following orders" spiel at Nuremburg. I think 1500, did prior to Luftwaffe Anti Aircraft personnell, being deployed to Turkey, prior to Gulf War 1, and smaller numbers before Bosnia, and Kosovo deployments. This applies to regular personnell as wll as conscripts, of which they have a great number. Just why you would join up as a regular, and NOT expect to get deployed, is frankly ludicrous, but again hey ho. Their armed forces are very good at errrrrrrrrrrrrr nothing these days.

Only family reasons will prevent your deployment. FACT. Always been the same always will be. Even that aint garanteed, but does happen in 97% of cases

As for life imprisonment, somehow, I don't think thats quite true- trying to cause a panic perhaps? Desertion does get you bird, but not life. I think you would have to do summat pretty serious to get life. FACT.

Even in dire times in WW2, concientous Objectors were in front of a board, and put into War War, if their claims were valid, and accepted. FACT. If it was a con, and quite a few were, off to the forces they would go.Those that were genuine, quite a number carried some extreme acts of Bravery in their work, in London, during the Blitz, and stretcher beares on active service.

[solo1bc]

I understand your point about people using the conscientious objection line to essentially 'change their mind' and although I don't 100% agree, I can understand why 'deserters' are punished... It would be chaos otherwise...

The problem I have with this is the insertion of the words 'Pre-Emptive' war into this bill. It's effectivly making this concept of being able to attack whoever you want 'just in case' part of our legislation and a normal term of the new century!

Not something we want as I hope you'll agree?

[Nibor]

The problem I have with this is the insertion of the words 'Pre-Emptive' war into this bill. It's effectivly making this concept of being able to attack whoever you want 'just in case' part of our legislation and a normal term of the new century!

I don't think it is. I think it's making it crystal clear that being in the armed services is a commitment to fight regardless of your moral conscience. If people can't handle that they shouldn't join up.

Whether we should go to war or not is a separate issue from whether people paid to fight in it should fight in it.

[solo1bc]

I don't think it is. I think it's making it crystal clear that being in the armed services is a commitment to fight regardless of your moral conscience. If people can't handle that they shouldn't join up.

Whether we should go to war or not is a separate issue from whether people paid to fight in it should fight in it.

I disagree with you here quite strongly Nibor.

Signing up to defend your country is not the same as signing up to needlessly oppress other people in my opinion.

Defending your country or way of life against a real threat is very different from defending it against a manufactured one (or one that may, possibly, kind of, could do, one day, be a threat in the future).

Especially when what you're required to do in that defense is oppress an innocent civilian population.

I concede the point that Bucks made that without laws like this there will be those who abuse the situation but I'd prefer a couple of those cases than creating a situation where people are required to do things they conscientiously object to or face life in prison.

We can take a lesson from history, specifically Nazi Germany, to see how that works out!

[bucksred]

I disagree with you here quite strongly Nibor.

Signing up to defend your country is not the same as signing up to needlessly oppress other people in my opinion.

Defending your country or way of life against a real threat is very different from defending it against a manufactured one (or one that may, possibly, kind of, could do, one day, be a threat in the future).

Especially when what you're required to do in that defense is oppress an innocent civilian population.

I concede the point that Bucks made that without laws like this there will be those who abuse the situation but I'd prefer a couple of those cases than creating a situation where people are required to do things they conscientiously object to or face life in prison.

We can take a lesson from history, specifically Nazi Germany, to see how that works out!

There is a world of difference between our democracy and the paid thugs Germany produced. Far too many German soldiers gave their souls to Adolf, and the officers and gentlemen of all social stratas gave absolutely no Moral, or other guidance. There are very few German units without at least one major war crime to their name. Couldnt have been carried out without officers permission. As in exactly the opposite to the British forces, where we have to get shot almost, before we can return fire. If you REALLY think the British forces, who, unlike most countries in the free (or the rest too) world, enjoy popular support, and pride in them, can be compared to the rag bag and bobtail outfits like Al Queda, PIRA, Milosevics murderous gang of killers, then you really are beyond redemption.

Ive more trust in the Miltary here, than you should have, in the military where you live. The Armed forces in this country have ALWAYS served the nation & Queen/King/Lord Protector. Unlike any other in the world bar NONE. forget all the leftist/Islamisist/PIRA nonsense propaganda. show some pride in what are the finest forces world wide.

Like everywhere there are bad apples, and there is has and always be some bullying, and no doubt everyone has seen drunken squaddies/fisheads, and Blue jobs, making idiots of themselves, and winding others up...thats the nature of military life- neck on the line one minute, lettin your hair down the next.

Ben, you really should stop beleiving all the rubbish that kind of site publishes. Politicians come n get firewd, queens & Lord Protectors come n go, but the Forces stay loyal to Britain. Period. We all know why we signed up, and whats expected of us, and it aint rubbish like that.

[Nibor]

I disagree with you here quite strongly Nibor.

Signing up to defend your country is not the same as signing up to needlessly oppress other people in my opinion.

Defending your country or way of life against a real threat is very different from defending it against a manufactured one (or one that may, possibly, kind of, could do, one day, be a threat in the future).

Especially when what you're required to do in that defense is oppress an innocent civilian population.

I concede the point that Bucks made that without laws like this there will be those who abuse the situation but I'd prefer a couple of those cases than creating a situation where people are required to do things they conscientiously object to or face life in prison.

We can take a lesson from history, specifically Nazi Germany, to see how that works out!

If you genuinely believe there's a parallel between this case or the proposed changes to the law and Nazi Germany you're very wide of the mark. Noone forces anyone to sign up for the armed forces. This was not the case in Nazi Germany.

I think it's entirely right and proper that people are informed and think hard before joining up but once they do so are committed to serve regardless of moral objections. Anything else would be detrimental in the extreme to the forces, how can they possibly have any faith in their comrades when half of them can bugger off because they don't like what they're paid to do?

I agree that moving into Iraq wasn't defending the country (however in the long run I think the vast majority of Iraqis will be better off for it) and it certainly isn't oppression. That however is not the point. The armed forces have never been there purely for home defence and anyone signing up for them on that basis is naive in the extreme.