11,000 UK troops have gone AWOL since Iraq war

[Mailman]

Very accurate there, "shilling". It's not like they are well paid or get great benefits (US troops get crap pay as well but at least get good benefits when they leave like paid for education) for risking their lives

What you are talking about is the difference the societies place on the value of their soldiers. America looks like they actually care about their soldiers, what with seperate military hospitals so their soldiers dont get attacked by racist muslims and bonuses for reupping and paid education.

Imagine that, a society that actually values its armed forces

Anyone in the British military is there for a lot more than some "easy cash" (they would not be much worse off on the dole) but I doubt a single one joined up to occupy a foreign country and police/control a hostile civilian population at the behest of a forgiven power (USA) for very dubious reasons (money, oil, corporations, US imperialism, US politics)

I really couldnt give a rats arse if someone did or didnt join up to fight oversease. The fact is NO ONE forced them to join and that they had taken their oaths and accepted the pay for being in the armed forces.

If suddenly they are having an attack of moral dilema then why join in the first place? You are a moron if you believe you will never be asked to do something dangerous when you join the army.

Anyone who joined up before the Iraq war and who is now AWOL I don't blame in the slightest (but only those who signed up before the "war" ended and the occupation began, those who signed up afterwards should have known better)

They are no better than cowards and traitors and their desertion puts the lives of their fellow soldiers at risk even more...because they are part of a well oiled team who rely on each other for their own safety when being shot at.

Mailman

[Mailman]

You just love hanging round the fringes of the military threads, don't you sg?
The archetypal "camp" follower!
Hit us with another of your hysterical "spud-peeling" jibes why don't you, I think my sides have healed up from the last time?

Yeah...so far away them colonials had to come to your rescue in two world wars.

The gratitude of it all guru

Mailman

[angusglover]

That's a bit harsh!! Signing up to the armed services is one thing, being sent to fight an illeagl war that the British people do not support is another.

Remember the Falklands? We had the UN declaring the illegality of Argentina's actions and a mandate to use force plus the overwhelming backing of the public. That's why we had no-one going AWOL during the Falklands.

We cannot possibly say whether the war was or not illegal. Only the highest lawyers in the land can tell us that. As for support, not all British people were against it...

[Old Greg]

What you are talking about is the difference the societies place on the value of their soldiers.

It's an interesting point. This country has historically held its armed forces in low opinion. It goes back a very long way, and one idea I've read (an essay by George Orwell, I think, but it was a long time ago) is that it originates from the time when a standing army was seen as a continental institution that represented a state's power in terms of internal oppression. In the U.S., the army originates in the revolutionary militias - an institution of liberation.

[shaunbhoy]

In the U.S., the army originates in the revolutionary militias - an institution of liberation.

Yes, it's just a shame that they seem so hell bent on maintaining that timeless tradition of "we fired our guns but the British kept a-coming!" even when we are on the same side!! Nowadays it is called "friendly fire".

[angusglover]

I don't think anyone should be judging them unless you have been in that position...

Everyone hates the Army...until you need them...

[Stan]

We cannot possibly say whether the war was or not illegal. Only the highest lawyers in the land can tell us that.

The lawyers who are in the pocket of Blair and when they still don't give the required answer they are "persuaded" by the US - which is exactly what happened.

Regardless of law maybe some of the soldiers examined their conscience rather than just following orders. I wouldn't risk my own life to go and oppress some Iraqis.

[Paddy]

Desertions per 1,000 men under arms
1914-5 First & Second Ypres, Loos & Gallipoli 20.7
1916 Somme 9.19
1917 Late Somme, Arras, Messines, Start of 3rd Ypres 7.41
1918 Passchendale, Cambrai 7.41
1919 Victory Offensive, Army of Occupation 7.99
1940 Norway, Dunkirk 4.48
1941 Fall of Greece, Crete 10.05
1942 Gazala, Tobruk, Burma defeats 8.49
1943 Alamein, Tunis, Sicily 5.90
1944 D-Day, Kohima, Falaise 6.19
1945 Battle for Germany, Defeat of Japan 6.24


It is only fiction that portrayed the British a loyal fighting force. The solders are no different from any other country when it comes to fighting. (Apart from the Gurkhas who are exceptional) . The lesser the cause, the lesser the solders are willing to fight as proven in the First World War.

Imagine you are fighting in Iraq, you are in a war because Blair lied. Unlike WW1 and WW2, if you were captured you would normally be humanely treated, in Iraq you will have your head cut off… slowly. It is no wonder that troops are tulipting themselves just thinking about going on patrol. Desertion in WW1 were 20.7 per 1000, in Iraq it is 140 per 10000. If you count refusals to take and order disobedience is running at 28%. The is one massive propaganda cover-up going on.

[wendigo100]

Everyone hates the Army...until you need them...

Eh? Where did you get that nugget from?

[angusglover]

Eh? Where did you get that nugget from?

It is true. people hate the soldiers in most garrison towns because they work hard but also play hard. The get a really bad reputation and then people slag them off, but when it comes time for them to man the fire engines etc due to strike, it is a different story...