Lance Corporal Stephen - didn't come home

[snaw]

The point that I am trying to make, is that a soldier that believes in the cause he is fighting for, is far more valuable an asset than one who is being forced to carry out an action that he believes is fundamentally wrong.

Do any dispute that?

Well having never been a soldier I'm only speculating. But my understanding is that when you're at the pointy end you're not fighting for the cause, believe in it or not, but instead you're fighting for your mates. I think it's much more valuable that a soldier follows orders (Let's not go into heinous acts type of orders), than believes in the cause he's fighting for.

[Diver]

Well having never been a soldier I'm only speculating. But my understanding is that when you're at the pointy end you're not fighting for the cause, believe in it or not, but instead you're fighting for your mates. I think it's much more valuable that a soldier follows orders (Let's not go into heinous acts type of orders), than believes in the cause he's fighting for.

Exactly! Your mates come first, the cause comes second. How close a second depends on the soldiers strength of belief in that cause.
If there is no belief or faith in those above, then there will be little or no commitment to the cause.

It's called going through the motions. Doing your duty.

This is why they reward a soldier for going beyond the call of duty / actions above and beyond the call of duty.

I think we have now got to the stage where we are going around in circles with this one

[EternalOptimist]

The point that I am trying to make, is that a soldier that believes in the cause he is fighting for, is far more valuable an asset than one who is being forced to carry out an action that he believes is fundamentally wrong.

Do any dispute that?

If you read carefully you will find that there is nothing to dispute. As a soldier I did not even consider the justice of the cause, so how could I believe in it?
There certainly are examples in historyof 'political' troops who had a high reputation as fighting men (the SS , NKVD guards divisions from WWII for example) but they were usually matched by other factors.
The Romans had special tactics for dealing with the 'fanatics'(as they called them) that they met from time to time.

Diver, I think you are trying to judge others by your own standards, try to imagine yourself as an uneducated 18 year old know-nothing illiterate d1ck-wit. Then try to imagine any 'cause' you might believe in.

[Diver]

If you read carefully you will find that there is nothing to dispute. As a soldier I did not even consider the justice of the cause, so how could I believe in it?
There certainly are examples in historyof 'political' troops who had a high reputation as fighting men (the SS , NKVD guards divisions from WWII for example) but they were usually matched by other factors.
The Romans had special tactics for dealing with the 'fanatics'(as they called them) that they met from time to time.

Diver, I think you are trying to judge others by your own standards, try to imagine yourself as an uneducated 18 year old know-nothing illiterate d1ck-wit. Then try to imagine any 'cause' you might believe in.

ah! see what you mean

>Diver in HRH mode<

[AlfredJPruffock]

In 1939 Germany invaded Poland and set in motion a worldwide conflict that ended in defeat by the Allies and the inauguration of an International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

Robert Jackson, the Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg, made it clear that the law applied at Nuremberg did not just apply to the German aggressors, "but it includes, and must do so if it is to be of service, the condemnation of aggression by any other nation, not excepting those who now sit here in judgement."


Perhaps Gordon Brown could explain what lessons will be learnt from our invasion of Iraq that were not made clear at Nuremberg in 1945?