[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Well if the US and the UK pulled out there would be no war and the Taliban would move back in and take control of the country again, meaning the invasion and all the losses since were in vain.

Personally - I don't buy into that argument. There are no guarantees that staying will acheive anything other than further loss of life - and even if it did - how could that in anyway validate the deaths of so many soldiers, how could it in any way make their deaths worthwhile.

As for the problems with the Taliban - that is for Afghanistan to sort out. Much as I feel for the innocent people of Afghanistan - I do not consider it a cause worth the loss of our men and womens' lives. We have to look after our own!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Personally - I don't buy into that argument. There are no guarantees that staying will acheive anything other than further loss of life - and even if it did - how could that in anyway validate the deaths of so many soldiers, how could it in any way make their deaths worthwhile.

As for the problems with the Taliban - that is for Afghanistan to sort out. Much as I feel for the innocent people of Afghanistan - I do not consider it a cause worth the loss of our men and womens, lives. We have to look after our own!

Ah I see, you dont buy into helping an oppressed people remove a tyrannical fundamentalist government, its no concern of ours? You dont care that said government did allow terrorist training camps and you feel the invasion was wrong? You dont mind that that government was financing itself through the heroin trade?

You see UN sanctions and embargos were introduced but they were seen to be failing, hitting the poor people of Afghanistan at a time of famine anyway. They didnt really affect the leadership of the country. Just the poor.

Well our leaders at the time decided to invade, so blame Blair and Bush. Even if another government were elected this year to replace the current labour one, they still couldnt pull troops out over a period less than about 12 months.

They decided they were acting legally in support of UN Mandates and resolutions. As we are part of the UN Security Council we have to follow Mandates and Resolutions - British fair play and all that. So yeah i suppose we could just say , we want...... then expect others to deliver, and to rely simply on the UN to actually do something except sit and debate is a laughable concept.

The operations in Afghanistan are attempting to help a country that was run by the Taliban get back on its feet, reduce the amount of Heroin coming not only from but through Afghanistan and removing the terrorist training camps from the area.

If the current operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the parallel operations in Pakistan being undertaken by their armed forces are both successful then the future involvement of our forces in that area will be dramatically reduced.

Well thats the official party line anyways. Its up to you if you believe them.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Ah I see, you dont buy into helping an oppressed people remove a tyrannical fundamentalist government, its no concern of ours? You dont care that said government did allow terrorist training camps and you feel the invasion was wrong? You dont mind that that government was financing itself through the heroin trade?

You see UN sanctions and embargos were introduced but they were seen to be failing, hitting the poor people of Afghanistan at a time of famine anyway. They didnt really affect the leadership of the country. Just the poor.

Well our leaders at the time decided to invade, so blame Blair and Bush. Even if another government were elected this year to replace the current labour one, they still couldnt pull troops out over a period less than about 12 months.

They decided they were acting legally in support of UN Mandates and resolutions. As we are part of the UN Security Council we have to follow Mandates and Resolutions - British fair play and all that. So yeah i suppose we could just say , we want...... then expect others to deliver, and to rely simply on the UN to actually do something except sit and debate is a laughable concept.

The operations in Afghanistan are attempting to help a country that was run by the Taliban get back on its feet, reduce the amount of Heroin coming not only from but through Afghanistan and removing the terrorist training camps from the area.

If the current operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the parallel operations in Pakistan being undertaken by their armed forces are both successful then the future involvement of our forces in that area will be dramatically reduced.

Well thats the official party line anyways. Its up to you if you believe them.

Yes - my priority is for our own young men and women over and above the oppressed people of Afghanistan - I won't feel guilty about that! Those oppressed people apparently don't want us there anyway - many have made it clear that we have out-stayed our welcome!

Most men and women sign up to protect their own country, if needs be - not to risk their lives for the political ends of dishonest politicians or to solve the religious problems of other nations. The people of Afghanistan should do more to help themselves and stand up to the tyranny of such regimes as the Taliban. It is not our responsibility!

[arista]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Well if the US and the UK pulled out there would be no war and the Taliban would move back in and take control of the country again, meaning the invasion and all the losses since were in vain.

No Leave the Yanks there
it is there Problem
All UK out.

[BB_Eye]

This whole regime change thing is a waste of time. I would go so far as to call this a pre-emptive war as the US and UK were never strictly invaded by the Taliban, only attacked. We may aswell go invade North Korea (possibly the worst dictatorship on Earth) for sending spies to kidnap our allies in South Korea and Japan. It would probably be easier.

[Shasown]

Yes PTSD, he could have had it, but did he? It could just be an convenient excuse for legging it. Its interesting to note he raised a complaint of bullying against one of his seniors but didnt go see the service medical staff for his PTSD.

If he had suffered PTSD and gone sick with it, it would have been mentioned and entered into the court martial. There was a comment by the adjutant general that he hadnt reported this PTSD at the time but had complained about bullying.

Making a complaint against a superior would look a lot worse than being diagnosed with PTSD amongst those he worked with.

[Raph]

[WOMBAI]

They should have the best equipment - the polititians would expect nothing less for their own sons. Lives are, or should be, more important than money - and doing what it takes to have less casualties should be given absolute priority! They owe the soldiers that - when considering what they are asking of them!

And I don't believe for one minute the army give a damn about individuals - just having enough troops for the job!

If I was the mother of that young soldier - I would be proud of him for having done his best and completing one tour of duty - which is a lot more than most do. I would also be relieved that he was in jail as opposed to being a target for the Taliban in Afghanistan!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

If I was the mother of that young soldier - I would be proud of him for having done his best and completing one tour of duty - which is a lot more than most do. I would also be relieved that he was in jail as opposed to being a target for the Taliban in Afghanistan!

A lot more than most do? Most what, youths, or soldiers. Because of the current and last governments' policy of manpower reduction the armed forces in general are very overstretched. I know of cases where certain personnel in the forces have spent 6 months on ops in Iraq come back to the UK for 2-3 months then deploy to Afghanistan for a further 6 months. So all in all matey boy got off quite lucky. I myself have done 4 on 4 off back to back operational tours both in the 80s and 90's and into the naughties

Remember he wasnt dismissed, wonder what will happen when he has done his time, will he stag on? (That means fit back in his unit and do as he is told, including future deployments?) If you watch the news and look through the lists of Casualties you will see by far the biggest number of casualties is in the infantry, followed by Bomb Disposal, he was and is in the Logistics Corps mostly cooks clerks and drivers. If he goes out of base he goes out in convoys which will be lead and protected by armoured vehicles from infantry units.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Shasown

A lot more than most do? Most what, youths, or soldiers. Because of the current and last governments' policy of manpower reduction the armed forces in general are very overstretched. I know of cases where certain personnel in the forces have spent 6 months on ops in Iraq come back to the UK for 2-3 months then deploy to Afghanistan for a further 6 months. So all in all matey boy got off quite lucky. I myself have done 4 on 4 off back to back operational tours both in the 80s and 90's and into the naughties

Remember he wasnt dismissed, wonder what will happen when he has done his time, will he stag on? (That means fit back in his unit and do as he is told, including future deployments?) If you watch the news and look through the lists of Casualties you will see by far the biggest number of casualties is in the infantry, followed by Bomb Disposal, he was and is in the Logistics Corps mostly cooks clerks and drivers. If he goes out of base he goes out in convoys which will be lead and protected by armoured vehicles from infantry units.

I meant youths in general - those that condemn soldiers - but have never had the guts to enlist themselves.

I have nothing but admiration for any soldier, but in particular for those in the infantry and bomb disposal. I find it obscene that infantry soldiers are paid less as they bear the greatest risk and should definitely be paid considerably more.

I don't know about the level of risk that particular soldier was at in comparison to an infantry one - but that is surely subjective. If in his mind he felt at considerable risk, and we don't know what horrors he might have witnessed, the risk is what is perceived!

[Shasown]

Yeah fine, I can understand where you are coming from. However and this is a big however. PTSD is dealt with in many different ways. What makes me suspicious of his claims is that the PTSD part of his defence was entered in mitigation and not as evidence.

Why? Because statements in mitigation are not and cannot be challenged. Whereas if it had been entered as a defence in evidence the prosecuting officer from the Adjutant General's Office could and would have ripped it apart.

It is often used as a fall back to help reduce any sentence. he didnt challenge the legality of the charge either, saying he had no other option but to go AWOL to avoid being involved in a war he believed illegal. there is a conscientious objection defence to some serious charges in the forces, But you have to express your concerns at the time and during subsequent interviews etc.

His solicitor is well versed in Service Law, as some civilian solicitors are. He would have advised his client the best defence agaisnt the charges if any and the best mitigation options available.

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yeah fine, I can understand where you are coming from. However and this is a big however. PTSD is dealt with in many different ways. What makes me suspicious of his claims is that the PTSD part of his defence was entered in mitigation and not as evidence.

Why? Because statements in mitigation are not and cannot be challenged. Whereas if it had been entered as a defence in evidence the prosecuting officer from the Adjutant General's Office could and would have ripped it apart.

It is often used as a fall back to help reduce any sentence. he didnt challenge the legality of the charge either, saying he had no other option but to go AWOL to avoid being involved in a war he believed illegal. there is a conscientious objection defence to some serious charges in the forces, But you have to express your concerns at the time and during subsequent interviews etc.

His solicitor is well versed in Service Law, as some civilian solicitors are. He would have advised his client the best defence agaisnt the charges if any and the best mitigation options available.

I do understand all the points you are making - and you may be right - but I don't think that, from what I have read, the evidence is cut and dried. Too many loose ends for my liking - and, to be honest, I am a little suspicious of the army and its motives.

I also feel that, even in the worst case scenario, and he was simply scared to return - is that such a crime? Men are often too embarrased to admit to being scared - and his head was probably a total mess. He is young, some deal with those sort of situations better than others. I don't think he deserved to go to prison - he should of just been dismissed. That would have been embarrasing enough, surely!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

I do understand all the points you are making - and you may be right - but I don't think that, from what I have read, the evidence is cut and dried. Too many loose ends for my liking - and, to be honest, I am a little suspicious of the army and its motives.

I also feel that, even in the worst case scenario, and he was simply scared to return - is that such a crime? Men are often too embarrased to admit to being scared - and his head was probably a total mess. He is young, some deal with those sort of situations better than others. I don't think he deserved to go to prison - he should of just been dismissed. That would have been embarrasing enough, surely!

Technically he didnt go to prison he was sent for corrective military training. However if he had of been simply dismissed, that would completely undermine military disciple, anyone who didnt agree with the orders they receive would simply do a runner like he did then come back and get an administrative discharge.

Yeah, that would do the armed services the power of good. And the police and the fire service, anywhere where you have to follow sometimes unsavoury orders which you may not agree with, or where you have to be seen to be beyond reproach.

The knock on effect is, it would undermine all employment contract law within the UK. because the worker does not have to comply with the terms of his contract, whereas the employer does?

[Shasown]

Ok now what if I told you he was originally charged with desertion and wanted to use the legality of the war as his defence.

No mention of PTSD, in his defence then at the time. Simply the legality of the war.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Ok now what if I told you he was originally charged with desertion and wanted to use the legality of the war as his defence.

No mention of PTSD, in his defence then at the time. Simply the legality of the war.

The reason I've went off on one at Banana though is because his ignorance when it comes to PTSD.

When it comes down to it whether he had it or not doesn't matter, he shouldn't have gone to prison over it, they should have just sacked him.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The reason I've went off on one at Banana though is because his ignorance when it comes to PTSD.

When it comes down to it whether he had it or not doesn't matter, he shouldn't have gone to prison over it, they should have just sacked him.

Again that would look to be seen to be playing into some peoples hands and lead to a break down in service discipline. People who wanted to get out would not go through the normal procedures simply "pulling a flanker".

Funnily enough if someone really wants to get out and they are given a distant release date they arent happy with, if they go get a solicitor to write to their commanding officer quoting rulings within European Law and contract limitations they normally find themselves out within the prescribed 28 days. The MOD dont want to have to challenge that ruling in court. It would be very expensive for them.

But he was actually charged initially with desertion,last year, which is a far more serious offence and if the MOD had really pushed it could have sentenced him far in excess of 2 years. Its actually life imprisonment, a reduction in the maximum sentence was voted on in parliament in 2006 and it wasnt reduced to 2 years. Though about 2 years is what he probably would have got.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/au...deserter-court

Which brings me back nicely to a point I raised earlier, which is: did the MOD reduce the charge to avoid having a ruling on the legality of the war in either the House of Lords or the European Court of Justice?

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Again that would look to be seen to be playing into some peoples hands and lead to a break down in service discipline. People who wanted to get out would not go through the normal procedures simply "pulling a flanker".

Funnily enough if someone really wants to get out and they are given a distant release date they arent happy with, if they go get a solicitor to write to their commanding officer quoting rulings within European Law and contract limitations they normally find themselves out within the prescribed 28 days. The MOD dont want to have to challenge that ruling in court. It would be very expensive for them.

But he was actually charged initially with desertion,last year, which is a far more serious offence and if the MOD had really pushed it could have sentenced him far in excess of 2 years. Its actually life imprisonment, a reduction in the maximum sentence was voted on in parliament in 2006 and it wasnt reduced to 2 years. Though about 2 years is what he probably would have got.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/au...deserter-court

Which brings me back nicely to a point I raised earlier, which is: did the MOD reduce the charge to avoid having a ruling on the legality of the war in either the House of Lords or the European Court of Justice?

Life imprisonment - that is disgusting. How old is that law I wonder - probably from the days when they didn't know or care about such things as PTSD and shot traumatised soldiers for cowardice. Thankfully we have moved on since then!

Although I see your point about discipline - there has to be another way of dealing with it! Fear can do funny things to people - even if not actually PTSD (and none of us know the ins and outs of that in his case) it can affect a person's mental faculties - and someone should not be villified for it.

Often naive, young boys/men join the army to 'see the world' not fully appreciating what is involved - then when they experience the horrors of war - they are expected to 'be men' and act in a certain way - and if they don't - string em up and make em pay - and let that be a lesson to any other 'cowards' of the future. What primitive/backwards bull****e!

Surely those in the army and fighting whatever cause - should be doing so through choice - not through force! They should be there because they choose to be - whether that be for ethical reasons or because of financial inducements, which should be more than they currently receive. They get trapped in by having to sign long contracts at a very young age - that can be very difficult to get out of - and although I accept your previous point about needing to train someone to replace them - the army/government should have some sort of back-up system to cover this.

The information you give regarding a solicitor is interesting though. I don't know about 28 days - all I know is it took a family member of mine nearly a year to get out - and in the meantime he was posted to Afghanistan! I always remember the case, and I am sure there have been many others, of a young soldier who was killed on his last day in Iraq before returning home and leaving the forces for good. If he had stated his intention to leave - he should not have been forced to go to Iraq against his will - I believe that is immoral.

I believe that only in a war situation in which we are directly involved and directly defending our own and our way of life - should soldiers be obliged to risk their lives (and that should include conscription of the masses) not just those already signed up. We all have a duty to defend our country in that situation.

[Shasown]

Well dealing with disciplinary offences could be done in many different ways, however the current method is proven to work both in the case of a deterrent to all and also in the rehabilitation of those who wish to stay in the forces.

As I said before there are plenty of ways to get out legitimately if you find that the armed forces arent for you. However why should the taxpayer pay for you to be trained in a trade, then to leave before the armed forces have recouped the money invested in training you?

There may be other ways of dealing with deserters, because lets face it, thats what he is. You can dress it up any way you like and give excuses. But he skipped, someone else had to do his job. He broke his contract. He more than likely wasnt suffering from PTSD, that excuse only came out as mitigation, it wasnt entered in evidence. In fact it wasnt even mentioned until the army reduced the charge against him, when that happened he changed his Defence team and they changed his defence.


Yes people do suffer from PTSD and should be looked after properly. They arent now strung up, the last thing the forces need is to arm someone who is going to crack and then possibly injure or kill those around him.

As I said earlier the Government decided to send in troops to an Out of Area Operation for reasons it decided were legitimate. Troops follow orders. They go where they are told. Thats the nature of the beast. He can hold his own opinion of the reasons for being there, thats fine. However as a member of the Armed Forces he has to follow orders. Otherwise they may as well disband the forces tomorrow.

One of the problems of living in a democracy eh? The government is elected by the people, they make decisions, laws and rulings on behalf of the people and we abide by them. We dont just pick and choose which ones we will decide to follow.