| red_rebel2 Posted on 17/8 10:12 | |
| Would you still shoot deserters? | |
In light of the decision to pardon several hundred teenagers shoot for cowardice and desertion after suffering shellshock in the trenches, what action should be taken against the hundreds of soldiers now going AWOL rather than fight in Iraq? "Figures released by the ministry of defence this week show that the number of soldiers deserting the army has more than doubled since the start of the Iraq war. "The figures show that 2,030 soldiers went missing from their units between 2003 and 2005 and were later dismissed by the service—740 are still on the run but have not yet been dismissed. "The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is descending into chaos. British troops are facing up to the reality of "bringing democracy" to the region — and many are choosing to walk away. "Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was killed in Iraq said: “Half of these boys are little more than kids. They’ve not got the right equipment. They see their friends killed. It’s affected a lot of them mentally. That’s why they’re not going back. "Every day I get more and more of these boys calling me. They don’t believe that this war is right. They don’t believe that they are helping. And they don’t want to go back." "Despite having announced a 'victory' in Iraq over two years ago, the resistance to the occupation continues as the country slides to the brink of civil war. "In Afghanistan, where troops are described as 'peacekeepers', they are under attack on an almost daily basis and reports have described the conflict as the worst faced by British troops since the Korean war. " | |
| norfolkred1 Posted on 17/8 10:15 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Defend YOUR borders, not anybody elses comes to mind. | |
| jeff_potato Posted on 17/8 10:21 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Sue them for breach of contract. It is a professional soldier's army, after all. | |
| MsCurly Posted on 17/8 10:22 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
I'm not sure all the training in the world can prepare a man or woman for some of the horrors they will see or experience in the throes of war. It's ridiculous concept to hand out a blanket punishment for desertion (no matter what that punishment is) when the psyche of each individual person has been the cause of their actions. I have heard that there are more people on the sick due to stress related conditions in the teaching industry than in any other, imagine if we just went out and shot them all! 
| |
| Lucky_Alf Posted on 17/8 10:22 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Defend your borders? Should we have waited a couple more years to join in WW2? | |
| norfolkred1 Posted on 17/8 10:23 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
But is the freedom of the Wold in jepordy at this present time? | |
| MsCurly Posted on 17/8 10:24 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
On reflection, I see that I haven't actually answered the question, sorry reb. I think any punishment or pardon would have to be borne out of a thorough personal assessment. Eek......that's even more money from the taxpayer then. What do I know? I'm more likely to give them a box of kleenex, a nice cup of tea, and a dollop of sympathy. --- Post edited by MsCurly on 17/8 10:25 --- | |
| ccole Posted on 17/8 10:28 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
We don’t know exactly how many were suffering from shell shock, and how many just thought “I dont fancy this, I want to go home now”, or do we? Soldiers who refuse to go to Iraq? I think it would be a good idea to let them leave the Army, but they have to pay back all the wages earned and should be liable to pay some money back to cover the cost of training. Or did they sign up to be soldiers on the understanding that if it got a little nasty, they could kop out and head back to Civy Street? Let me ask a question, if your in charge on the battlefield, with 200 soldiers, and 10 come up to say “we’ve had enough, we want to go home now, those bullets are getting close”, what action could you take to ensure that you don’t lose your ground, jeopardising many more men in other area’s, whilst motivating the other men under your command to stand there ground and fight as there were trained for, and as part of a much bigger strategy, thus saving many, 1000’s of lives? --- Post edited by ccole on 17/8 10:36 --- | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 17/8 10:37 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
But is it just about cowardice? Is there a moral/principle dimesion? For years soldiers knew they would have to go to the six counties and face public disorder and IRA attacks but very few deserted. The figures are negligible. Is that because they believed what they were doing was neccessary and in the national interest? Can the current desertions be viewed in that context? Earliet this year an RAF officer - probably in no immediate danger - was court martialled for refusing to go to Iraq and defended himself saying the war was illegal. If you desert for moral reasons does it change things? | |
| KENDAL Posted on 17/8 10:38 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
As a retired serviceman I would say if you take the Queens Oath then you can't pick and choose. | |
| moxzin Posted on 17/8 10:39 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Well red_rebel, of course you'd be aware with Leon Trotsky's belief that a soldier be made to believe that he should face possible death in battle, but certain death if he refuses to go - so I presume Trotskyists everywhere would be saying that the Iraq deserters should be shot. I believe that the ones who are deserting in Iraq should, as someone else said, be sued for the costs of training and some of the wages. At the end of the day we are an all volunteer army and you don't sign up unless you're mentally prepared that you're going to have a brush with death once in a while. The Army is one of the those jobs - where you can't strike, you can't refuse orders (generally), you can't make an informed geopolitical stance, and occasionally *gasp* you may have to do something you don't want to do - where perhaps you have to just get on with, save dissent and reservations for later. Leave the force as soon as you can after your duty, explain why, become a peacenik. But desertion isn't an option. And if all this sounds a little unappealing - joining the army is no small thing and all of this would have been known beforehand. | |
| rustyangel Posted on 17/8 10:40 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Fighting during the World War when everybody had to do it regardless is different from the volunteer armed forces of today. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt I think pardons are a correct course. In the present climate why let anyone shy away from their duties. It doesn't matter if the war is illegal or not the forces go whereever they are told to go. People going AWOL before an active service posting should be dealt with heavily. Keep them in the army after their sentence and I'm sure their army pals will ensure they get treated in a "Reasonable" way. Letting their mates down is a crime. | |
| green_beret20 Posted on 17/8 10:43 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Fancy giving your left wing views on the war a rest. What are those figures from, is that the whole army everywhere? What about those who go AWOL during the recruitment stage for example. My distant cousin did the exact same thing only last year and that wasn't about the thoughts of Iraq. It was the fact he realised too late the army life simply wasn't for him. Higher desertion rates during times of conflict is nothing new to the British Army or any army? Maybe if the left wingers stopped bleating on about how much money is spent on our military budget every year then maybe they’d have the proper equipment to use. Saying that the worst time to join the army must be during times of relevant peace as the budget is always cut. | |
| jeff_potato Posted on 17/8 10:43 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Well surely you'd realise when signing up, the likelihood of seeing frontline action. e.g. infantry as opposed to base administration. | |
| norfolkred1 Posted on 17/8 10:45 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
We can turn this around: Q. If you were called up would you go | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 17/8 10:47 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
No I wouldn't. Would you want me shot? | |
| norfolkred1 Posted on 17/8 10:48 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Not to fight for YOUR contry? | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 17/8 10:49 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
It's not my country. It belongs to rich people. | |
| norfolkred1 Posted on 17/8 10:50 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
If the rich people paid you enough, not that you would be able to spend it, in a trench | |
| XXLshirts_fit_all Posted on 17/8 10:54 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
i would be interested in knowing where those figures came from, i saw some on the intranet wher i am working (MOD sector) that sugest other wise. also may be the attitude of our liberal/eftist legal system makes soliders afraid that they can be held acountable for killing non-combatants in a gun fight with insurgents who use them as human shields, may be they feel like they are unsupported by those back home, is that why they think its not worth fighting out there? | |
| moxzin Posted on 17/8 10:57 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
I'll deliver your white feather personally red_rebel 
| |
| PumpingGnome Posted on 17/8 10:57 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
The war crimes trials at the end of WWII established the principle that "I was obeying orders" wasn't a valid defence when it came to war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and genocide. If the war in Iraq is illegal, and many people would appear to have that opinion, then what are the troops supposed to do? They would appear to be answerable in an international court of law for their actions, wouldn't they? Not that it will happen, of course. | |
| red_rebel2 Posted on 17/8 11:00 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Possibly. I think it a complex situation. I think as many people desert because of family/girlfriend pressure as through fear or political conviction. The figures came from the Guardian and were on the BBC too. Obviously it is easy to take a pop at me or the source but I just thought it was interesting in light of the posthumous pardon for WW1 deserters. Do any of th ehardliners on here oppose the pardon and still think it was right to shoot the 'cowards' in WW1? --- Post edited by red_rebel2 on 17/8 11:02 --- | |
| George1507 Posted on 17/8 11:04 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
I don't think it's right to pardon the deserters from WWI. I know some of them were unjustly executed but it's now impossible to review all cases because witnesses are dead, evidence has been lost or destroyed. Issuing a blanket pardon is wrong, because some genuine deserters were rightly dealt with. Issuing pardons to people rightly executed devalues the contribution ofthose who fought, and in some cases died, in the face of the enemy. Also, anyone who knew any of these men must be around 96 now, and pardoning the soldiers is not going to bring them back. In a war of national survival, which WWI was, then we require soldiers to stand at their post and not run away. When we are keeping the peace in Afghanistan or Iraq, I think the rules are different. I sympathise with people who do desert, but they should not be shot. If the UK was invaded by some foreign force next year (yes I know it's unlikely), and were fighting on the beaches and in the towns - then yes, we must shoot deserters. | |
| borobadge Posted on 17/8 11:07 | |
| re: Would you still shoot.... | |
as you may or may not know, i'm against wars..all wars...its jaw jaw and political settlements that are required and needed... and i particularly dont like the way its always the "working and non working class" that have to staff them as cannon, rifle and land mine fodder. during the late 1970's there was a certain amount of pressure put upon me to "join up"..after all i was a "fit young man without a job"...i resisted knowing that it wasnt for me, many of my mates and collegues from my neighbourhood (grove hill) went off and joined up into the various services..... when they came home on leave i celebrated (thier survival) with them and listened to their stories of life in Germany shagging the fraulines, how they always dissed the americans for having no backbone or for giving up in war practice games, treks through the north in ireland beating the schitt out of republicans and naionalists for fun, and training camp days in the south of england or in cyprus etc etc... to them lads the word desertion didnt exist. those men from the somme were in a whole different ball game and we, society and the authorities had no understanding of the effects of war, particularly trench warfare, eyeball to eyeball and going over the top with baynets fixed ready for individual hand to hand fighting....we are now aware that they were not "cowards" or "deserters" but mentally and psycologically scarred and tortured..... todays soldier can also be mentally scarred and stressed through seeing combat, but again its different for the modern career soldier, as there are process' and systems in place to deal with those matters... so i have to come to the conclusion that if you join up in this day and age, then you soldier as and when required, you cant go and make a political judgement (that should have been done before you signe the dotted line) or decide to opt out when the going gets rough, tough or murderous....... my view as detailed, probably isnt too consistent, but thats because i'm ONLY HUMAN. --- Post edited by borobadge on 17/8 11:17 --- | |
| XXLshirts_fit_all Posted on 17/8 11:10 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
i have no objections to the pardons if it is a soldier who was suffering from shell shock then it goes some way to helping his family come to turns with it if they pardon a soldier who was clearly yellow bellied then it doesnt matter, hes still dead. it was a long time ago so it is really only going as far as helping clear the concience of the government, as much as appologising for the slave trade does! | |
| TeeSv Posted on 17/8 11:13 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Do I think desersters should be shot in this day and age ? - no | |
| jeff_potato Posted on 17/8 11:15 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
PumpingGnome - psychology experiments since World War Two have, however, stated that people do tend to act under orders, no matter how perverse the orders may be. | |
| rozi Posted on 17/8 11:19 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Sorry George, if it was your father who suffered shell shock and was executed for cowardice (as at least one has a daughter fighting for his pardon) would you feel the same way? | |
| zaphod Posted on 17/8 11:23 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Fighting for national survival and fighting a debatable war in Iraq are 2 different circumstances. The sanctions against deserters have to be different. I think part of the problem is that recruits don't always know what they're getting into. All this stuff about learning a trade etc. is bound to make a lot of young people ignore the fact that you may have to fight and risk getting killed. Until the invasion of Iraq, fighting anybody didn't seem likely. The Northern Ireland stuation was always in the newspapers, so potential recruits knew it was a possible posting. | |
| joseph99 Posted on 17/8 11:30 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
If soldiers desert is it not down to inadequate training from our armed forces? Surely, it is about physical and mental training. | |
| Archie_Stanton1 Posted on 17/8 11:31 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Red_Rebel There are a number of major inacuracies in your original post (I suspect these were deliberate on your part, in an attempt put your usual spin on events, but i`ll point them out anyway). You say several hundred Teenagers were executed. This is incorrect. The average age of men executed was late 20`s. Only a tiny proportion were in their teens. Of the 300 executed, only a tiny proportion were for cowardice/desertion. The vast majority were for criminal activities, including theft, r ape and even murder. I think it`s a tribute to our forefathers that of the millions who served, only a number in double figures were convicted of cowardice. I feel it`s a slur on the millions of men who were terrified but who DIDN`T run away, that the names of the cowards and criminals can now be added to war memorials. By the governments own admission yesterday, there is not enough evidence to review individual cases, hence the blanket pardon. This therefore overrules the court martials of the time who DID have the evidence to hand, and were fully appraised of the conditions and situation of the offence - how arrogant is that? But then i`m not surprised. If this goverment can cling to power for another few years i fully expect there to be moves afoot to pardon all criminals who were hanged prior to abolition, on the grounds that it was a breach of their human rights. And no, i`m not being sarcastic, i can genuinely see it happening. | |
| Archie_Stanton1 Posted on 17/8 11:35 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
"The figures came from the Guardian" LOL...enough said | |
| Lefty3668 Posted on 17/8 12:00 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Difficult one this. Malcolm Kendall-Smith was the RAF officer who refused to go back to Iraq. I argued at the time of his protest that he was right to do so as the order to invade Iraq was an illegal one, which it certainly was. Therefore all further orders pursuant to that could also rightfully be refused. Had Malcolm Kendall-Smith refused the initial order or his 2nd tour of duty he would have been correct and probably been acquitted at Court Marshal. Unfortunately, he did not have sufficient information to make this decision. The leaks and independent opinion didn't come out until too late and it wasn't until he was in trouble in the 2005 election campaign that Blair bowed to pressure and released the full legal advice from the Attorney General. By the time it came to his 3rd tour, which Kendall-Smith refused, the UN had drawn a line under the initial invasion, saying what's done was done so lets move forward and sort out the aftermath and passed a resolution authorising the US and UK forces to remain. Therefore he has probably refused a legitimate order to deploy. I think the same applies to the deserters. I have sympathy with them, but I think they should face Courts Martial. At this I would expect that mitigating circumstances such as lack of equipment, shell shock etc. would be used by the defence. I listened to a Battalion Commander on the radio a few weeks ago talking about the situation in Iraq. He said that the battalion had fired 90,000 small arms rounds since the occupation. His troops carried out 8-9 patrols a day and during each one they were expected to be shot at. The highest number of contacts by one soldier was 260 during which he was wounded twice. The contacts tend to be vicious when they occur. Tactics, evolved by bright soldiers and officers on the ground, were used in absence of any actual strategy laid down for the peace. Given this and the lack of correct equipment, is it any wonder that there are desertions? However I think that the fact that the soldiers are now aware that they were duped into an illegal and morally dubious war, that we are allied to an army that generally shows little regard or respect for the Iraqi’s or the Geneva Convention and that they see no solution saps away at the resolve of the soldiers to carry on. Get Blair in the dock. | |
| RedWurzel Posted on 17/8 12:34 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
If they were shot what would that do for recruitment? I imagine stop it in its tracks. Try some counselling etc and if it makes no difference than throw them out if they refuse the fight and take any pension rights etc away - you join the Army to kill its your job, not a nice one. I thought it was wrong to shoot conscripts in WW1, the Army learnt its lesson in WW2 where they were more successful without killing our own troops, but they were too macho too say they were wrong in WW1. They even shot some deserters after the war had finished - to teach them. I don't know what we are doing in Afganistan, have MPs voted on it and its time to say to the Iraqis they are on their own. Our troops seem not to be improving situation there as they are now seen as a foreign invader by many. I notice Tony Blair's sons are NOT out there. --- Post edited by RedWurzel on 17/8 12:42 --- | |
| RedWurzel Posted on 17/8 12:46 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
We killed alot of civilians in WW2 much more than we needed to. I thing we felt that Gerry needed to be taught a lesson he wouldn't forget. War is HELL. | |
| ccole Posted on 17/8 12:54 | |
| re: Would you still shoot deserters? | |
Nice post Mr Stanton, its always good to have some well balanced facts in a thread, instead of blind stats from people who like to carry out a very one sided discussion | |
