Soldiers' families suing the UK government? Wow!

Unknown Soldier · 06-24-2013, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

Not really. There are a few dominate political ideas in Britain;

(1) A general belief in equality which extends beyond political boundaries (e.g., an immigrant is just as British as ______ )

This is not strictly true. Most immigrants here are free to maintain their own culture, identity and language and it's up to them as to how far they immerse themselves into British culture. They are seen as British subjects and treated as such and given the same benefits as those born here. It's largely upto the immigrant whether they see themselves as British or not and not the politicians really.

Quote:

(2) A strong feeling that the government can and should intervene to prevent excessive inequality (whatever that is)

The UK is a welfare state and welfare states are like so. I see no reason why the UK should ever adopt a strict 'laissez-faire' belief in such matters.

Quote:

(3) A general feeling that the plight of the poor is largely the fault of the rich, not the poor themselves

This is only a Socialist viewpoint and not held by the majority here.

Quote:

Is it really very difficult to see how this manifests itself in an interventionist foreign policy?

Now you're agreeing with Urban's 'little man mentality in Whitehall' because it's the politicians in Whitehall that decide on these interventionist policies and those that follow these viewpoints. The average Brit doesn't really care what goes on on the other side of the world, but does care about its military once there.

Quote:

If the general dialogue in Britain is one that the Government is both obligated to and capable of bringing about greater equality, that the political divisions which separate people are (or should be) meaningless, and that the Top 1% is responsible for the problems of the Bottom 50%, then how can you not have lapses into neo-liberal "humanitarian interventions"?

You've made this final paragraph far more complicated than it should be, but as I've stated the general belief apart from the politicians and old school traditionalists, is one that the average Brit has no real interest in most external affairs and only really has an interest in greater equality at home.

The humanitarian interventions that you speak of, are really the sphere of the UN, but I'll admit that is a difficult subject to nail down.

Quote:

edit: seriously, I'd love to hear how you can square the above with a position that's against, say, nation building in Aghanistan?

I for one, see most of these countries as far from democracy and nation building (as we see it here in the west) about as far as you can get. I see no point in promoting the concept of democracy for example in Afghanistan etc in states that have no real idea of the concept in the first place.

Newkie · 06-24-2013, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

And it certainly doesn't need to fork out £100bn on Trident.

Truer words...I get tired of the conservative traditionalist v hippy pussio arguments on Trident. It's all down to a British Government never having the balls to kick the habit. Too obsessed with clinging on to some sense of former glory and maintaining that seat on the security council. Balls to it all, cut trident and use the money to import hotties from the continent using Ali G's immigration policy and we'll all be happy scandinavians, just like we were meant to be. Bloody Alfred the Great.

The Batlord · 06-25-2013, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newkie

Truer words...I get tired of the conservative traditionalist v hippy pussio arguments on Trident. It's all down to a British Government never having the balls to kick the habit. Too obsessed with clinging on to some sense of former glory and maintaining that seat on the security council. Balls to it all, cut trident and use the money to import hotties from the continent using Ali G's immigration policy and we'll all be happy scandinavians, just like we were meant to be. Bloody Alfred the Great.

If the mods want to split this question into another thread then feel free, but I'm far too lazy.

What exactly is the point of the Security Council anyway, besides giving the major powers unfair control of the UN? And why should France, among others, be on it? Since when has France been anything but a middling power after WWII?

Unknown Soldier · 06-25-2013, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

If the mods want to split this question into another thread then feel free, but I'm far too lazy.

What exactly is the point of the Security Council anyway, besides giving the major powers unfair control of the UN? And why should France, among others, be on it? Since when has France been anything but a middling power after WWII?

They were largely a waste of space in WWII as well, caved in when the krauts went around the Maginot Line. Then they formed Vichy France in the south thinking the Nazis were going to win and got that wrong as well.

The Batlord · 06-25-2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

They were largely a waste of space in WWII as well, caved in when the krauts went around the Maginot Line. Then they formed Vichy France in the south thinking the Nazis were going to win and got that wrong as well.

I guess everyone just felt too bad to tell the French, "Hey, France, go kick rocks. The rest of us powerful countries need to discuss things."

FETCHER. · 06-25-2013, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circe

Something like this isn't that easy to quantify though. Sure, our soldiers basically sign their lives away when they join up but at the same time they expect the military to provide them with the resources and dedication required to ensure the maximum possiblity of their survival in warzones. If negligence from higher command, insufficient supplies or low quality equipment cause a soldier's death then I'm fully behind his family being able to demand compensation for it.

I completely agree. I've also heard they're sending jeeps out that aren't armoured as heavily as they say they are. Which is completely wrong. I also do not know if this is fact or not but I wouldn't be surprised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

But mistakes happen in war. That's just reality. If commanders are caught up wityh worrying about getting the army sued, then they will basically be hamstrung and who knows how many soldiers might die while they're paralyzed by indecision over questions of liability? Within reason of course, but in general, if you signed your life away to the military, making a caveat that this only applies so long as it can't be proved in a court of law that your death was caused by garden variety bungling is unreasonable.

If this doesn't appeal to you, then don't join the military and don't go around saying that, "Someone needs to do something" everytime something terrible happens in the world (i.e. Syria, Lybia, Mali, etc). Not that that applies to you, but it's just a pet peeve of mine.

It's all good and well saying that they knew the risks when they were signing up but unfortunately it is not as simple as that. I dont know what its like where you stay but quite a large amount of people here sign up to the army because they have no other options and have a family to support and with such little job opportunities the army is an excellent wage at the end of every month.

Hell I've even considered joining up because I've been so broke.

Unknown Soldier · 06-25-2013, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I guess everyone just felt too bad to tell the French, "Hey, France, go kick rocks. The rest of us powerful countries need to discuss things."

Well the European Axis powers were really only defeated thanks to the US and the Soviet Union, with the UK just hanging in there to help out.

To be fair though, before the conflict they were the biggest army in Western Europe and had done themselves proud in WWI, but they were caught totally unawares when they were struck by the German 'Blitzkrieg'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FETCHER.

I dont know what its like where you stay but quite a large amount of people here sign up to the army because they have no other options and have a family to support and with such little job opportunities the army is an excellent wage at the end of every month.

Hell I've even considered joining up because I've been so broke.

Joining the army is a great, as long as you have the option not to get into any nasty conflicts.

The Batlord · 06-25-2013, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FETCHER.

I completely agree. I've also heard they're sending jeeps out that aren't armoured as heavily as they say they are. Which is completely wrong. I also do not know if this is fact or not but I wouldn't be surprised.

It's a jeep. It's not supposed to be an armored vehicle. It's designed to transport people from place to place quickly, something that would be undermined by extra armor. The idea that a jeep should be some kind of fortress is an idea that has been planted in people's minds by the same fear-mongering media that has inflamed Islamaphobia.

Quote:

It's all good and well saying that they knew the risks when they were signing up but unfortunately it is not as simple as that. I dont know what its like where you stay but quite a large amount of people here sign up to the army because they have no other options and have a family to support and with such little job opportunities the army is an excellent wage at the end of every month.

Hell I've even considered joining up because I've been so broke.

It's the military. If you don't want to die in some ****hole, then don't join the military. I know that plenty of people do it for money reasons, but the military doesn't exist to subsidize your education. It exists to kill people. If you take the money and then complain about the risks, then it's sort of a case of too-damn-bad.

Circe · 06-25-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

What exactly is the point of the Security Council anyway, besides giving the major powers unfair control of the UN? And why should France, among others, be on it? Since when has France been anything but a middling power after WWII?

Even by the end of World War 2 us Brits and the French were still convinced that we had a place on the world power stage. The point where everyone finally opened our eyes and realised that we were America's bitches for life is generally accepted to be the Suez Crisis and by then we'd already secured places on the Security Council and built up our nuclear programmes for good. Although even by modern standards I'm not sure if the Security Council would change its format that much. If you're going by standards of how badly a country could mess up another country the UK and France would probably still deserve spots on it.

Trollheart · 06-25-2013, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

It's the military. If you don't want to die in some ****hole, then don't join the military. I know that plenty of people do it for money reasons, but the military doesn't exist to subsidize your education. It exists to kill people. If you take the money and then complain about the risks, then it's sort of a case of too-damn-bad.

This. I agree that too many people seem to think the military is an easy/the only option to get out of whatver ****hole they're in, but if you do that then you have to realise that the possibility of dying or at best being badly wounded, either physically or emotionally, is something that comes with the turf. It's sort of like saying I want to do this for the benefits but I don't accept the consequences. You can't have it both ways.