Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 68014	2006-04-14 03:37:00	UK RAF Doctor.	Poppa John (284)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
446227	2006-04-14 21:28:00	What happened to those soldiers who said "We were just following orders"? A lot of them were. They got executed for war crimes. Can't have it both ways. And it might be unrealistic but it would be more intelligent if we all stopped behaving like chimpanzee packs and acted like we claim to be - smart.	pctek (84)
446228	2006-04-14 21:32:00	If enough German soldiers had stood up and said NO. There wouldn't have been the Gas Chambers etc. Unfortunately, any number of German soldiers who would have said NO would simply have been incarcerated, killed, or otherwise eliminated. Sue, the Nazi regime was horribly brutal. MANY if not MOST of the German officers knew Hitler was a lunatic and some tried to kill him. The Nazis were madmen, but not so with most of the (non-Nazi, non-SS) German officers. However, in an incredibly ironic and horrific way, it was due to Hitler that the Germans lost the war. Without Hitler, I doubt if Russia would have been attacked, or England. If Russia and Britain/the Allies would have stayed out of the war, DMarks would probably be in circulation now instead of Euros.	Strommer (42)
446229	2006-04-14 21:44:00	The rest of the world knew the links were tenuous at best, Not so. Most governments, the UN, even China, thought there were WMD in Iraq. It wasn't just the American intelligence agencies that made the mistake, European agencies as well. We seem to forget how clever Sadam was in fooling the world, and the many times he disregarded UN resolutions (for WMD inspections, etc.). With an idiot like GWBush in power it is so easy to slam the Yanks in general and especially American soldiers. The overwhelming firepower/bombing of Iraq has not "won the hearts and minds", but contrary to comments above, there are plenty of American soldiers who know better and who try their best to deal with Iraqis in sensitive ways. Don't believe this? Then go read their blogs and listen to the numerous interviews.	Strommer (42)
446230	2006-04-14 23:43:00	I go along with pctek and sue. "Realsim" is the refuge of those who have given up any responsiblity for their place in the world.	mark c (247)
446231	2006-04-15 00:24:00	Who is to judge whether one persons conscience is right or wrong? Who has a monopoly on right and wrong? Hitler certainly followed his conscience and emphatically thought he was always right. The bulk of the German people welcomed the firm rule of Hitler after the chaos following the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar Republic. The bulk of the army, at least when things were going well for them, thought Hitler was doing a good job and restoring German pride in themselves after being stabbed in the back in WWl The bulk of the people aquiesced in the treatment of the Jews, and believed the propaganda that many of their problems were caused by the Jews. (A lot of people in England thought so too in a less violent way) The bulk of the Austrians welcomed the Anschluss. I like the German people and have always got on well during my business stays there. I dont fully agree with Steve. He has forgotten Scott Ritter, ex weapons inspector, who adamantly maintained there were none, the debunking of the so-called intelligence reports that had been based on a university students thesis, the hesitancy of Hans Blix over WMD. It was only GWB and his side kick Blair, with coat tailer Howard who kept relentlessly pushing the WMD line, on the basis that if something is repeated often enough then the mass of people will become to believe it. I would say few governments were fully taken in by Bush's lies, but trade and relations with the US took precedence.	Terry Porritt (14)
446232	2006-04-15 00:30:00	Forgive me if I ignore the political aspects of this post. I just can't believe that any 38 year old educated person with some years' experience in the British services could be so naive as to think that he could argue/stare down a Court Martial board. Based on a long-ago term in the British regular army and having attended a couple of Court Martial trials - fortunately not as the defendant - I can only say that for sheer pomp, arrogance and display of the power of the "Empire Building" class, the senior officers who would make up such a board would be difficult to match anywhere. They used to be virtually untouchable. Talk about sticking his head in a lion's mouth - the man is an absolute idiot to take the British military head-on. The SAS trooper's approach touched their officer and gentlemen nerve ends and he came out of it smelling of roses - a classy reference, in fact. I wish the Aussie/Kiwi/Brit doctor all the best for the future but I certainly would not want him in my team.	Scouse (83)
446233	2006-04-15 01:23:00	Yes Good point Scouse. That's what I thought. What is this guy trying to do? He's in the Army. You don't join up and then decide which operation you'll be on or not. That's why I wouldn't ever want to be in the Armed Services.	mark c (247)
446234	2006-04-15 02:57:00	The Nuremberg Tribunals, with Ameriacan and British judges, laid down some principles of international law . Of course this was "victor's justice", and any principles weren't meant to ever be applied to US or British soldiers (or politicians) . The US has made clear its opinion of International Law: it only applies to other nationalities . One of the princilples was that a soldier who commits acts which could be described as war crimes could never claim "acting under orders" as a defence . It was laid down as a duty of any soldier to diosobey any illegal order . It was a blatantly illegal invasion .	Graham L (2)
446235	2006-04-15 03:08:00	If the authorities are going to be so high and mighty about doing things correctly, then they need to take a crash course in understanding their obligations under the Geneva Convention. (http://www.genevaconventions.org/) A quick read of the site I linked reveals a number of breaches by the occupying forces in Iraq. There is no such thing as an 'illegal combatant' (as is commonly quoted by the US for prisoners held in G. Bay) and if a combatant doesn't conform to the GC then they are still entitled to the same rights as combatants (see combatants, prisoner of war, sabotage, terrorism, guerillas). For a list of transgressions (the tip of the iceberg?) by the occupying forces, check out collateral damage, civilian property, prisoners of war, 'quarter, giving no', 'ruses of war', torture, unlawful confinement, indiscriminate attacks - there have been many many breaches of the Convention by the occupying forces during the current Iraq war. As well all know, 'following orders' was not a defence at the Nuremburg Trials so this fellow is quite entitled to his opinion and good on him for making a stand. History will prove him right.	andrew93 (249)
446236	2006-04-15 03:46:00	Without taking sides I would like to remind people that there was one example of a German refusing to obey orders when posted to a concentration camp - I think it was Auschvitz. He saw what was happening and point blank refused to take part. Interesting is the fact that the Germans took no action against him (unlike the case today) and then after the war he was arrested and charged with war crimes. He was investigated, the charges were dropped and he received some sort of commendation for his actions from the allies. Brave man. Tom	Thomas01 (317)
1 2 3 4 5