War...what is it good for?

[M21MFS]

Absolutely nothing - especially if you're fighting for your country and injured in the line of duty. Seems sick the fact that these guys go out and fight in pointless wars, come back home and are given nothing in terms of support, bearing in mind in many cases their lives are ruined by injury. Yet Joe and Jane Bloggs, who chose not to work, have 7 kids and what not, get everything handed to them on a plate.


Politicians :tosser:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8181631.stm

Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell has defended the government's decision to appeal against compensation given to two wounded soldiers.

He told the BBC that accepting the payouts awarded to them would have been "unfair and disadvantaging" to more seriously injured personnel.
Earlier, defence aide and Labour MP Eric Joyce said the appeals were "profoundly wrong" and should be ended.


The MoD has brought forward a review of soldiers' compensation.
Downing Street said on Monday that the Court of Appeal action involving Cpl Anthony Duncan and Royal Marine Matthew McWilliams was "ongoing".

 

[muppet42]

Nice to see the government's got their priorities straight :thumb_down:

 

[v6 Keik]

Absolutely nothing - especially if you're fighting for your country and injured in the line of duty. Seems sick the fact that these guys go out and fight in pointless wars, come back home and are given nothing in terms of support, bearing in mind in many cases their lives are ruined by injury. Yet Joe and Jane Bloggs, who chose not to work, have 7 kids and what not, get everything handed to them on a plate.


Politicians :tosser:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8181631.stm

Absoulutly Nuthing Say It Again
Sorry You Asked For That 1

 

[steve119]

Well......I kind of agree that they should be out there, thats why we have armed forces.

You wouldn't and shouldnt have to be in fear of being blown up in your country but every day there is that risk. We need the afgans etc, to be shown that we're not gonna have tossers ram raiding our airports etc.

Its their fault we have smeato(Nice guy i'm sure, but way to milk it like)!

The iraq war, well, we've done the job, time to move out. Saddam(or spelt backwards Maddas, hope you guys got that bad joke) was an evil **** who freely gassed his own people so he needed the push!

But the soldiers that are injured should get the compensation they deserve, as they are all heros!

Rant over!

 

[Eklipze3k]

If I get verbally abused at my work I don't claim for compensation because it an accepted possibility that it could (and does) happen. I'm sorry but they joined the armed forces of their own free will so wtf did they expect, go shoot Johnny Foreigner and come back clean? Newsflash - Johnny Foreigner will shoot back!

 

[Johno933]

Just thought i would add my opinion to this, As i have been in the Army and have severed in Iraq and kosovo, i can honestly say the guys that go across, know exactly what they could be getting them selves into.....as said by Ekiplze "they joined the armend forces of their own free will", they should not be entitled to compensation over and above what is already set in place by the goverment.....in addition all squaddies who are going to deploy to operational eviroments are given to option to take out extra insurance policys to add to the already genourous goverment system.......The goverment is correct not to award this extra compensation as it will just open the flood gates for loads more people to jump on the bandwagon and put extra strain on an cash strapped Army.......

 

[imported_Mark]

I really do have nothing but respect for the guys and girls who voluntarily sign up to defend this great nation. They sign up despite the associated risks and for this I am sure we are all greatful that we have such a strong force to provide protection.

However I do not feel that British troops should be in Iraq. Our army's main concern should be the welfare of the British public and our security - last time I checked we were not the "International Police" and we do not have the responsibility for defending the people of other nations. Although Saddam may have had a strict regime in place should Britain really be footing the bill (both financially and through the loss of life) to "liberate" the people of Iraq? Saddam ran his country in a manner appropriate to the historical past of the region, there are dictators elsewhere in the world who commit far worse crimes to those carried out by Saddam however the International Police doesn't appear to have such a strong interest in Zimbabwe, Somalia, North Korea or even Iran - all of which are as bad as Iraq was/is.

Britain has lost almost 180 troops in Iraq since the war began, this is 180 too many for a war in which Britain has absolutely no interests. Britain has enough problems of our own to face on British soil, we should be tackling domestic issues before dispersing troops and finances into other regions.

I would however like to state that although I may not condone our presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan I do however give my full support to those British troops who are fighting under our name and flag. I do not however give my support to the politicians who fabricated the conditions in which they felt Britain's involvement in Iraq was justifiable.

It is my opinion that the British army should function for the following reasons only:

To defend our homeland and our independence

Rant Over.

 

[M21MFS]

I really do have nothing but respect for the guys and girls who voluntarily sign up to defend this great nation. They sign up despite the associated risks and for this I am sure we are all greatful that we have such a strong force to provide protection.

However I do not feel that British troops should be in Iraq. Our army's main concern should be the welfare of the British public and our security - last time I checked we were not the "International Police" and we do not have the responsibility for defending the people of other nations. Although Saddam may have had a strict regime in place should Britain really be footing the bill (both financially and through the loss of life) to "liberate" the people of Iraq? Saddam ran his country in a manner appropriate to the historical past of the region, there are dictators elsewhere in the world who commit far worse crimes to those carried out by Saddam however the International Police doesn't appear to have such a strong interest in Zimbabwe, Somalia, North Korea or even Iran - all of which are as bad as Iraq was/is.

Britain has lost almost 180 troops in Iraq since the war began, this is 180 too many for a war in which Britain has absolutely no interests. Britain has enough problems of our own to face on British soil, we should be tackling domestic issues before dispersing troops and finances into other regions.

I would however like to state that although I may not condone our presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan I do however give my full support to those British troops who are fighting under our name and flag. I do not however give my support to the politicians who fabricated the conditions in which they felt Britain's involvement in Iraq was justifiable.

It is my opinion that the British army should function for the following reasons only:

To defend our homeland and our independence

Rant Over.

Pretty much spot on - the only thing I'd add is that those who told the lies to take us to war should be pulled in front of the proper authorities..sadly in politics its all jos for the boys and there's no chance that'll happen! :tosser:

 

[Johno933]

I really do have nothing but respect for the guys and girls who voluntarily sign up to defend this great nation. They sign up despite the associated risks and for this I am sure we are all greatful that we have such a strong force to provide protection.

However I do not feel that British troops should be in Iraq. Our army's main concern should be the welfare of the British public and our security - last time I checked we were not the "International Police" and we do not have the responsibility for defending the people of other nations. Although Saddam may have had a strict regime in place should Britain really be footing the bill (both financially and through the loss of life) to "liberate" the people of Iraq? Saddam ran his country in a manner appropriate to the historical past of the region, there are dictators elsewhere in the world who commit far worse crimes to those carried out by Saddam however the International Police doesn't appear to have such a strong interest in Zimbabwe, Somalia, North Korea or even Iran - all of which are as bad as Iraq was/is.

Britain has lost almost 180 troops in Iraq since the war began, this is 180 too many for a war in which Britain has absolutely no interests. Britain has enough problems of our own to face on British soil, we should be tackling domestic issues before dispersing troops and finances into other regions.

I would however like to state that although I may not condone our presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan I do however give my full support to those British troops who are fighting under our name and flag. I do not however give my support to the politicians who fabricated the conditions in which they felt Britain's involvement in Iraq was justifiable.

It is my opinion that the British army should function for the following reasons only:

To defend our homeland and our independence

Rant Over.

Well Said......M.O.D = Ministry Of Defence . Not Offence

 

[Stuart]

I really do have nothing but respect for the guys and girls who voluntarily sign up to defend this great nation. They sign up despite the associated risks and for this I am sure we are all greatful that we have such a strong force to provide protection.

However I do not feel that British troops should be in Iraq. Our army's main concern should be the welfare of the British public and our security - last time I checked we were not the "International Police" and we do not have the responsibility for defending the people of other nations. Although Saddam may have had a strict regime in place should Britain really be footing the bill (both financially and through the loss of life) to "liberate" the people of Iraq? Saddam ran his country in a manner appropriate to the historical past of the region, there are dictators elsewhere in the world who commit far worse crimes to those carried out by Saddam however the International Police doesn't appear to have such a strong interest in Zimbabwe, Somalia, North Korea or even Iran - all of which are as bad as Iraq was/is.

Britain has lost almost 180 troops in Iraq since the war began, this is 180 too many for a war in which Britain has absolutely no interests. Britain has enough problems of our own to face on British soil, we should be tackling domestic issues before dispersing troops and finances into other regions.

I would however like to state that although I may not condone our presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan I do however give my full support to those British troops who are fighting under our name and flag. I do not however give my support to the politicians who fabricated the conditions in which they felt Britain's involvement in Iraq was justifiable.

It is my opinion that the British army should function for the following reasons only:

To defend our homeland and our independence

Rant Over.

thats pretty spot on imo

a war in which Britain has absolutely no interests.

this is a war in which USA and UK have great interests, OIL!!!!!
its oil what makes the world go round, not money. the cost of everything is controlled by the black sludge, and that in turn is controlled by the so called heirarchy