Iraq war!

VespaPX

So our brave servicemen & women are facing the prospect of being sent to court for fighting in an illegal war.

Why are Blair , Bush (both of them), Rumsfeld, etc not facing the same threat ?

Makes my blood boil!

This country is becoming a joke.

paige55

In Response to Iraq war!:

So our brave servicemen & women are facing the prospect of being sent to court for fighting in an illegal war. Why are Blair , Bush (both of them), Rumsfeld, etc not facing the same threat ? Makes my blood boil! This country is becoming a joke.
Posted by VespaPX

Hi Vespa i did see this on the new's like  you say why are blair, bush, and the the rest of the gang not facing the same threat,ANSWER THEY ARE NOT HEAD OF OUR ARMED FORCES, THE QUEEN IS AND SHE CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, IF SHE COULD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OF WITH THERE HEADS YEARS AGO,

paige55

I FEEL THE SAME AS YOU VESPA,BUT NOT SURE IF OUR QUEEN IS ALLOWED TO SPEAK OUT ON SUCH MATTERS,ANY RULES ON THIS WOULD BE WELCOMED, THANKS PAIGE

VespaPX

Hi Trish

The days of the ruling monarch making decisions are long gone.

It's all about the oil these days and in this case about the Bush family oil interests in the Middle East.

You don't see anybody invading African countries to overthrow dictators , because there's no oil there !

paige55

In Response to Re: Iraq war!:

Hi Trish The days of the ruling monarch making decisions are long gone. It's all about the oil these days and in this case about the Bush family oil interests in the Middle East. You don't see anybody invading African countries to overthrow dictators , because there's no oil there !
Posted by VespaPX

tks vespa for the explanation

Darkangel7

In Response to Re: Iraq war!:

Hi Trish The days of the ruling monarch making decisions are long gone. It's all about the oil these days and in this case about the Bush family oil interests in the Middle East. You don't see anybody invading African countries to overthrow dictators , because there's no oil there !
Posted by VespaPX

+1

bludreid11

As an ex-serviceman, maybe I can clarify some things.

1st we have RoE, rules of engagement.

On the battlefield, if an enemy poses a threat to you, your unit or a friendly asset, you may shoot to kill.

If an enemy no longer poses a threat, be that surrennder or running away, you may not shoot in the back.

If an enemy surrenders, he may not be tortured or mistreated, but must be held in a dignified fashion.

Modern day press, tell us that the enemy is lowest of the low, THATS THE PRESS.

Our soldiers must, and do, conduct themselves in the correct way. However, if they dont, then they can face prosicution.

This has ALWAYS been the case, in the past it has always been the losing side that has been prosicuted for war crimes,

Many crimes were committed by friendly forces, but never faced prosicution. because we were on the winning side.

Please dont let the press rule your thoughts, ask the EDITOR TO PICK UP A GUN AND FACE THE ENEMY, not many will.

As far as the monarchy is concerned, we swear an oath to the queen, but its the politicians that give the orders.

If you care about our ex-servicemen, and I know manny do, Its not what just happened to them on the field, but afterwards as well.

watch this link, give some feedback.

https://youtu.be/soIC-PBEjcg