Do you know the BIGGEST problem facing training modern Soldiers?

[RVF500]

A work colleague and I have a saying "you've never been really screwed over until you've worn a uniform" we both spent a long time in uniform. More often than not you are sent into a situation hamstrung by politicians who are more concerned with their re-elections than if you come back in a body-bag.

As for this torture 'scandal' going on. It looks more like something out of a hollywood prison film about cruel warders. I've been subject to resistance to interrogation. Not fun but no one pulled my fingernails out either. Didn't need to. Given enough time I'm pretty sure they would have got all they wanted. It's the time it takes to break someone down and get what you want. This looks more like a bunch of undisciplined jerks getting their rocks off.

We all know that anyone of ours taken by paramilitaries have a minimal chance of being returned. Just ask Gerry Adams and co if they would return any of the troops his confederates took. Also ask if he could detail their last hours. If he had the balls to do it and not lie.....it had better go on well after the kids were in bed. That kind of thinking can also effect the actions of troops who have their hands on the 'enemy'.

I recall in the '80s that a patrol from 3 Para (I think) was taken to task for steaming into a village and beating up some of the inhabitants. The suitably bruised barman of the local was interviewed saying what "animals" they were. What wasn't reported was that earlier on that day an 18 year old private had lost both his legs in a landmine attack. As the partol returned past the village, the villagers turned out and began doing impressions of the seven dwarfs while jeering and shouting insults to celebrate. The troops were not allowed on camera as the barman was to defend their actions or claim any mitigating circumstances.

"you've never been really screwed over until you've worn a uniform"

[Blub2k]

I recall in the '80s that a patrol from 3 Para (I think) was taken to task for steaming into a village and beating up some of the inhabitants. The suitably bruised barman of the local was interviewed saying what "animals" they were. What wasn't reported was that earlier on that day an 18 year old private had lost both his legs in a landmine attack. As the partol returned past the village, the villagers turned out and began doing impressions of the seven dwarfs while jeering and shouting insults to celebrate. The troops were not allowed on camera as the barman was to defend their actions or claim any mitigating circumstances.

The general public dont have to answer as an organisation for their actions, I think you'll find that there is a difference between "steaming into a village and beating up some of the inhabitants" and targetting the perpetrators but then your side was never too good at that distinction.

I recall in the '70s that a patrol from 1 Para........I'll let you fill in the blanks yourself.

"you've never been really screwed over until you've worn a uniform"

Tell that to a Palestinian or an Iraqi civilian.

[RVF500]

Would that be one with or without a semtex waistcoat?

Let's not forget those people are just as willing to kill indiscriminately regardless of the beliefs or origins of their targets.

Tell me your views on Omagh while you are about it. Not quite sure who the target was there myself seemed to be a group of shoppers.But I'm pretty sure who the perpetrators were. Another group whp beleived that random murder for publicity was a justifiable cause.

[RVF500]

And yes I do know the history of Bloody Sunday. One side says it was fired upon from the crowd. Which as you are so well read I'm sure you will know was a standard tactic. The other side says it was fired upon indiscriminately. Personally I think the truth lies somewhere between these two.

There is no black and white. It's not the combatants on either side who cause the conflict. They just pay the price for older people who should know better.

[Blub2k]

I know people who were there, there was no shooting from the crowd, the shooting originated from the Para 1 side, or maybe you refer to the *snigger* *snigger* Widgery report?

Without combatants conflicts would not get physical, some fool has to sign up and want to kill people for it to work, I will never feel sorry for that fool.

[wilsonian]

i feel that rules of enagement are to a point wrong, the rules say that a soilder can not fire untill fired upon - thats a big risk as in that time he/she could of been shot to ribbons. also when thy say that its disgraceful how a 12yr old child was killed - what they don't mention is the gun he was holding.

i've seen pictures of children holding AK 47'S and RPG's. if i was in the troops boots i pull the trigger first before asking for their age!

[RVF500]

And some people sit at a safe distance and do nothing but whinge. Demanding action but complaining when someone takes action. Offering no solution but criticising other's solutions. Taking personal freedoms for granted while denigrating those who make a choice to defend those freedoms.

You may not like cops but who do you call when your house is burgled? You may not like squaddies but who do you turn to if your society is threatened? It is an imperfect world with imperfect people. There are good and bad.

Without combatants then someone else's combatants would probably take advantage. Chap called Saddam did that in Kuwait. It took combatants to return the borders to where they were before. Human nature. If someone is weak, someone who is strong will prey on them. Until you change human genes you will have this.

Troops used in civil actions are fundamentally a failure at the political level. Troops are trained to use weapons offensively. When you deploy troops with weapons you risk a conflict. When thinking time is reduced to miliseconds and someone thinks his life is at risk. Instinct takes over. Survival instinct being particularly strong. It is easy to criticise from a distance and pick things apart with the benefit of hindsight. Besides, if I'd been in the crowd I would swear blind that there was no shooting from the crowd.

[RVF500]

[QUOTE=wilsonian]i feel that rules of enagement are to a point wrong, the rules say that a soilder can not fire untill fired upon [QUOTE]

There was also a rule that petrol bombers were not considered fatal, therefore they were not legitimate targets. Even if they had just fried your mate. That rule changed when ROE were reviewed and troops on duty were actually allowed to have ammunition with their weapons. You also had to challenge 3 times before opening fire. Arrest rather than shoot out of hand. Unless of course you were actually under fire.

2 friends of mine died because they adhered to the rules of engagement and did not fire when instinct said they should have done.

[Zak33]

well please he's here /\ cos its keeps this in balance.

Nice work to ALL the above posts....very good indeed

[Stolly]

I, for one am very proud of the way our armed forces are working in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't 100% agree with the reason why they are in Iraq, or rather the reasons we were told and how they match the reality, but they are doing a magnificent job.

Whats the worst they have done ? Even Amnesty International can't say more than a few accidental deaths when people have been caught in crossfires, and a few Iraqis have been roughed up. Compared to those 6 MP's murdered last year our people have treated the Iraqis a lot better than the Iraqis have treated them.