being a soldier.

ohmygodwhathaveyoudone · 3 May 2005

have just heard on the news about the SOLDIER THAT WAS KILLED IN ACTION in iraq.It can't be nice for the family and I sympathise but he was technically paid out of our taxes & trained to kill people.theres obviousley alot more to it but he was paid to go out there and fight for his country

what about ALL the british soldiers in ww1 & ww2

Thermo · 3 May 2005

i served in the millitary and as a soldier you accept that one day you will have to be called on to do your countrys bidding and take the risk. I dont think any soldier will argue on that point. You do hope however that your countrys politicians will make a sound decision in doing so based on truth and integrity.

The point that many of the families are making is that the reasons for sending the troops to war were made in their belief on lies. I supported the war when we went, although i was not sure. However the last few weeks revelations have made me convinced that we were lied to. Having watched tony blair last night and listened to one of the ministers on the jeremy vine show today i am more convinced of that then ever. Neither would give a truthful or straight answer and both tried to bend the history of the whole affair in giving the reasons for the war. I think many of the families can feel justified in how they feel.

masona · 3 May 2005

A friend of my wife who is in the cadet in Iraq just come back 2 month early because she has a operation and need to be treated here. She was promise good money as Blair send them out in a panic short noticed and will sort their money bonus later on and she got £48 per week for 14-16 hours day/night shift per week. More lies.

I can only go on the information that was given to me.

ohmygodwhathaveyoudone · 3 May 2005

minimum wage

mildmanneredjanitor · 3 May 2005

You could have understood the military being sent in to prevent the genocide that was being carried out on the Kurds, but I don't ever remember ever hearing any media coverage about this at the time? (if there indeed, was any?)

'Fight for your country' seems a little outdated these days, maybe should adopt 'Fight for what a few so-called democracies seem fit at the time'

Thermo · 3 May 2005

all well and good going to fight for that, and im sure it was a good thing, but thats not why the politicians asked these men to lay down their lives. If youre going to do that then you have an onus to be truthful and honest.

Freddie · 3 May 2005

What did you mean by that statement ?????????????//

jasy · 3 May 2005

Freddie said:
ohmygodwhathaveyoudone said:

what about ALL the british soldiers in ww1 & ww2

Click to expand...

What did you mean by that statement ?????????????//

Exactly. Those brave souls died PROTECTING our country. There is always a risk and whether civilians like it or not an infantry soldier thrives on operational tours of duty. It is what he is trained for. The only people who understand this are those who have been in and are in the infantry. It is a different breed from the rest of the army as thermo will agree. Whether we should or should not be there is not an issue for the army. The fact is wherever we go we do the job in hand and do it well.

andy · 3 May 2005

ohmygodwhathaveyoudone said:
have just heard on the news about the SOLDIER THAT WAS KILLED IN ACTION in iraq.It can't be nice for the family and I sympathise but he was technically paid out of our taxes & trained to kill people.theres obviousley alot more to it but he was paid to go out there and fight for his country what about ALL the british soldiers in ww1 & ww2

yet another unnecessary death caused by bush/blair

Thermo · 3 May 2005

spot on jasy, a soldier will not quibble, but the families left behind, either whilst they are away or if the worst happens, will want to know why they went and for what reason. I think they desrve that

jasy · 3 May 2005

Totally agree with you. But a death, any death will always raise questions as to why or why not the army should be wherever it is at that time. I believe we are in Iraq for the right reasons but i also believe that Blair thought that he would do a Thatcher and take us to war before an election to win it. This time he got it very, very wrong

jasy · 3 May 2005

masona said:
A friend of my wife who is in the cadet in Iraq just come back 2 month early because she has a operation and need to be treated here. She was promise good money as Blair send them out in a panic short noticed and will sort their money bonus later on and she got £48 per week for 14-16 hours day/night shift per week. More lies.

I can only go on the information that was given to me.

I think your information on military salaries is wrong mate. What was probably happening ,as you cannot just go to your local cashpoint to draw your cash, is that your friend was given a weekly allowance, i.e £48 to live off and the rest will be credited to your uk account. This is normal for an operational environment as 1) you have nothing to spend your money on 2) You can save and3) the army does not have to carry millions in different currencies to pay you your salary!

Freddie · 3 May 2005

Sad isnt it?

pipme · 3 May 2005

...Military reservists to be compensated for lost earnings
Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday April 5, 2005
Guardian
Reservists in the armed forces will in future be paid for losses in salary they suffer by being called up for military operations, the Ministry of Defence announced yesterday.
Reservists whose civilian pay is higher than their forces pay will receive extra money to make up the difference between the two.
The payments will be subject to an overall cap of £548 per day (equivalent to around £200,000 a year). For consultants serving with the Defence Medical Services the cap is £822 per day.
Reservists will also be able to claim the cost of replacing some benefits lost when they are mobilised, such as health insurance and company cars, and expenses incurred, including childcare and the care of dependent relatives.
Employers will be able to claim the additional costs associated with employing a temporary replacement.

War is an expensive venture .. especially when someone else is the beneficiary ... Fuel is cheap in US ... So it is nice to think we are helping to protect the deserving ..
So the guys losing their lives probably getting the least pay ... We the people gaining no benefit are paying for it all .. Is there something amiss ? I just read that the soldiers are having their Insurance payouts cut by up to 75% .. good here isn't it ?

kendor · 4 May 2005

It's understandable that families will want to blame someone for their loss, it's part of the grieving process. The thing is you are hopefully made aware of the risks when you apply to join the armed forces and if you don't take the risks as very real then you are in the wrong job mate as one would say!

being a soldier.

Similar threads