G4S guard labels hero "baby killer".

IMHO I've met and befriended lots of soldiers/ex-soldiers in my life and most of them have been pretty nice guys, but in reality they are just government sanctioned killers who don't have the brains to question what they are doing. They are certainly NOT HEROES!
Some will say "they're just doing their job" or "they're just following orders"....

BUT wasn't that the Nazis' defence at the Nuremberg trials?

Originally posted by misterbungle
IMHO I've met and befriended lots of soldiers/ex-soldiers in my life and most of them have been pretty nice guys, but in reality they are just government sanctioned killers who don't have the brains to question what they are doing. They are certainly NOT HEROES!
Some will say "they're just doing their job" or "they're just following orders"....

BUT wasn't that the Nazis' defence at the Nuremberg trials?

So I'm a government sanctioned killer who doesn't have any brains? Jeez, tough crowd. Most warfighters throughout history have followed orders, that's why it's called the service. The Greeks at The Battle of Thermopylae were just following orders too. The army that the US's founding fathers lead followed orders as well (And I'm personally glad they did).As were the English back in WW1 and 2, they followed their orders.
What if none of the above did their job?

Originally posted by WalterKovacs

Originally posted by misterbungle
IMHO I've met and befriended lots of soldiers/ex-soldiers in my life and most of them have been pretty nice guys, but in reality they are just government sanctioned killers who don't have the brains to question what they are doing. They are certainly NOT HEROES!
Some will say "they're just doing their job" or "they're just following orders"....

BUT wasn't that the Nazis' defence at the Nuremberg trials?

So I'm a government sanctioned killer who doesn't have any brains? Jeez, tough crowd. Most warfighters throughout history have followed orders, that's why it's called the service. The Greeks at The Battle of Thermopylae were just following orders too. The army that the US's founding fathers lead followed orders as well (And I'm personally glad they did).As were the English back in WW1 and 2, they followed their orders.
What if none of the above did their job?

edit on 30-7-2012 by WalterKovacs because: (no reason given)

Or you could ask "what if the nazis didnt follow orders?"

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Exactly! They did follow through their genocidal orders, and I'm glad we stopped them by following our own.

Originally posted by WalterKovacs
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Exactly! They did follow through their genocidal orders, and I'm glad we stopped them by following our own.

On the other hand, had they NOT followed the orders, other country's fighters wouldnt have been put in that position. Its all cyclical, and SOMEBODY is going to have to break the cycle. SOMEONE is going to have to stop hiding behind "just following orders"

reply to post by captaintyinknots


We can only hope people like the Nazi's do such a thing but you know as well as I that the bad ones never do so. That's why we need an opposing force to counteract Nazi-like (Horrible wording, but you know what I mean lol) nations/groups.

Originally posted by WalterKovacs
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

We can only hope people like the Nazi's do such a thing but you know as well as I that the bad ones never do so. That's why we need an opposing force to counteract Nazi-like (Horrible wording, but you know what I mean lol) nations/groups.

I get that argument, however, it rarely fits in current times. At this point they are not counter-acting anything. Right now would be an amazing time for american military to quit following orders, before it is too late.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Knowing the state of affairs with the US, we'll probably be fighting in WW3 with Iran, China and Russia within a year the way things are going now. I seriously don't see anything getting any better on the Global scale as well as on the homefront. Romney keeps saber rattling and we keeping spending WAY too much on defense, way more than needed. Money which could be used elsewhere for better things, things that have a chance a stemming the tide of BS being shoved in our face.

reply to post by WalterKovacs


So who voted the USA and UK (and pals) to be the opposing force of the new Nazis/Enemy/Terrorists/anyone who doesn't agree with them???

Oh that's right, they voted themselves the world's peacekeepers (with the largest arsenal of weapons the world has ever seen)

Makes me sick!

reply to post by misterbungle


Who else but those countries would you rather?

On the one hand, we have the "free" West which, in a roundabout way tries to protect people from being oppressed, or on the other we have the likes of China and Russia, neither of whom really care much about freedom, democracy or human rights.

There is no one else to choose from, is there? Burkina Faso? Nigeria? Brazil? Mexico?

The West is the only mob who have both the inclination and ability to be the "world police", without which we'd pretty much still be in the cycle of massive wars that has blighted world history for centuries. If the US and UK didn't spend so much over the last 60 years protecting Europe, we'd have all been consumed by Communism long before now and we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion as this site (and others like it) would never exist.

Like it or lump it, but as Churchill once said (and I paraphrase) it may not be perfect but our way of doing things is the best of a bad bunch.

reply to post by DaTroof


I was there these are the facts.Desert Storm was a result of Saddam being set up so we could eliminate his warfighting capability because he was destabilizing the area mostly from Saudi Arabia's point of view. George called the king and asked him to request our support.
Saddam did try a probe into Saudi territory but was knocked back by arab units and American support elements.
So the oil would be safe.

reply to post by stumason


I get what you're saying and think I might have lost my point somewhere between beers ;-) TBH I wouldn't trust ANY government/country to take the role of international peacekeeper (power corrupts).


What I'm really getting at is: we (i.e. the Wondeful West) have no real reason to be there. It's not for our 'own protection'. And it is definitely not for the benefit of the natives. We are only there to oversee the distribution of oil, and make sure the areas around the oil (i.e. The Middle East) are stable.

So our soldiers have been turned into security guards looking after the OIL. So when they kill people 'doing their job', they are not heroes, they are murderers.

reply to post by ProfessorT


It's G4S ... what more needs to be said? Why the Brits thought handing over the entire contract to a single massive corporation was the best solution is beyond me.. I'm sure there are numerous security vendors in Britain, and combined could have provided the security needed without the dysfunction this company usually brings.

reply to post by Rockpuck

I'm sure there are numerous security vendors in Britain, and combined could have provided the security needed without the dysfunction this company usually brings.

Given the somewhat corrupt and incestuous relationship between politicians and large corporations in this country, and no doubt many others as well, I suspect that someone somewhere along the line would have made a shed load of money out of this farce.

reply to post by Freeborn


Absolutely... 100% guaranteed. Much like the instant contract awards to G4S (called Wakenhut in the USA) for the oil spill not to long ago. As well as many of our nuclear and military bases. As well as numerous other high profile events. I won't even go into their deplorable treatment of their employees all over the World. Yeah .. I can guarantee someone at least hoped to make some major money off the contract. It should have been many "little" security outfits being organized by the military (or whatever military institution is running security)

I actually know an operator of a security firm in the city I live. He was competing for a government contract to provide security on municipal trains.. lost to g4s who took a net loss on the contract just to take it away from a local operator. They're like the walmart of the security world.

Originally posted by misterbungle
I get what you're saying and think I might have lost my point somewhere between beers ;-) TBH I wouldn't trust ANY government/country to take the role of international peacekeeper (power corrupts).

Someone has to do it matey, otherwise the lunatics run the asylum...

Originally posted by misterbungle
What I'm really getting at is: we (i.e. the Wondeful West) have no real reason to be there. It's not for our 'own protection'. And it is definitely not for the benefit of the natives. We are only there to oversee the distribution of oil, and make sure the areas around the oil (i.e. The Middle East) are stable.

Yep and there is nothing new in that at all. nations will, at the end of the day, only act in their national interest. It does help if that jives with some rebels overthrowing a bastardly dictator though...

Originally posted by misterbungle
So our soldiers have been turned into security guards looking after the OIL. So when they kill people 'doing their job', they are not heroes, they are murderers.

Since when has that ever not been the case? Throughout history the nations army has only ever been deployed to protect what we deem to be in the national interest, usually resources.

You join the Army and you expect to be deployed to protect whatever national interests the Government deem worthy. It doesn't make you a murderer, however. Good work has been done in Afghan and Iraq and you are on very thin ice if you think either country was better off before hand.

Like or lump it, but you can't expect our Government who are tasked with looking after us at the end of the day (we are the Nation) to sit on their hands while a region of the world, that is critical to our national interest goes to hell in a handbasket. As long as things are stable, the West only pressures for democratic reform but tends to stay out if it.

However, when everything goes to shizzle, in a region so important, we need to do something, lest others take advantage. We've already seen Russia play politics with Gas, China is itching to expand it's borders and Islamists would like nothing better than to strangle the West of it's black, oily lifeblood.

Either you want to live the nice, comfortable life we have, or we will live without electricity, fuel and ultimately food or clean water. That is why we fight these wars and those that bleet on about "the oil" seem to forget that without "the oil" we'd fudged.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Former Home Secretary and Defence Secretary, Lord Reid, sits on the board of G4S..

Nuff said, really. He isn't alone though, there are others.

reply to post by EvanB


Making fun of my obviously misspelled name? You must be desperate to try and belittle me.

"Down with the kids"? No, I'm black and I listen to all genres of music, including hip-hop. Is that OK, or are you racist?

As far as soldiers go, any humanitarian "missions" are exactly that... missions. You were following orders, not acting out of your own accord.

I'd just like to point out that any type of vengeance, or to delight in your enemy's misfortune, are very much anti-christian, so to any that claim to be christian and a soldier you are quite mistaken; you cannot be both. And you know also that our war ordering government is not christian, as they so boldly claim(lie) to be.

reply to post by WalterKovacs



You clearly haven't read the thread.


Iraqis killing Iraqis = none of our business
Americans killing Iraqi civilians = war crime

Thanks for your futile attempt, though.