Positive move

Quoted from Marinerz93

The difference between HM Forces and any other civilian occupation goes further than just a paid job.  A service personnels life isn't their own, he/she can not turn down working extra hours, can not refuse to go some where they are told to go, they have no choice of living conditions or living standards and they certainly can not plan in the long term i.e.; holidays or family celebrations and that's speaking from 22 years HM Forces experience. So how you are trying to say is just a paid job beggars belief.

Then don't join up if you have all this for poor pay, nobody forces people to.

Quoted from Marinerz93

You have no idea how much intelligence and information we have before deploying.  You have no idea how much intelligence and information we get whilst we are deployed.  The modern day service person is more in tune with what is going on than at any time in history.  I've worked with intelligence units, specialist units and supported medical staff when they have treated victims.  The information that gets back to the UK is watered down, fact and you don't get anywhere near the amount of intelligence or information that a deployed service person gets, that's pretty obvious.

I addressed your previous post, I find it very selective to suit your point of view.

I have already sourced a book by an ex-MoD intelligence analyst who was heavily critical of the process and nature of intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq. I'm pretty sure he is will have had more access to intelligence than soldiers on the ground, given his role as an MoD metallurgist for 16 years. I also reccomend Robin Cooke's book "The Point of Departure" for a comprehensive summary of UK involvement in funding and arming Saddam Hussein with the very weapons that were subsequently used as a reason to start the second Iraq war.

I would also question why your reports are any more valid than any other ground-level operative, for example the reports of Red Cross humanitatian workers who are also there in Iraq. The idea that the military is the only reliable and un-filtered source of information is ridiculous. Even if said information is reliable, it is very much from one perspective.

You claim it is a fact, but unfortunately you don't prove something is a fact by putting it in bold letters. If you can use sources that reliably shows that United Nations Humanitarian reports, Red Cross reports, all ground level journalism and civilian witness statements are "watered down" and less reliable than "the soldiers on the ground", it might hold a bit more weight.

Re: Bloody Sunday, the use of the Para's to police a peaceful protest was at best a huge error, at worst a calculated move. Regardless of "calmer" methods used before the shootings, there were 13 dead civilians, many shot in the back running away. All of them were unarmed. One was shot waving a white hankerchief trying to help another victim. One who had their arms in the air shouting "don't shoot". Even disregarding the immorality of what happened, tactically it was extremely counter-productive as it served as a huge recruitment drive for the IRA.

As for me being a conscientious objector, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. To which conflict? I have already stated that I am proud of the men and women who fought and contributed in whatever way during WW2. My listing Dresden as a war-crime does not negate this. But I happen to believe that since WW2 the vast majority of conflicts the UK has been involved in have not been motivated by the security of the UK nor for the interests of the population of the occupied country, but for geo-political strategic and economic gains. I don't believe that our Ministy of Defence currently adheres to it's name, given our aggressive foreign policy and implication in countless conflicts.

Your statement earlier along the lines of "if it was illegal someone would have been charged" to me shows a huge ignorance of how power structures operate and how juristriction can massively vary depending who has influence, power and wealth.

Beyond Northern Ireland (whatever you think of the methods used) and the Falklands I'm struggling to think of a conflict in my lifetime that the British armed forces were engaged in that directly concerned the protection of the British people. The Malayan emergency perhaps, in an indirect way, but that depends on who you think the Red Menace menaced.