Anti-Afghan War Awol soldier Joe Glenton jailed

[Rodbouy]

So, if a German had deserted from Hilter's army, you would have criticized him for doing the same as this British guy? You would have condemned him for not going along with the gassing of millions of jews, because "he signed up to the army and their rules"?

again your basing this on individual acts. But the sad fact remains that they followed what they were told.

Like I also said tho " if they told him to just go out and kill for the sake of it. This would make it morally wrong and he would be justified in his case.
"

This case is not based around a individual act.

Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General at the time, changed his mind on the legality of the Iraq war for no apparent reason. In fact, many politicians who supported the war(s), are now questioning the legality of how and why we got there in the first place. There are many reasons why someone could change their minds. You don't think actually taking part in said war might give you a different insight or perspective, never mind all the additional information we now have?

He ran away form the afgan war did he not? so who cares what Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General at the time has to say about the IRAQ war

Regardless, I'm actually giving your side of the argument the benefit of the doubt in saying that this may indeed just have been an excuse, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of the principles we've been discussing.

The fundamentals is that you believe that he should be able to walk away from the army should he not believe its morally right.

and yes but only to a certain extent.

If they wanted him to commit murder outwith combat then yes he would have a case. If its the concept of the war then NO as its not his decison on policies in going to war.

 

[señor ding dong]

But you are being specific in using this case to illustrate your point. Correct me if i'm wrong but you are saying that this one soldier refusing to be sent back to Afganistan with his unit can be held up as an example of a soldier taking a moral stand and disobeying an order he believed to be immoral.

No, that was just the starting point for the "it's your job, so tough" principle, which I obviously think is nonsensical.

Then making a direct comparison to German soldiers being ordered to carry out attrocities and if you condem his actions for disobeying you cannot then condem the nazi's for following their orders?

Only if you believe this guy had a genuine moral case. As I've said, I'm perfectly happy to consider the fact that he didn't, but that it doesn't change the basic principle.

He can't argue that he didn't want to take part in an illegal war as troops were already engaged in Afghanistan long before he signed up.

There's no reason why someone can't change their views on the war after signing up. The former US Presidential candidate John Kerry was just one of many high profile war heroes who did just that, after having taken part in the Vietnam war.

As far as "it's your job so tough goes" that's a bit simplistic,

I agree entirely. I wasn't the one who came up with it.

Like I also said tho " if they told him to just go out and kill for the sake of it. This would make it morally wrong and he would be justified in his case.

That's the only circumstance in which someone would be allowed to change their mind?

Let's take a hypothetical example, and the Iraq war is probably a better example. Say we have a guy who has been stationed in Iraq for 6 months, because he had been told Saddam planned 9-11 and has nukes that can be deployed in under 45 minutes. He then finds out that these were all deliberate lies, and that the whole thing was about oil. Hypothetically, of course. This would not be an issue of an individual act, but rather about the overall legality of the war. I would say he would be morally justified to pack his bags. As for the Afghanistan war, I'm not entirely sure what the various reasons for calling it illegal are, but there's certainly no doubt that we know an awful lot more about it now than we did then, and that someone could justifiably have changed their minds as a result.

This case is not based around a individual act.

Irrelevant. If someone at any stage became convinced the war was illegal, they would be morally justified in deciding not to take part. Legally, it would be more complicated.

He ran away form the afgan war did he not? so who cares what Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General at the time has to say about the IRAQ war

It was just a well known example of someone who had a sudden, inexplicable change of mind.

The fundamentals is that you believe that he should be able to walk away from the army should he not believe its morally right.

No, I'm saying he should do it, consequences be damned. If he can convince a military tribunal afterwards that he was right in doing so, fine. If not, he will still know he did the right thing. Assuming his moral compass is working correctly.

 

[thebigman]

No, that was just the starting point for the "it's your job, so tough" principle, which I obviously think is nonsensical.

As I said it's much more than a job, thats to simplistic a way to look at it.

Only if you believe this guy had a genuine moral case. As I've said, I'm perfectly happy to consider the fact that he didn't, but that it doesn't change the basic principle.

I think it does you're comparing chalk and cheese. The nazi's went way beyond the pale, you can't use their actions to defend this.

There's no reason why someone can't change their views on the war after signing up. The former US Presidential candidate John Kerry was just one of many high profile war heroes who did just that, after having taken part in the Vietnam war.

I don't have a problem with him changing his views, I don't recall John Kerry deserting?

thebigman

 

[señor ding dong]

As I said it's much more than a job, thats to simplistic a way to look at it.

And I still agree.

I think it does you're comparing chalk and cheese. The nazi's went way beyond the pale, you can't use their actions to defend this.

I think you can, if you genuinely believe the Afghanistan war was illegal. That's not necessarily to say that I do, or what I would in any way equate the severity with what the Nazis did, of course, but that's a separate issue.

I don't have a problem with him changing his views, I don't recall John Kerry deserting?

Sure. Again, I'm just highlighting the obvious simplicity of the argument that someone can't change their minds on a war, once they've taken part in it. Whichever actions they decide to take as a result is a different matter.

 

[Rodbouy]

That's the only circumstance in which someone would be allowed to change their mind?

They can change their mind when they want. But to give them reason to walk out on what he signed up for it should be down to acts rather than the war as a whole or he shouldnt have signed up.

We cant just half people walking out the army just because they dont agree with it anymore and if you honeslty think thats the way the army shold be run mate then fair play to you.

Let's take a hypothetical example, and the Iraq war is probably a better example. Say we have a guy who has been stationed in Iraq for 6 months, because he had been told Saddam planned 9-11 and has nukes that can be deployed in under 45 minutes. He then finds out that these were all deliberate lies, and that the whole thing was about oil. Hypothetically, of course. This would not be an issue of an individual act, but rather about the overall legality of the war.

not like you to talk hypothetically !!!!

Again that still not his job to prove or disprove the reasons why they went to war. Their job is to follow the instructions of the army and the Govt. Thats the job mate like it or not.

I would say he would be morally justified to pack his bags. As for the Afghanistan war, I'm not entirely sure what the various reasons for calling it illegal are, but there's certainly no doubt that we know an awful lot more about it now than we did then, and that someone could justifiably have changed their minds as a result.

Just because they changed their minds means nothing tho its not a normal job so normal LOGIC does not apply. You cant pick and choose with the army. Its their rules. You accept that when you join.

If someone at any stage became convinced the war was illegal, they would be morally justified in deciding not to take part. Legally, it would be more complicated.

thast the thing legally he is fcked. I donbt care if he changes his mind. Good for him. Im just saying its his fault as he signed up to the army and takes the job as it is.

It was just a well known example of someone who had a sudden, inexplicable change of mind.

I know the point your making but every one can change their mind, but just because they change their mind doesnt mean you can just stop and not have Consequences for his actions.

If he has morals on a war, then you will have issues with killing people. So why sign up to a army thats engaged in so much conflict.

 

[IANB]

Having never been in the forces or in active service i dont feel qualified to express an opinion either way as i dont know what they are going through.
I also feel that anyone who is in the same boat as me does not qualify to cast judgement either way.

However people who are or have been in active service in the same war theatres or similar then i would be intrested reading their views and opinions.

 

[señor ding dong]

They can change their mind when they want. But to give them reason to walk out on what he signed up for it should be down to acts rather than the war as a whole or he shouldnt have signed up.

But by virtue of a war being illegal, most military acts carried out in its name would then also be illegal.

We cant just half people walking out the army just because they dont agree with it anymore and if you honeslty think thats the way the army shold be run mate then fair play to you.

As I said earlier, it's obviously not a decision one should take lightly, and our latest batch of wars are obviously nowhere near as clear-cut in terms of basic morality as what the Nazis did. I'm not suggesting we include a revolving door clause in the military contract, I'm just saying, if I found myself in a situation I suddenly saw as morally indefensible, the only right cause of action would be to stop. In this particular scenario, you obviously have to consider the consequences for your colleagues. If you have your moment of clarity in the middle of a firefight, it wouldn't be an ideal time to bail.

Again that still not his job to prove or disprove the reasons why they went to war.

I know, and that's now what I said.

Just because they changed their minds means nothing tho its not a normal job so normal LOGIC does not apply. You cant pick and choose with the army. Its their rules. You accept that when you join.

As long as you're prepared to extend that logic to Nazis as well.

thast the thing legally he is fcked.

Certainly if his argument is based purely on the belief that the war was illegal, but his family obviously feel that the issue of post traumatic stress was one that wasn't properly handled or considered by his superiors or the court.

If he has morals on a war, then you will have issues with killing people. So why sign up to a army thats engaged in so much conflict.

This is all just guesswork and assumption, which can only serve to cloud your objectivity. And you can't one moment say logic doesn't apply, and then invoke it in defense of your own argument.

I also feel that anyone who is in the same boat as me does not qualify to cast judgement either way.

I think that's probably being unnecessarily courteous, particularly as the big decisions with regards to these matters are generally taken by civilian leadership.

 

[Rodbouy]

You havent left me anything to multiquote ffs

The nazi thing. I dont base the German army as being nazi, but a group of leaders who controlled the armed forces.

But Yes you would be correct in the example on the gas chambers then yes that instance would be correct.

but that was a bit of an extreme example to link the two

 

[hoppy]

I am against the war in Afghanistan but if he joined in 2004 then we were already in Afghanistan (we invaded in October 2001) so he knew what he was getting into so I don't have any symphathy for him.

If he had joined before the illegal invasion then I could see where he is coming from but he didn't so imho it's his own fault.

This point here is what sinks the guys argument imo.
Ianb also made an interesting point about hearing more comments from ex army members.

Its difficult to compare a normal job and our daily duties to an extreme situation in the army as it requires a certain type of person to be a soldier.
Remember these guys are putting their lives in each others hands and trust and confidence is crucial.

Soldiers are "not" politicians and they have enough on their plate surviving a war nevermind protesting it.
Our government got is into this war for all the wrong reasons and we invaded two countrys that are now in chaos.
Pulling out would be an easy option and would allow the very people we drove out back in again and all our soldiers that died would have died for nothing.

Like it or lump it we need to finish the job properly and deal with the consequences later..

 

[señor ding dong]

This point here is what sinks the guys argument imo.

Not that I necessarily agree with him, but I still maintain that taking part in the war doesn't in any way prevent him from changing his mind on it. Quite the opposite.

However, judging just by the information quoted in the first post, it doesn't appear that his objection to going back was based merely - or at all? - on a perceived illegitimacy of the war, but rather on the fact that he claimed to be suffering from post traumatic stress, that raising this point with superiors merely led to bullying and accusations of cowardice, and that the 18 month re-deployment recommendation was not followed.

Its difficult to compare a normal job and our daily duties to an extreme situation in the army as it requires a certain type of person to be a soldier.

So what if you think you're that kind of a person, you sign up to defend your country, do your first 9 months and then realize you're not that type of person after all. For the hard-men who can handle it, would they rather have this nervous wreck covering their backs in a tight spot, or should we be able to say "thanks for trying, man. 9 months is more than most could have handled."

If I'm a pilot, I don't want the guy who developed a sudden case of vertigo or fear of heights to be my co-pilot, just because "it's his job, so tough". Nor would I want a bomb disarmament partner with nervous, shaky hands to help me cut the red wire, just because of "queen and country". There could be a real danger of undermining our own cause with BS machismo and misguided patriotism. The big question with the thanks-for-trying-at-least-you-had-a-go argument is how much of an army would we be left with?

You havent left me anything to multiquote ffs

Then I accept your surrender.

But Yes you would be correct in the example on the gas chambers then yes that instance would be correct.

but that was a bit of an extreme example to link the two

Yes, but the thing is, any logical argument is a bit like a boat. You don't test its seaworthiness by sprinkling water on it with the garden hose. It has to be tested under extreme conditions. If your boat/logic is solid, it will hold up under extreme conditions, or in this case, against the extreme example I provided. "It's your job, so tough" just doesn't do that. And that's not to say you're completely wrong, but by supporting your view with weak logic, it makes it easy to sink your argument.

 

[Baaheeduk]

I am against the war in Afghanistan but if he joined in 2004 then we were already in Afghanistan (we invaded in October 2001) so he knew what he was getting into so I don't have any symphathy for him.

And he joined the RLC!

Having just read the job description the Army website i think he must have signed up with his eyes shut! What did he expect?

 

[Rodbouy]

Then I accept your surrender.

Never thought id say this but NO SURRENDER

No, merley that we have 2 different views and they fail to meet each other, bet we can see the points we are both making.

I am basing it on what the army is and your bringing in various situations in other jobs to validate points that could allow you to act in the manner that he did.

Yes, but the thing is, any logical argument is a bit like a boat. You don't test its seaworthiness by sprinkling water on it with the garden hose. It has to be tested under extreme conditions. If your boat/logic is solid, it will hold up under extreme conditions, or in this case, against the extreme example I provided. "It's your job, so tough" just doesn't do that. And that's not to say you're completely wrong, but by supporting your view with weak logic, it makes it easy to sink your argument.

But all this logic does not apply to the army way of life. None the less the point your arguing isnt valid to the whole topic as he cant use this as his reasoning. Purely because the war had started before he joined.

Was he in a extreme situation that caused him to walk out? NO so I fail to see how you have sunk my argument.

 

[jaffa]

Never thought id say this but NO SURRENDER

Welcome to the other side m8, please raise your left trouser leg and and shout FTP ...lol


You two are having quite a debate.

For my tuppence, he broke the law, the army law and has been tried and sentenced. He knew what he was doing, he also knew the consequences but he still went AWOL.

Wonder what he will do when released, he will probably still be deployed somewhere, maybe they will send him to a nice warm climate where there is no fighting and he can go on sightseeing tours instead of doing the job he was trained to do.

 

[señor ding dong]

But all this logic does not apply to the army way of life. None the less the point your arguing isnt valid to the whole topic as he cant use this as his reasoning. Purely because the war had started before he joined.

I've never argued that his change of heart gave him a legal pass for deserting, but it isn't even clear that this was actually his legal defense. Again, judging by the quoted article, only the editorialized headline suggests this was the case, but makes no real mention of it in the article itself, which paints a different picture of a case of post traumatic stress that wasn't properly recognized, investigated or dealt with.

Was he in a extreme situation that caused him to walk out? NO so I fail to see how you have sunk my argument.

Simple. Since the two situations by your own admission are the same, it follows that the same logic has to apply to both. You said that "every armed force is in the same position", and when the obvious logical flaws in your argument re-appeared, I pointed out that your failure to demonstrate relevant differences between the two examples meant the same logic had to apply, and you once again stated that "There is no difference." Your words, not mine.

The problem is that you raise and lower the bar arbitrarily based on how you personally feel about any given situation. This makes your argument inconsistent and contradictory. So while your boat only passes the garden hose test, I'm riding a 30 foot wave of victory in mine.

 

[hoppy]

"However, judging just by the information quoted in the first post, it doesn't appear that his objection to going back was based merely - or at all? - on a perceived illegitimacy of the war, but rather on the fact that he claimed to be suffering from post traumatic stress,""

I just saw the original bbc article and to say that it was merely or not at all based on the illegitimacy of the war is not true.
He had a lot to say about the war and attended an anti war rally.
He has spoken openly opposing the war.

""would they rather have this nervous wreck covering their backs in a tight spot, or should we be able to say "thanks for trying, man. 9 months is more than most could have handled.""

But he wasn't a nervous wreck and he served 9 successful months.

 

[señor ding dong]

I just saw the original bbc article and to say that it was merely or not at all based on the illegitimacy of the war is not true.
He had a lot to say about the war and attended an anti war rally.
He has spoken openly opposing the war.

Was that his legal defense, though? I'm not saying it definitely wasn't, just that it wasn't clear from the quoted bit in the first post.

But he wasn't a nervous wreck and he served 9 successful months.

By "this guy", I was referring to my hypothetical example you left out of your quote. And it's hardly uncommon for soldiers to return from a "successful" tour of duty with severe mental problems and post traumatic stress. You can't just say that someone is doing fine, because they made it back in one piece.

 

[hoppy]

""Was that his legal defense, though? I'm not saying it definitely wasn't, just that it wasn't clear from the quoted bit in the first post.""

No that wasn't his defense, his defense was PTS.
Im not saying the guy didn't have it and if he did then i accept that is a valid case that should be investigated.
My point is he didn't do himself any favours by going awol and then into a anti war rant.
By doing so he has confused the issue and as a result has probably lost a lot of public and military support.

He must be aware that when you join the army there might be a little war involved from time to time and that its "not" a soldiers job to question that war.
Its not a trade ran union we are talking about here its the army and it aint a democracy, you do what you are told.

 

[señor ding dong]

Its not a trade ran union we are talking about here its the army and it aint a democracy, you do what you are told.

Sure. I'm just a bit uneasy about this callous ridicule and accusation of cowardice that seems to be behind much of the condemnation of this guy. He may indeed be a coward, but in that case, isn't there still something to be said for performing a full tour of duty? It does take a special kind of person to be able to do a job like that, but how do you know if you're that person, if you don't give it a shot? And if it then turns out you're not that kind of a person, do you really deserve ridicule and bullying for it?

 

[Rodbouy]

Simple. Since the two situations by your own admission are the same, it follows that the same logic has to apply to both. You said that "every armed force is in the same position", and when the obvious logical flaws in your argument re-appeared, I pointed out that your failure to demonstrate relevant differences between the two examples meant the same logic had to apply, and you once again stated that "There is no difference." Your words, not mine.

The problem is that you raise and lower the bar arbitrarily based on how you personally feel about any given situation. This makes your argument inconsistent and contradictory. So while your boat only passes the garden hose test, I'm riding a 30 foot wave of victory in mine.

ahahahaha

Every member of the armed forces are trained to carry out orders passed on to them from the Govt or the hierarchy of the army. This goes for every armed force in the world. The same as the GERMANS.

Now all you have done is produce instances in normal day to day jobs that would allow a person the free will to up tools and walk due to a change in mind set. Again on many time I have said you cannot simplify the army to a normal working environment.

Now the Nazi German instance. Yes that would have been a case in our eyes that you would imagine that you would say NO, im not doing that and leave.

Now think about it this way, They were brought up and trained that this is a legitimised act of war and totally legal.

So basically what your disproving my difference between them both is that you think I am justifying the killing of jew because it was there job.

Like I have said prior Just because we see an act as illegal and immoral does not mean the opposing group see it this way.

Just like extremist muslims believe its ok and legitimate to kill the infadels for non believing. Crazy to us but ok and legal for them.

Keep riding that wave mate if it makes you feel good.


Can you tell me the difference between the two? would like to hear what your thoughts are?

 

[señor ding dong]

Now all you have done is produce instances in normal day to day jobs that would allow a person the free will to up tools and walk due to a change in mind set. Again on many time I have said you cannot simplify the army to a normal working environment.

Which was why I gave you the Nazi example of an instance where walking away would be the moral thing to do, even if you knew there would be legal consequences for disobeying your orders. Similarly, if someone genuinely thought the Afghanistan war was illegal, then that exact same logic would apply, and the fact that the person served a full tour of duty before changing his mind wouldn't in any way negate that. Quite the contrary.

So basically what your disproving my difference between them both is that you think I am justifying the killing of jew because it was there job.

As I already explained, I obviously don't think you're a Nazi sympathizer, or that that's what you were actually saying, but by virtue of the inconsistency of your argument, that was more or less the logical extension of your argument, which was why I said it only passed the Garden Hose Test[FONT=verdana, arial]™[/FONT].

Just like extremist muslims believe its ok and legitimate to kill the infadels for non believing. Crazy to us but ok and legal for them.

Sure, and I'll repeat the point that I'm arguing this on the basis of morality, not legality. There would be consequences for a Nazi, a Muslim extermist, and a British soldier for disobeying orders. As you said, it's the exact same thing, and thus, the exact same logic applies.

Keep riding that wave mate if it makes you feel good.

Turns out my sea legs are not what I thought they were. Permission to come ashore?

Can you tell me the difference between the two? would like to hear what your thoughts are?

My thoughts, as I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, and which you seem to agree with, is that they're the same. That's why my argument holds up, and yours doesn't. If you truly believe you're engaged in what amounts to a war crime, then you have a moral obligation to stop, regardless of your orders, and regardless of whose flag you're fighting under.

The obvious problem this guy has is proving that the Afghanistan war really is illegal, but a failure to do so doesn't change the basic principle. It just means he will find it more difficult to escape punishment, after choosing to follow his moral compass. Assuming that's really what he did.