The numbers deserting over a three year period seem to be about par for the course, Iraq War or no Iraq War. The RN used to hate sending Aircraft Carriers down to Australia, Jack used to jump ship by the mess load.

GUEST,Mousey McConville - 28 May 06 - 08:11 AM

"Lawyers who represent members of the military at courts martial say that they are increasingly being contacted by people who want advice about getting out of having to serve in Iraq, even if they do not want to go to the extreme of deserting, a BBC correspondent has found."

"Lawyers who represent members of the military at courts martial say" This BBC correspondent can't know much about the British Military Justice System, he's obviously been watching too many US imports and must think it's like JAG. Desertion, Mousey, you don't get a Lawyer as an enlisted man you get "Accused's Friend", normally your Divisional Officer in the Royal Navy or, Platoon/Company commander in the Army. You see, Mousey, for Desertion, there is no case to try, it is a foregone conclusion, open and shut, it is as plain as a pike-staff, you as the desertee were there one minute and gone for a continuous period of more than 'x' number of hours (Must be more than 24hrs). If you are standing in front of your Commanding Officer because you deserted and were caught, you are Guilty, the whole proceeding is to determine how guilty you are, this is where mitigating circumstances are taken into account. No Lawyer, no fancy military legal proceeding, and in most cases you have to have gained the rank of Senior Rate or N.C.O. to have the option to be tried by Court Martial for certain offences. Very few do because if it goes against you at a Court Martial the Scale of Punishment that a Court Martial can impose is much greater than a Commanding Officer can impose.

akenaton - 28 May 06 - 11:40 AM
"...we are in Iraq to try to show what a good example we are for the rest of the world to follow."

Now where on earth did you get that rather fanciful and foolish notion from? Saddam was overthrown so that the people of Iraq would get the opportunity to elect a government comprised of candidates of their own chosing, who would for the first time ever in Iraq govern under a democratically agreed constitution for the long term benefit of all sections of the Iraqi people. Nothing whatsoever to do with having to follow any example set by anybody.

freda underhill - 28 May 06 - 05:30 PM
Have you ever heard the term dual-use? Do you know what it means?

Ifor - AKA - GUEST,Heddwyn - 28 May 06 - 04:17 PM

"Its true that the USSR was an important supplier of weapons and military equipment to Saddam's Iraq during the first Gulf War in which a million Iraqis and Iranians were killed or wounded.
It is equally true that the USA and the UK were important funders,supporters and suppliers of military hardware to Saddam."

Really Ifor? So what military hardware did the US deliver to Saddam? The Iraqi Army were equipped almost entirely with Soviet/Russian, Warsaw Pact or Chinese supplied arms. In the very few instances where 'western' arms were supplied, they invariably came from France. Now who was it, on the UN Security Council, that was so keen on keeping Saddam in the driving seat, let's recall - France, Yes - Russia, Yes - China, Yes. Could that possibly be because Iraq (Saddam) paid for those arms with very attractive rights and options with regard to Iraq's Oil Fields?

"Thatcher's govt gave him a billion pounds [yes one billion pounds ] of war credits so that he could buy British arms,weapons and military equipment.He got the weapons but defaulted on the bill which meant that the UK taxpayer funded those weapons directly as the bills were guranteed by the govt."

Really Ifor? "He got the weapons" did he? Perhaps you can tell us what weapons he got from Britain, but somehow I don't think you will.

"The USA protected Iraqi shipping during the tanker war in 1889 and generally tilted its political and military might in favour of Saddam."

Really Ifor? I was under the distinct impression that the shipping of all countries trading with the states bordering the shores of the Persian Gulf were protected by the vessels of the Amarillo Patrol - Never realised that the Americans were only protecting the Iraqi Merchant Fleet (all four vessels).

"THE usa should stop its slaughtering of innocents in the Middle East ...but it wont because of the oil at stake."

Really Ifor? you mean that all this is about 450,000 barrels of oil a day. Do you know how much oil the US does import each day Ifor? I believe that it is somewhere in the order of 9.5 million barrels per day. Iraq produces 2.25 million barrels per day, so why are the Americans only buying about 20% of that? All about oil you keep telling us, pity the facts don't match up to that theory. In truth if you went into the detail of it Ifor, you would find that very few of the cold hard facts of the matter fit any of the assertions made in your post.