BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 06 - 07:30 AM

Foolestroupe - 14 Apr 06 - 08:29 PM

"In France, the Germans were there with the consent of the 'puupet Frech Govt."

That statement is incorrect Foolestroupe. Now if what you say above is true maybe you could tell us all who was the Head of State of the puppet French Government set up in German Occupied France. Now my three brain cells tell me that you will be unable to do that as there wasn't any puppet French Government in German Occupied France, the Germans ran that themselves. I know Marshall Petain was the Head of the Government of Vichy France, but there were no Germans troops there until after Case Anton in 1942.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:13 PM

I admit I make mistakes... you abusive loser. I apologize sincerely if the images I have seen in period documentaries of Vichy being maltreated and lying dead in the streets does not count in the 3 braincells you have masquerading as a 'brain' as 'research'. Ah, the old fool's# wrong again!


# What old fool?

Any old fool!

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:55 PM

And you are always right you complete and utter tosser? Just for once why don't you do a bit of back ground research before you display your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:03 AM

... but many were vengefully disgraced and some even butchered by the local citizens, once the Germans retreated as the Allies advanced. Was that because they eagerly did the German's bidding anyway, such as sending certain ethnic groups to the gas camps? Oh, no, that would make them a puppet Government, and Teribus can never be wrong...

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:13 AM

Barry,

The two paragraphs cannot be separated the first Mandate limited the period to December 2005, the Security Council Meeting in November 2005 extended the Mandate period to December 2006. The Mandate automatically expires if the Iraq Government tells the troops to leave and the current Mandate (i.e the one that runs until December this year has to be reviewed by the UN Security Council in June).

I would assume that the reason the Mandate was extended was down to the prospect of the UN having to take over the MNF's role if the original December 2005 deadline had been adhered to.

Foolestroupe,

"UK forces are present in Iraq at the request of the duly elected Government of Iraq "

Why did you leave out and drop - "and also under UN Mandate." Not convenient for the rather illogical point that you are trying to make.

There was not a puppet Government in France as such. After their defeat in 1940 France was spilt in two. There was German occupied part that contained all the areas that Germany saw as being strategically important and Vichy France that was made up of the remainder and which the Germans viewed as being a waste of manpower and materials to effectively govern or control. Vichy France lasted until 11th November 1942 when the Germans invaded during Case Anton, triggered by the successful Allied Torch Landings. After Anton Vichy officials remained in place to administrate but had no real power, in German occupied France they never had any say whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:16 AM

Thanks, Teribus. I saw something about that, but no mention of the UK, specifically, so wondered.

Barry, thanks, too for those points you brought up. It's good to get so many different perspectives.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:29 PM

"UK forces are present in Iraq at the request of the duly elected Government of Iraq "

German forces were tramping all over Europe at the bequest of a duly elected German Government... :-)

"Their presence is therefore perfectly legal"

ditto.... legally present during a legal war of invasion that is...
:-) so any attempt to refuse an order is just the same as this case...

In France, the Germans were there with the consent of the 'puupet Frech Govt" :-) just as is the case now in Iraq, execpt the puppet is currently throwing a tantrum there... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:21 PM

Iraq has a government? Since when?

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Barry Finn
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:13 PM

Hi Teribus, But

"Through previous resolutions, the Council had decided that the Force's mandate could be reviewed or terminated should the Iraqis ask, but would nonetheless expire once a permanent Government was constitutionally elected by the end of 2005."

Hasn't the permanent government already been constitutionally elected already or am I missing out on some word play or politcal technicality? If so, then how or/and why can this mandate still be in effect.

IMHO I believe that there is no basis for any UN mandate for the US & the "Willing" to remain since the UN from the start refused the US it's own permission & blessing to enter & invade Iraq, therefore it's been illegal since it's inception & cannot be granted any type of leagle status. Actually, seeing as how the US first asked for the UN to play a part in this war, I firmlly believe that the UN should be playing a role in investigating the way the war is now playing out, including what these insiders are now telling the world, the outcome of the leaks, the cover up of a massacure, the violations of the Geneva Convention & the reasons & lies used to try to convince the UN & the world why it should've gone to war & why it did go to war.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:20 PM

Had German officers been tried for war crimes committed against civilians in Germany at the request of the German government (the Nazis) and had they tried to use the "I was only obeying orders" excuse at Neuremberg, would it have been accepted because they committed their war crimes at the request of the government of the country in which the crimes were committed?

If not, then the excuse that British forces are there at the request of the Iraqi government shouldn't hold any water in any case in which someone refuses to commit what they understand (under international law) to be a war crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:56 PM

Hi kat,

Here it is:

"UN Security Council extends mandate of multinational force in Iraq

8 November 2005 – The United Nations Security Council decided unanimously today to extend the mandate of the United States-led multinational force in Iraq by one year, until the end of 2006, unless the Iraqi Government requests it leave earlier.

Through previous resolutions, the Council had decided that the Force's mandate could be reviewed or terminated should the Iraqis ask, but would nonetheless expire once a permanent Government was constitutionally elected by the end of 2005."

I believe it will be reviewed in June.

Link to the article is as follows: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16491&Cr=iraq&Cr1

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:29 PM

Teribus, I was not aware there was a UN mandate which covered UK forces in Iraq and haven't found anything specific to that on google. WOuld you please point me in the right direction? I am not trying to pick a bone, just curious and want to make sure I've got things correct in my mind.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:38 PM

No interesting point of law at all Foolestroupe (anything to do with a Morris Dancing Side?)

UK forces are present in Iraq at the request of the duly elected Government of Iraq and also under UN Mandate. Their presence is therefore perfectly legal, hence the order posting Flt Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith was a perfectly legitimate order, doesn't matter a toss what he felt about it.

I have actually done this, refused to carry out an order I believed was illegal, when I was in the navy. I also got away with it officially and in principle, but by christ did I pay for it for the remainder of my time on that ship.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:27 AM

Time to trot out the old anti-war horse film "Catch 22" then, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM

They HAD to do it to him, or everybody else would want to try it on.

and so now we have an interesting point at Law...

At Neuremberg, 'The Allies' - tried to discredit the
'but I was only following orders I didn't agree with, or I would have been dumped in the shit can myself'
defence...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:59 AM

But service in Iraq is disreputable. How ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:49 AM

Nope, the Court Martial is purely a military matter, his professional qualification as a Doctor cannot be touched.

Oddly enough though for someone in the UK armed forces if they are charged with anything in a civilian court they are in effect punished twice. They must accept the penalty imposed by the civilian court and then accept what is called consequential punishment under Queens Regulations under the 'catch-all' of 'Bringing the Service into disrepute'

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: NH Dave
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:37 PM

Will the conviction affect his license to practice medicine?

In the US a doctor who is convicted of a crime, especially a federal crime - courts martials are considered a federal offense in the US, although they may only be a conviction for what would otherwise be considered a misdemeanor were they committed in civilian life - can result in the doctor's losing the right to practice medicine.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM

His offence was five counts of failing to comply with lawful orders. Nothing political about it. UK forces are present in Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq and under UN Mandate.

He goes from the Court Martial to Colchester to be stripped of his rank and demilitarised (This will not be too pleasant a time for Malcolm Kendall-Smith, Colchester is a very, very tough place), he then is transferred to a civilian prison. He has to pay £20,000 of his defence costs from his own personal savings of £140,000 (the pay has obviously gone up somewhat from the time I was in) But he only has to serve half of his sentence the remainder is to be served on licence.

No mention about his request to relinguish his commission which was refused prior to him being ordered back to Basra.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:02 AM

Yes, there are political prisoners in the UK. A lot more to come, as a whole bunch of new repressive laws came into effect today.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:53 AM

Ooops...

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:51 AM

He also got 8 months, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:45 AM

Not as high-ranking, but there are others who have refused to serve because of how they view the war in Iraq:

CLICK HERE for full story.

An RAF doctor was jailed for eight months today after being found guilty by a court martial today of failing to comply with lawful orders to serve in Iraq.

Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, who likened the invasion of Iraq to a Nazi war crime, was convicted by a panel of five RAF officers on five charges including refusing to serve in Basra. He will also be dismissed from the service.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:27 AM

What he's saying is fine & it needs to be heard, but he's known from jump street & that's,,,,,,,,,. A day late & a dollar to short. I hope he's not making a bid for office.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:17 AM

Thank you, Arkie.

I had a new idea for a bumper sticker, today:

"The swastika symbol = blind patriotism"

I think a lot of people were too timid to speak up and now, what a mess we have.

This is a most telling paragraph and, as Ron says, pretty close to what a lot of Mudcatters have said from the onset of this so-called war: My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 11:47 PM

"...used 9-11's tragedy to hijack our security policy". That says it--in a nutshell--and it's what quite a few Mudcatters have been saying for a long time.

Subject: BS: Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments
From: Arkie
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 11:39 PM

Read Lt. Gen. Newbold's comments from Time magazine on the war in Iraq.

Time