Article

2008-04-11 Britain

UK : High Court rules under-equipped troops violates 'human rights'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mrp 2008-04-11 12:23|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 The English have always short changed their military personnel, and government after government has been willing to trade lives for even petty amounts of money. For this reason, I approve of this decision because it hits them where it hurts, the pocketbook.

In effect it says, "You spend money on the soldiers in the first place, or you will have to spend *more* money after the fact in making good."

Perhaps it is the only thing that will get it through their thick skulled, chintzy, tight wad attitude.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-04-11 13:00|| 2008-04-11 13:00|| Front Page Top

#2 More likely it will end British participation in military operations entirely.

Making this a human right places it under the political control of Brussels and the UN.

Posted by lotp 2008-04-11 13:10|| 2008-04-11 13:10|| Front Page Top

#3 lotp: Soldiers under fire really don't give a hoot for much of anything other than watching their buns, trying to inflict hurt on the guys trying to inflict hurt on them, and generally carrying out their orders.

If the British military can't show up to a battle with the proper gear, or at least adequate gear, then they shouldn't be there in the first place.

The European fantasy of an EU military that nobody wants to fund, equip, or man, needs to end before it turns into a disaster. And if EU nations refuse to fund their individual military, then they, too, need to be forced to face the facts that they can no longer play.

They should go back to doing what they do best, having meetings and generating paperwork, and leave having a foreign policy to those nations willing to pay for a military.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-04-11 17:22|| 2008-04-11 17:22|| Front Page Top

#4 "If the British military can't show up to a battle with the proper gear, or at least adequate gear, then they shouldn't be there in the first place."

That rules out military operations by pretty much every nation on earth, and if taken literally (given the shifting definitions of adequacy and the frictions of war) by everyone. We have found a formula for world peace !

But seriously, the real effect of this would indeed be to rule out anything but token military participation by anyone without massive resources or major skin in the game.

Posted by buwaya 2008-04-11 17:56|| 2008-04-11 17:56|| Front Page Top

#5 Just think of all the lawsuits this could bring from as far back as WWI.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2008-04-11 17:57|| 2008-04-11 17:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Barrister in the MOD: "Your lordship, in order for a British soldier to be considered adequately equipped, he would need approximately one billion pounds worth of equipment".
Minister of Defense: "I see. And what is the budget for the army?"
Barrister in the MOD:"One billion pounds."
Minister of Defense: "I see. So we can only afford one soldier, then, eh?"
Barrister in the MOD: "Afraid so, m'lord."
Minister of Defense: "Very well then. Notify the MOD to sack all but one poor sod. At least he will be adequately equipped, though, so his human rights won't be violated"

Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California 2008-04-11 21:52|| 2008-04-11 21:52|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:20 trailing wife
23:13 trailing wife
23:09 trailing wife
23:08 trailing wife
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:49 newc
22:48 Pappy
22:48 JosephMendiola
22:45 Menhadden Sleaper5840
22:43 Pappy
22:33 Frank G
22:31 badanov
22:18 RD
22:06 RD
21:59 M. Murcek
21:52 Rambler in California
21:50 Eric Jablow
21:47 M. Murcek
21:46 Eric Jablow
21:45 Rambler in California
21:43 M. Murcek
21:33 BA
21:32 M. Murcek