Troops do not have the option to not go to war if their leaders send them to war. Otherwise what would be the point?

If you don't want to fight for Britain, don't join the British armed forces.. Simple;)

Could a hitman argue he was compelled and be vindicted in court ?

Anonymous88 wrote:

Could a hitman argue he was compelled and be vindicted in court ?

no.

Vocalist wrote:

Troops do not have the option to not go to war if their leaders send them to war. Otherwise what would be the point?

If you don't want to fight for Britain, don't join the British armed forces.. Simple;)

Troops are employees and get paid for what they do. If they are told to do something illegal, like the Iraq war, they have grounds to object and should do.

If they morally disagree with a war they should make a stand - if they have principles. If they're just utilitarianists then they will go along...

Anon1 and You agreeing?! SPREAD THE NEWS!

but dont you go to prison if you refuse to go to war? Isnt that what happened to Muhammad Ali? (the boxer, or is it different in USA?)

Anonymous1 wrote:

Troops are employees and get paid for what they do. If they are told to do something illegal, like the Iraq war, they have grounds to object and should do.

If they morally disagree with a war they should make a stand - if they have principles. If they're just utilitarianists then they will go along...

The Iraq war is not so cut and dry. Is it illegal? That question is open to debate, and no court or ruling body that matters has declared it illegal.

But if we were to have an army made up of men and women who could opt in or out of military action then our army would be little better than the boy scouts! When a person signs up they know that if they are called for duty then they go to that war zone and do what they are told. Now, there are some times when members of the military do dislike the orders given and go AWOL. And yes, they go to prison...

So, once a person signs up for the army they have little choice from then on.

And if we ever got to a stage where people simply didn't join the armed forces then I am certain that we would have a system in place like Turkey and require everyone of a certain age to go into "National Service"! Then, for people like you Anon1, how would you feel knowing unwilling Muslims brothers and sisters are being sent into Muslim countries with the aim to suppress the Islamist movements there, and if they refuse to go into battle they are deemed cowards or traitors and shot..

The following would seem to argue it was illegal:

Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited.

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."

On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any "automaticity" in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were force to be used. To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that "there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."

According to a detailed legal investigation conducted by an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands headed by Netherlands Supreme Court judge Willibrord Davids, the 2003 invasion violated international law. Also, the commission concluded that the notion of "regime change" as practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq had "no basis in international law."

Then UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sent a secret letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2002 warning Blair that the case for military action against Iraq was of "dubious legality." The letter goes on to state that “regime change per se is no justification for military action” and that “the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh [UN] mandate may well be required.” Such a new UN mandate was never given.

In March 2003, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the British Foreign Office, resigned in protest of Britain's decision to invade without Security Council authorization.

Richard Perle, a senior member of the Bush Administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, conceded in November 2003 that the invasion was illegal but still justified.

Then Iraq Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammed Aldouri shared the view that the invasion was a violation of international law and constituted a war of aggression, as did a number of American legal experts, including Marjorie Cohn, Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild and former Attorney-General of the United States Ramsey Clark.

On 1 May 2005, a related UK document known as the Downing Street memo, detailing the minutes of a meeting on 26 July 2002, was apparently leaked to The Sunday Times. The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Foreign Secretary) Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised.

The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to review the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in and of itself (jus ad bellum), as the scope of the crime of aggression has not been defined, as of yet, by the numerous states party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

I have voted No, because of the absoluteness of the question. If the question refers only to their welfare then I would probably say Yes to that, but since it must also have to do with their objectives I have voted No, because of the absoluteness of the question. But I can dislike a campaign and still believe the best outcome is success for British troops. Leaving that Pandora's box alone I will just say the relationship between loyalty and morality is a complex one, and just keep your eyes on a peaceful ending.

Because of the absoluteness of the question.