Aussie forces exploit loophole to avoid service...

[MKSheppard]

Australian military officers have been worried that fighter pilots and SAS personnel could be involved in missions that require firing on enemy positions close to non-combatants, such as anti-aircraft batteries on the roofs of hospitals, schools and homes.

Then send them back home. I don't want a bunch of assholes who'll fly
around debating whether dropping a bomb on a crowd that's attacking
US troops on the ground ala Somalia is 'unethical'

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Then send them back home. I don't want a bunch of assholes who'll fly
around debating whether dropping a bomb on a crowd that's attacking
US troops on the ground ala Somalia is 'unethical'

I think the concern is more in terms of general morality than case-by-case measurement.

[weemadando]

Australian military officers have been worried that fighter pilots and SAS personnel could be involved in missions that require firing on enemy positions close to non-combatants, such as anti-aircraft batteries on the roofs of hospitals, schools and homes.

Then send them back home. I don't want a bunch of assholes who'll fly
around debating whether dropping a bomb on a crowd that's attacking
US troops on the ground ala Somalia is 'unethical'

Can we just have a coup?

It'd save us all so much trouble, in that you wouldn't have these military vs govn't bitchfights. And two - it'd get rid of little Johnny.

[Stuart Mackey]

Stuart, You can look at this another way. If you refuse to get a shot, what will stop you from refusing to fight or anything else. This is a slippery slope they are on. The armed forces are not a democracy. You do not get to a vote on what is to happen to you. If you do not like it go AWOL and find out what happens..

[/quote]

*snort* theres a slippery slope fallicy if ever I saw one.
That a soldier exercizes his/her concience does not mean that they will not fight for what is right to fight for. It also means is that soldiers are human and politians should realise that politiacal expeideincy and power does not give them the right to do what ever the fuck they choose.
Armed forces are not a democracy, but it is a group of people who do think and vote.
As soldiers have votes, as do the civvies, what do you think will happen to a politician, who is already unpopular, who ignores both?

[Stuart Mackey]

I know Australia and NZ are countries that adhere to the non-proliferation pacts of WMDs. You don't even like the "stable Western nations" having nukes (turning away a US carrier with nuclear power, and I was there when the French tested their nukes in the islands in '96-- lots of protest). So is Auz and NZ really all about some craphound like Saddam having nukes with no objections? What are these vaunted "principles" supposedly being stood up for? They sound conveniently disposable when it comes time to stop further proliferation and take a stand. Do you really hate GW Bush so much that you find this an honorable alternative course of action?

That's sad and scary.

You lickspittle little turd, NZ, for one, Does not want Iraq to have WMD's, and is on record more than once on that issue,but no one has provided proof that he has them. That he might want them is not evidence.
Nor for that matter is NZ convinced that Bush actually knows what he is doing. You would happly invade all and sundry over the ME, without a fucking clue as to the possible consequences of your actions.
You would happily cut of your nose to spite your face.

As for proliferation, where was the American invasion of Isreal to stop them from getting them? or NK? or Pakistan, or India or South Africa?. Fucking hypocrite. People diedhere because France objected to NZ being used as a base for anti-nuc protestors, and where was the condemnation of America to Frances action in Auckland Harbour? Did America call,ever, for Frances nuclear disarmament? I dont think so.
Dont lecture us about nuclear diarmament or 'honour', when you have never demonstrated it yourselfs.