Templar

[quote name= Inläggen görs på Svenska i fortsättningen. /BlåGul Why?

In that case the UK, the US, India, Pakistan and China are all real dangeorus as well, are they? But you're completely missing the point mate. The cold war, was exactly what it's name implies, a war of propaganada in which no one was talking to each other, everyone was extremely secretive, propaganda was escalated from week to week, and threats were invented and assumed based on the current fears or opinons of one's own people and government on a daily basis. I'll give you a real example, when my wife studied in the US in 1982, on a few occasions she was asked by other students "Aren't you afriad living in a country [sweden] so close to the Soviet Union, they could invade and kill you all at any time?" That was the view of quite a few people (at least in Missouri) in the early 80s, that "Russia" was a global threat and was going to invade and destroy the world, and their osldiers were 9 foot tall and ate babies. All this was fear that had fed on fear and propaganda since 1945. The success or lack of it of Soviet troops in battles has absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet Union's geopolitical and military policies of the day. If that was the case you would have to say that US troops are crap because US policy in Vietnam was crap and that's why they lost the war. WRONG! It wasn't the US armed forces that lost that war it was US political military policies that lost that war. You can't confuse and compare two very different aspects i.e. 1. The presence, use, success or failure of an armed forces in a foreign environment and 2. The political military motives and policies of the government at home controlling those armed forces at a strategic political level. I mentioned the skill or lack of it among Soviet troops as another reason why we didn't see a Soviet invasion as a threat. A naive view perhaps but still one that held especially after we saw how poorly they handled Afghanistan.

And the only way to make sure is to get the facts ("A guy at a internetforum said that" is not at good source). So, what sources can you recommend for someone who wants to know the facts??? Well probably two of the best "open" sources to the public are the IISS and Jane's International Defence Review and Jane's Defence Weekly. The weekly I starterd reading in magazine from way back in the early 80s. And it kept you right up to date with geopolitical and military-industrial developments, now that it's all on the net makes it much easier, but also easier to forget to go in and read it regularly conmpared to a magazine dropping thorugh your letterbox once a week. http://www.janes.com/defence/ Their strapline is: "Intelligence and Insight You Can Trust." Kind of says it all really. An independent source providing the information minus the propaganda. The IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) formerly the ISS (Institute for Strategic Studies) is also a reliable independent organisation & source of info. They are in London. I had a couple of contacts there back in 83-84 and actually helped an author there with a chapter for a book on missiles and other carirer systems, I helped with details about LLAD (low level air defence) missile systems like Rapier. http://www.iiss.org/ And their strapline is: "The World's leading authority on political military conflict" Now, that should keep you happy and busy for a while

Nowhere in my replies have I mentioned weapons. But anyway the main beef was between the USSR and the US, with us in Europe stuck in the middle. AQnd the threat of the Soviets using nukes was as real or false (propaganda) as the threat of the US using them. Bearing in mind the US is still the only country to have used nukles in anger! Oh, and by the way, the nukes on the carriers on their May Day parade every year across red Square.. you know the ones? Yes, all of those were mock ups! As were a large number of their silos.

I'm afraid that USSR during the Cold War comes very close to the definition of dangerous in any geopolitical or military discussion... Well, it depends were you were working during the Cold War. And what propaganda you believe. ;) I was in the air force of a Nato country in an elite regiment on a HQ Flight with joint recce intel section..and I can tell you, from what we saw and what we knew, from our units in West Germany, the USSR didn't pose a military threat to the West in any shape of form...other perhaps than the fact that they had millions of men, which they would have needed with their roll over tactics of the 80s- that Napoleon had used in the early 1800s. But as far as leadership, organisation and military skills went, we weren't worried by the USSR for a single minute...and that was verified when we saw them struggling to hold on in Afghanistan against organised, skillful guerillas, then we all just said was "told you so!" ;) The ISS was also well-aware of the lack of skills in the Soviet troops & the fact that any Soviet invasion of any western country would have to simply rely on overwhelming numbers. The US approach to the USSR during the Cold War had to do with strategic geopolitical issues and very little to do with any real threat from the Soviet military

To be honest, there were quite a few palestinians that refused to accept the UN ruling on the establishment of Israel in the same region at the time... I know, because they (like the Irish Republican who didn't accept the Treaty in 1921 because htye wanted full independance and the entire island) wanted the whole of the region, rather than just that part was designated Palestine.

The whole discussion starts and ends with the fact that Israel has totally ignored over 100 UN Resolutions regarding the Palestinians and a Palestinain State, this disregard for the UN started in 1948 when Israel refused to accept the UN ruling on the establishment of a Palestinian state in Palestine.

Hello Bravo Charlie, The simple answer is that they aren't really dangerous at all. No more so anyway than the USSR was during the Cold War. It is just US propoganda because North Korea have no interest in listening to the USA, Japan or South Korea and have no interest in changing their political ideology to suit South Korea or Japan or the US. So in US terms that means "Well if you're not with us you must be against us therfore you are a rogue state" - Propoganda! And they still haven't found any WMD in Iraq! - propoganda again!

Från vad jag förstår så är det fortfarnde tillräckligt många lämpliga som vill göra värnplikt men som inte får chansen pga olika anledningar.

Rätta mig om jag har fel. Jag antar att samma regel gäller såväl i UK, US och Sverige - men kanske inte i US, jag vet inte dvs: If you feel the order is an illegal order, for example, "sergeant kill those prisoners" and you are convinced that it is an illegal order then you have not disobeyed an order under the existing regulations for your military arm. I would guess that this US soldier is convinced that the order to ship out to Iraq is an illegal order and as such is "not an order" and that he is prepared to try to prove that in a Court Martial...eller?

Nja, jo, ja ,neeejah.... man får tycker vad man vill men det är fortfarande styrande lagstiftning som gäller oberoende av vem det är som sitter i regeringen. vänster,höger,center. Riksdagen, civil service, judiciary, armed forces och polis är oberoende av politik. Och detta ska inte blandas ihop med styrande politik eller public opinion eller världsopinion.

Jo, det stämmer, men i slutändan det är lagstiftning i UK eller Danmark som bestämmer vem är eller icke är "soldat" Inte vad kombattant eller deras "följare/stödjare" själv anser.

De kan väl vara medlemmar av en organiserad motståndsrörelse? /mdn Men då skulle de inte erkännas som soldater av t.ex den brittiska eller danska myndigheter utan som "civilians opposing their sitting government" which is the non-commited polite way of saying "freedom fighters" or "terrorists"

I thought that the legislation did not cover daggers/knifes which is a part of a uniform. Maybe I did not hear the truth but in Scotland people said that they were allowed to wear their knife in the sock since that was a part of the Scottish uniform. That's correct, it also covers Sikhs who carry knives,and occasionally swords, as part of their religion and civilians in full scottish dress with a skein dhu in their sock. However, it doesn't apply to foreign troops on "shore leave" only to foreign troops on duty or in service. So Italian uniformed naval officers on shore leave wlaking the streets of london with daggers on belts is not allowed. When they are on offcial service, i.e. visiting a British naval base, yes, but not off duty.

Håller med dxl. Alltså, nu pratar jag för vad gäller under brittisk lag, och jag börjar med din scenario: if you are in a foreign military uniform on British soil, you immediatley come under marital law anyway, not civil law, so even if you commit some minor crime, like being drunk & disorederly in a public place, it is the military police that will deal with you. If you then as a foreign uniformed soldier or unit attack anyone or anything then that is an act of war. It doesn't have to be a military or royal target, as soon as you as a uniformed foreign soldier open fire, you've declared war. That said, all foreing troops in uniform and on leave in the UK, especially naval units, who all tend to go on shore leave together, and in uniform, are not allowed to carry weapons of any sort. We once took a group of Italian naval officers into the police station and contacted their MPs to come and speak to them, because they were walking around the streets in "walking out" uniform with daggers on their belts. Furthermore, it is illegal to wear full military unfiorm in the UK, if you do not have the right to wear it, for example a teenager buys an old British army unfiorm and wears it around the streets. BUT it has to be the full uniform to be illegal i.e. hat, boots, the lot. However, even if it is just the jacket that has been bought secondhand, it is illegal to wear badges of rank or unit. Then another thing, unlke Sweden, most troops in the UK are not allowed to travel home on a Friday evening and back again on a Sunday evening in uniform, for security reasons. The only time that is permitted is during periods of high alert (högsta beredskap) and so the only time I ever did it was during the Falklands War. But as dxl said, I think those Iraqi "soldiers" would have an extremely hard time proving to the military police that they were officially part of Iraq's Defence Forces.