成人快手

I think that it is a given that we should never have invaded Iraq, we also know that the man to blame is Bushes poodle, Blair.
That said, I wish that soldiers like Mike Jackson had had what it takes to say what he is now saying, while he was still a serving soldier.
Possibly he was protecting his pension.
Whatever the reason for staying silent he has done the rest of our soldiers a disservice to say the least.

it might prove a mistake to have a mother on the show. the topics raised by mothers are not the same and at cross purposes to any debate of defence. No mother wants war ever. They do not accept the premise. So nothing anyone says will ever be acceptable which tends to run debate into the ground and go no where?

it did last time.

Yet again,narrow parameters of "debate".A pointless exercise to satisfy the charter.How about real engagement and question ?;Cherry picking of information,ficticious single sources,45 mins from armagegon,links with 9/11,Niger and yellow cake,the Downing St memos (you know the ones which record Blair promising the WH to join invasion before parliament vote,Blairs subsequent parliament assertion for SH to stay in power by giving up non existant WMD,successful UN inspections under Ritter which confirmed no WMD capability,Cheneys post gulf war I reasons for not occupying Iraq,Depleted Uranium/"Gulf War Syndrome"/higher incidence of cancers and birth defects,Cluster bombs,peer reviewed and government dept backing of the Lancet Study (650,000 + additional deaths due to occupation),ficticious planted stories about shredders/saving Pfc Lynch,Cholera,Infant mortatality,increased risk of Terrorism to UK,USA on record to use Nuclear first stike against Iran Etc Etc ..

Newsnight's poll of the public showing that it doubts the possibility of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is ludicrous. It doesn't reveal anything about the way either war is actually going; it says more about press coverage of the wars.

Why do those military people who appear on this evenings Newsnight not appear in uniform while they talk on behalf of the army? It seems to me a mistake to wear a suit because they look like the politicians we all despise.

I whole heartly agree with what Mike Jackson said. That was a real soldier actualy telling how things are. We can not blame this government, (not yet anyway) it started with the previous governments "reviews" of our military and trying to make it into a business. We have been left with forces that are under funded, under equiped and under appreciated. This was not helped with poor leadership from our government who lead us into Iraq for oil, are we there for any other reason ??? I understand our role in Afghanistan and so does Mike Jackson, we are there for a REAL threat and we have too be there for the "long haul".

Something your programme hasnt touched upon is the age limit of the serving soldier.

I served, loyally for 25 years, and the day I reached 40 years of age - that was it - i was out.

There is an age limit in the Army - 40.

I wanted to stay, thousands of others wanted to stay.

The Army is ageist

Discuss

The comments of the minister on tonight's programme are enragingly insincere...absolutely no understanding of the dilema that faces not only our fighting forces but the families that support them! To sit there and spout the crap he has this evening is a disgrace to his position and the people he is there to support. "I've been on operations myself" - has he hell!

In the 1920's 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's 80's people would die in obscene numbers for Great Britian. A country that they grew up in and would be happy to give their life for. Today I'm not sure if people care about the country anymore. This is not the same country as 15 years ago, so when the boys come home, do they
still have the same love, respect loyalty, I'm not sure......

In 1990/91 when I served in the Gulf I heard the same things which are being being discussed on your programme tonight.

I lived in a married quarter (and because of my rank) was supposed to be the best. I was living in there with my wife and my two young sons.

The quarter was so poor I had to staple plastic on the inside of the windows and doors to keep the cold out, my heating bill was massive, and I was told things would improve.

Watching your show tonight things are obviously just as bad.

Nothing changes

The problem as I see it is the continuous us of vacuous words like winning and losing. They mean nothing in modern warfare, yet journalists continue to use them when framing leading questions and poles.

You have to remember HM Forces chose to illegally invade other countries, illegal under the terms draw up at the Nuremberg Tribunal, they chose to incite murder on the London Underground by their actions, not just inciting murder but inciting war against the Crown, an act of treason under the law, against the Crown, the people and the country, HM Forces chose to be mercenaries for the Americans, who have backed terrorism in the UK in the form of the IRA for decades, in short they have chosen to be the enemy of every free Briton, if they die for that choice, like some foot soldier of the Wehrmacht, that is their choice.

My husband and i have been married 10 years now and I can honestly say we have only spent 3 full years together. As for a pay rise for get it 2.5-3.% to be staggerd over six months. A lot isnt it, the accomodation was so bad in service accomidation we bought a house and have stretched our finances. The government then tell us we will get a lump sum back after an operational tour (tax back) still waiting for it hes been back 3 months. We still have to pay full council tax even though he is away for more than six months at a time. My youngest son is seven this year daddy hasnt been here for any of them. THANK YOU MR GOVERNMENT FOR SUCH A WONDERFUL LIFE

Very unimpressed by the propaganda at the end of the programme showing British soldiers with smiling Afghans whilst listening to Pavarotti. How about some shots of some of the thousands of Afghan civilians they've killed instead? Until the British military stops their brutal occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the US's imperialistic designs, they will continue to lose the little support that they currently have.

I was prepared to dislike Sir Mike Jackson as he was complicit in the abolishing of the Black Watch, but I thought he came across really well, and I respected him. But - Sir This, Lord That, Major the Other ... please can we have a Newsnight that talks to squaddies about their experiences of war?

In the comments on tonight's programme on "Broken Army", no comments were made on how recruitment in all three services is to be sustained if Government continues to fail to support a revised Strategy and fund it accordingly.
None of the Services can be expanded overnight and time is needed to build up our services to meet the new commitments. Young men and women will not volunteer for the Services if they know and feel that the Government does not believe in them, leave alone the general public. We owe it to all those who are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan to support them in any way that we can

I think, I already have...but no access to an audit trail on this page.. Please advise where the audit trail is !!!!

Dear Newsnight

this was very illuminating
I'd start by replacing Lord Grayson with Mike Jackson and put the Military over all civil servants in the MOD. What was that thing about the mouse that roared? Lions roar, mice squeak if you get the drift.

Disagree that Afghanistan is strategically important, but perhaps the reasons for being there might be humanitarian, the truth is that the people we are fighting can only engage our forces when we go to them and allow them to fight us on their home territory which is the only place they stand a chance against us, doesn鈥檛 military thinking involve choosing the field of battle? Our forces seemed to be deployed in a way that makes them as vulnerable as they can possibly be? The people we are fighting couldn鈥檛 possibly reach us if they wanted to, how could they? On their pack mules, long way to Dover.

Disappointed that you did not suggest cutting programmes such as the over specified non-independent Trident replacement or the new carriers (to be used against whom and where?) rather as an alternative to increasing the defence budget.

Our country is heavily in debt, all the concerns raised tonight and others must be addressed but perhaps the money needed can come from these two intended unnecessary and wasteful programmes.

Does Mike Jackson honestly think that the planned replacement for an over specified new Trident fleet is a good idea, it is grossly over specified for what is required and the cost will significantly undermine the equipping of all the armed forces for years to come.

Why not ask him or perhaps if he is reading this he could leave a reply on the blog?

Bob

the link on latest programme and the broken army watch are from wednesdays show

What an anodine discussion! Why were the politicians not challenged on their complete disregard of our ability to provide adequate forces to meet their political ambitions. The discussion was completely pre-programmed to avoid any serious conflict of opinion and the real feelings of the military members restrained by either inate good manners or orders from their political masters. Only the parties that supported Blair (then and now) were present. Why no Liberal? I hold no brief for that party but they read Blair with deadly accuracy from the start.

Mike Jackson had the ability to change things when he was in the Forces. He is a coward to wait until he is a civilian before he starts moaning..........like all the others he will pick up his twenty pieces of silver for an autobiography and no doubt lots of signings.

Pavarotti was singing Recondita Armonia - Strange Harmony - and I took that title to have been chosen to match the pictures and to be a reference here to the camaraderie of professional soldiers, whatever side they are on. Perhaps I was being fanciful, but I found it moving.

csharp

No sensible person wants war. Diane Dernie was an articulate and reasonable advocate for her son, and for others who seek compensation. To suggest that mothers (whose opinions are presumably identical) cannot contribute to debate about war is absurd.

I was disgusted to hear on newsnight last night that the government believe that the british people are letting down our troops by not supporting them. The majority of british people have great admiration for our forces . What they do not have admiration for are the politicians that decide what the army is to do , and the reasons why they have them do it.It is immoral for the government to try and shift the blame on to the general public.

The British Army is undoubtedly the best and most respected army in the world.I find it very puzzling therfore that this government inparticular seems to treat it with such contempt.
We constantly hear ministers on the TV and on in newspapers praising the army and its work.Often and predictibly they say they know what kind of pressure the forces are under
and that they are listening to peoples concerns.Then inevitibley say that they have recently come back from Iraq or Afghanistan as though this somehow qualifies them to understand the situation as well as those on the ground.A few days spent under heavy security shaking the hands of soldiers who would rather be doing anything else other than standing in line to pay lip service to yet another politition.
Time for a change or there will be consequences for everyone.

I am surprised you posted serials 12 and 14 - both are fundamentally ill-informed (to put it mildly), and "PC" in particular is systematically offensive. What both need to understand is that "the British Military" do not "choose" their missions - they are deployed by the elected government in the service of the people. That is how democracy works. Thankfully, this is not the kind of country where the military has the scope to act on its own behalf. It is not therefore their "choice" to be out in Iraq or Afghanistan: they are out there at our behest and it is our collective responsibility - not theirs - as expressed through our parliamentary democracy. It is reprehensible not to acknowledge this, seeking instead to shift responsibility on to the members of the Armed Forces, who have no choice in the matter.

Thank You MJA #27,

You've saved me writing a response to those cretinous remarks myself.

I suspect these people have been reading too much Chomsky, watching too many John Pilger 'documentaries' and listening to far too many George Galloway-Tony Benn rants..........

It is sad to read some of the remarks written in these contributions.

The idiot who called Sir Mike Jackson a coward, for example. Just how brave that person is, I bet! Any Chief of Staff who speaks out, while serving, will be dismissed - especially by this current bunch in government, with their spin and dissembling. All that happens is the Chief of Staff is replaced and the new guy takes time to find his feet, posing even less threat to ministers. The Chief of the Naval Staff resigned in 1966 after speaking out and, Admiral Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, had his tour shortened after questioning Mr Blair's government policy about Iraq. It is thus up to retired officers to speak out - few enough do so, fewer still are heard.

As to the new aircraft carriers, it is curious that some people seem not to understand their use in projecting power, their use for taking aircraft to support our forces overseas, their use in protecting our dominions worldwide. Mobile airfields are a hugely important asset.

It is not the aircraft carriers that should be questioned. Why do we have a whole, separate, costly set up called the RAF? That is the big question. Transferring the RAF's aircraft and assets to the Navy and Army, along with the people needed, would save huge amounts of money - money that could better be spent on righting the many problems faced by our armed forces today. The Navy and Army already have their own air arms, and their pilots are often more versatile than RAF pilots. The big question is not a Broken Army - though it is at present, I grant you - but why an RAF at all? The RAF's role can be carried out by RAF personnel transferred to the RN, RM and Army - we do not need the expensive RAF to do it, with its 45,000 people to run just 1,000 aircraft. The Fleet Air Arm has some 250 aircraft and about 6,200 people. Abolishing the RAF, but not its roles, would mean cutting out a lot of unnecessary support units, once it was merged with the other two services. Has this Government got the nerve to make such a bold move?

Whether one liked or not Newsnight's treatment of Broken Army, the debate was worthwhile and I am grateful for its bringing the matter to the fore.

This Government must do a lot more to show it is fit to run our armed forces.

Tory Commitment to Defence?

The foremost duty of the State is to provide internal and external security, and yet the previous quarter century has seen a continual decline in Defence Spending as a proportion of total Gov't spending (arguably the best indicator of Gov't priorities).

The decline:
5.0% GDP - Height of the Cold War
3.5% GDP - Circa 1990
2.5% GDP - Planned post Cold-War peace 'dividend'
2.1% GDP - What is spent today
This tells me that Government no longer cares about Defence.

Will a future Conservative Government commit to a minimum peacetime Defence spending of 2.5% as a proportion of GDP?