Veterans protest at the gates of Downing Street

[webfact]

Veterans protest at the gates of Downing Street



LONDON: -- Veterans from several UK conflicts arrive at Downing Street.

They have come to throw their medals on the ground outside the Prime Minister’s London residence in protest at the Government’s decision to bomb Syria.

“They are ashamed they had to take part in those wars. The second world war was a necessary war. Most wars since have been totally unnecessary and avoidable.” said Second World War D-Day veteran Jim Radford.

Public support for air strikes falls

The UK lower house agreed to take part in air strikes on strategic targets in Syria last week.

Latest research, however, suggests support for action in Syria has fallen to its lowest level since September 2014.

Net support has dropped seven points but 48% of those polled still approve of action, compared to 31% who don’t.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-12-09

[bill014]

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

[SgtRock]

bill014, on 09 Dec 2015 - 08:43, said:

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

With the greatest of respect bill.

If Mr Radford is a D-Day Vet then he must be around 90 years old and may well not be fully in control of all his faculties.

A quick glance at the discarded medals indicate that they are not Mr Radfords. I doubt if he was cutting about Iraq and the Balkans in the 90's.

At this juncture, I am not convinced that the decision to bomb Syria was the correct decision either. I will await further details of the current masterplan, before buying into the bombing campaign.

[rwdrwdrwd]

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

Stabilise? STABILISE?

Laughable.

Look at images of Syria '10 and tell me it's been stabilised by western intervention.

Edited December 9, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[Smithson]

He is right, wars are rarely justified and almost never go to plan as we have seen with the Iraq invasion. The problems there go right back to the Iraq - Iran war, when weapons flooded both countries. This continued with the second invasion, plus Clinton supplied massive amounts of weapons for Turkey to fight the kurds.

Then there is Afghanistan and Pakistan, flooded with weapons from decades of fighting.

The militarization of society can only lead to more wars, this is true not just for the middle east, but for all countries.

[bill014]

Sgt Rock.

I meant no disrespect to Jim Radford or any other 2nd WW veteran, so apologise if it was construed that way.

RWD. Stabilise was the adjective I used to describe Borneo/Radfan/Malaya etc etc. which, I'm sure you'll agree, are stable!!

[jomcondo]

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

you've got it the wrong way around........the wars waged by the west against iraq & libya brought absolute chaos to otherwise stable countries.

[FritsSikkink]

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

What a load of crock, Iraq = oil. Afganistan = minerals, Syria = gas/oil

[elgordo38]

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

you've got it the wrong way around........the wars waged by the west against iraq & libya brought absolute chaos to otherwise stable countries.

After democracy is restored all the "bombers" will contribute money to rebuild a new and better country. Look at Germany and Japan.

[Ulic]

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos, all come to mind as brilliant, well thought out

wars that were necessary, and helped stabilize the regions bringing peace, democracy and

ending corruption.

[rwdrwdrwd]

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

you've got it the wrong way around........the wars waged by the west against iraq & libya brought absolute chaos to otherwise stable countries.

After democracy is restored all the "bombers" will contribute money to rebuild a new and better country. Look at Germany and Japan.

By 'contribute' you mean 'lend with interest' right?

Edited December 9, 2015 by rwdrwdrwd

[facthailand]

Britain should take a cue from how well other Western "democratic" countries have done warring on the Middle East since 2003.

Things are so much better now! And we're so much safer now.

The UK should keep its money to spend at home, not killing others to absolutely no effect.

[peterb0576]

Having served 22yrs in The British Army, my opinion of what Bill said is a crock of @hit, if the US,Britian etc left Iraq,Syria etc alone we would no be in this mess,Saddam,Gaddaffi etc had control but the west had to jump in with lies about the WMD Blx (Blair,Bush) and how evil Hussain,Gaddaffi and Assad are with killing innocent people, but are happy to bomb the @hit out of them instead in the name of Domocracy or as we like to call it oil and gas.I have no idea how a place like Syria was a threat to the world before the US and its sheep started backing terrorists or as we now them as the FSA and ISIS. If we in the west had not provided arms and support to the Iraq etc lied about WMD (Blair and Bush again) maybe the 1000's of death caused by the bombings would never have happend and the middle east might be a bit more safer and no such thing as ISIS

[sgtsabai]

Right on for the Vets. But a word of caution from a now aging Vietnam USMC Vet and member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, governments will go to no end to shut up Vets that speak power to the truth because people tend to listen to them. Government cannot/will not tolerate the truth, especially from Vets.

[FritsSikkink]

Having served 30 years myself and fought in many conflicts around the world, the comment by Mr Radford is totally wrong. The wars and conflicts since the Second World War have been against different enemies to peace and hepled stabilise regions that otherwise would have fallen into chaos, in the process making the lives of millions safer and giving them a decent future.

Syria presents a threat to the world and Mr Radford should bear in mind the reasons behind the decision to bomb them. If he is happy to accept terrorism in mainland Britain, then I suggest himself and his medal throwing colleagues depart for another country.

you've got it the wrong way around........the wars waged by the west against iraq & libya brought absolute chaos to otherwise stable countries.

After democracy is restored all the "bombers" will contribute money to rebuild a new and better country. Look at Germany and Japan.

no they put a friend in charge and rob the country of its resources

[billd766]

The biggest problem is that governments know how to start a war but have no idea how to maintain one and worst of all have no real idea of how to stop one.

Governments rely on their military either win the war or end it the best way possible.

Most or the western government leaders have never been in the military and have no idea of the physical cost involved. Now if their children were in the front lines they would certainly think harder before starting even a limited skirmish.

This is one reason I admire Prince Harry. He was a volunteer. He HAS been there seen it and done it and I am sure that his family worried for him every day.