Human Rights for troops?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/11418 8/Fight-over-soldiers-rights-rule

Should our troops be protected the same as anyone else, by the the Human Rights Act?

Take away the glasses and trim the moustache, remind you of anyone?

http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/1 /285x214/114188_1.jpg

[Gromit]

When someone joins the military they are aware that they face risks which ordinary people will not be confronted with and they accept that.

But that does not mean they forego all their rights. If they should die or are injured by inadequate kit or as a result of incompetence, then those responsible should be prosecuted like any shoddy employer would be.

[paraffin]

In this specific instance, yes is the answer. The fact that the Government are fighting the ruling is nothing short of despicable.

[jno]

you think they should have rights under health and safety regulations not to be sent to war zones?

[123everton]

No General has the troops or equipment he feels he needs, the Italian campaign is a testament to that truism, and what did the Germans call our tanks at the time?
Tommy Cookers.
During the Great War the front line troops often complained about the provisions, if you go further back we lost more to disease than wounds in the second Anglo Boer War and then you've got the Crimean war too, some things never change.
The problem stems from the expenses scandal more than anything else.
For all the references to the Vietnam war the analogy doesn't stand up, tactically at least, the great lessons from that war were, experienced troops are better in combat and flying about in helicopters won't win any ground.
It appears to me that some people think it is possible to wage war without tears, it's not.