mad555

iTrader: (1)

..£2m for Iraq man shot by UK soldier - AOL News

Boro

iTrader: (1)

£2m aint alot if he needs 50 years of full-time care.

mad555

iTrader: (1)

More than injured troops have got.

The Zohan

2m UKP - in iraq is a lot of money, cost of living/care is a 'little' less than the UK.

I think the point is that would be fine and dandy if our trrops got the same sort of compensation and what is disgusting and beyond belief is the payment is more than our own troops receive if simiarly injured.

I am glad that the NHS is not short of money to treat people in this country - oh, wait a minute - they are. Go figure!

I suppose it is just what you expect in/from this country these days.

Chip

Does this set a precedent? Will the uk now pay all the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's that the UK/US has killed since the fighting began.

They should be looking after our own injured troops first and foremost.

Chip

PeteBrant

It's silly to compare compensation for an injury to a civillian to that of a soldier.
You can't really be suggesting that troops whose express purpose is to fight the enemy should be compensated in the same way as a civillian caught in the crossfire?

SJ_Skyline

Our troops shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The Zohan

Sorry! - you do not vaue our soliders, their lives or care as much as those of a civilian.

I am suprised that we do pay compensation to foreign civilians caught up in the war in the first place. Thank **** we did not in either of the WW's.

This ridiculous situation to be in, in the first place!

Our aremed forces
They are sent to do a job, no choice or say in it.

Irrelevant if they should or should not be there - vote the ******* stupid gov't out next time as it is thier fault!

They defend us and protect our rights and our safety.

I would say that yes they do deserve to be treated eually at least.

Care in Iraq will be considerably cheaper than the UK and i would expect the same if not more for a similarly injured British soldier.

Your true colours starting to show Mr Brant?

PeteBrant

Of course the life of a soldier is as valuable. But, the soldier knows the risks when he takes the job, and weighs that risk accordingly.

A civillian does not make that choice- They are caught up in the crossfire.

Its pretty basic logic.

Of course we paid compensation in the WW's - How do you think Germany/Holland/France got rebuilt?

Soldiers stayed for years after the war rebuilding the countries involved. My Grandfather left home in 1940 and got home, effectively, in 1948.

And what do you mean by that?

rob878

Well said that man

PeteBrant

Of course the flip side is that soldiers should be paid much more in the first place, accordign to the risks they are taking.

But when you take that risk you are making the choice to do so.


Of course if a Soldier gets injured in Battle then he should be taken care of for the rest of his life.

But that doesn't mean that he is more deserving than the civilian that gets thier life ruined by misktake.

stilover

It hasn't been said, but I'd expect him to be taken out of Iraq and given a new life in Britain. No doubt a free home.

Just look at that other young lad who had his arms blow off by the America's. Did America pay for his treatment? give him shelter in their country? Educate him? NO. The British tax payer did.

I really think it's a kick in the teeth to thoise families who have had their loved ones (british soldiers) killed by so called "American friendly fire" and recied nowhere near £2m.

stilover

What about soldies killed in friendly fire incidents? Shot in the back, bomb dropped on their transporter?

PeteBrant

That's a tricky one.

I mean as a Soldier you go into a warzone knowing the risks. But obviously you don't expect that risk to come from your own allies.

In one respect, you would expect the soldier to be compensated by whoever. But on the other hand, he knew there was a risk when he entered.

But hey, if the government decide to compensate such a case with a few million quid I won't complain about it!

subaruturbo_18

if the person dies, why should the family get money anyway?

fair enough pay the persons debts if he has any and the funeral, but why should the family recieve near £2m as you are saying?

stilover

I did mean injured as well. Just didn't say it. Even though, injured troops get diddly sqwat in compensation.
Plus if a soldier has a family, and the soldier is the only bread winner, what is his family supposed to live on?

I'm not saying this Iraqy lad doesn't deserve anything, just I think it's an insult to our own countrymen when a Foreign casualty gets more than them.

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

Ok, so British troops know the risks when they sign up. True. They also know that they a going to be involved in running battles with the Iraq troops. They also know bullets hurt so try to stay out of the way of them as much as possible. Do they know this BECAUSE they are soldiers? No, they know it because it's bloody obvious.

The Iraqi that is getting 2m should have had the sense NOT to be in a position that would get him in "the Cross fire".

If he deserves compensation then it should be set at the same pathetic level our troops get.

PeteBrant

He wasn't caught in the cross fire as such.

Apparantly a British Soldier had befriended the chap, and dropped his gun, it went off and hit the guy, leaving him paralysed.

The amount is apparantly to cover medical care for the rest of his life (Which I am amazed to see that scoobynet net people have such intimate knowledge of the Iraqui healthe system to know that it could not possibly cost £2M) and to compensate for negligence.

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

I think you are missing the point a little PB.

Does the Iraqi chap deserve a lump sum 7 times that a British troop would get if the same happened to him?

PeteBrant

Well there are a few factors to consider.

(i)The soldier is there out of choice (in that he cose to become a soldier), fully aware of the risks. THe civilian came to be there because he is an Iraqui living in Iraq.

(ii)We have a National Health service in the UK. THerefore the entire medical support for someone will be not counted in the compensation. Now I don't know anything about the Iraqui Health service, but I am guessing it is failry rudimentary. This has to be factored into the total compensation package.

(iii)The incident wasn't caused by walking between two warring factions on opposite side of the street, nor was it by "accident" but by "negligence".

Each case has to be taken on its merits of course. Were it up to me, every soldier would get up to a million in compensation for injuries. But its not - and we should not base compensation to civilians on the compensation paid to soldiers. It is a completely seperate issue.

r32

Live in a war zone, **** happens. I wonder if innocent German civilians from the 2nd War can claim?

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

We can pay all this money to an Iraqi civvy (not saying he does or doesn't deserve it) but cannot (and will not) pay some Gurhkas a pension or allow them to stay in this country yet they fought and died for our country.

Why don't they deserve any money?

PeteBrant

Nice - I guess it was all thier fault, they shold have moved.

Godwins law alert.

Nonetheless, compensation (called War Reperations) is paid all the time after conflicts. The first Gulf war resulted in $350billion made in claims by corporations and individuals.

Germany agreed to pay the Allies $20Billion after second world war (a massive amount for the time)

PeteBrant

Again, playing devils advocate, they know the deal when they sign up - Ghurkas never have been made British Citizens, nor do they fight for the crown.

Leslie

Its about seven times more than a soldier would get for a similar injury.

Les

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

Who do/did they fight for?

Scooby Snacks 23

What annoys me is that they say the MoD will have to pay - no matter how they dress it up, in fact it's US who have to pay - the good ol' British tax payer.

I reflect some of the thoughts already here, especially the comment about our troups shouldn't even be there in the first place.

PeteBrant

Money. They are, by the strictest definition, Mercenaries.

The Zohan

Peter - you are a great keyboard warrior - i for one would just love to see you have the 'stones' to say that to a Ghurka or indeed any member of the armed forces.

The Ghurkas are paid, not much, why do it for a few reasons, the pride of being picked and serving what they consider to be thier monarch and country as well as their own has helped secure this countries contuinued saftey. They are brave and couraeous fighters, immensely loyal and with a fearsome reputation. "Mercenaries" - Pathetic!

as for us paying to rebuild countires after WWII, let's not confuse apples with oranges shall we as you are usually the first to shout of anybody else dare

Renumerations paid where not to civilians as payments for loss of loved ones, injuries, etc mthe money was to rebuild the country and economy and to help prevent another Hitler scenario - as we are paying in Iraq already.


FWIW - Peter i did have a lot fo respect for you - up until now. Your true colours are really showing with your comments on this thread.

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

I saw this mentioned in the Wiki article (but wiki isn't always the most accurate)