DZJ 0 #26 February 29, 2008 To be honest I was amazed the story stayed quiet for so long. Apparently it's been floating about on Australian websites since January! Was watching Channel 4 last night and was frankly a bit miffed to see Jon Snow whinging about this apparently being a sign of near-totalitarian press-muzzling. At one point Patrick Mercer MP (ex-Tory Security spokesman) came out with a great line, saying something like 'Harry's place is as a soldier on the battlefield killing and capturing his country's enemies' which I thought sounded fabulously anachronistic in a way that only a Tory can manage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #27 February 29, 2008 Yeah, it was nice of the Drudge Report to act as Al Qaeda informants. My already rock-bottom opinion of the press has been lowered some more. Still, well done Harry though for putting his neck on the line against the Taliban even though he's Afghanistans number one bullet magnet. It's a shame that he'll probably be pulled out as a result of this and not get to finish his tour like he wanted to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysmurf2 0 #28 February 29, 2008 Hes already been pulled out (I believe). Watched some of his BBC interviews (as a part of the no report deal between Brit press and MOD) -- he comes across as a very dedicated officer who genuinely wanted to be where he is. Its a complete shame that his privacy was violated and that he won't finish his time in Afghanistan. I found it interesting (and very telling of his character) that he said serving in Afghanistan was the most normal his life would get. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #29 February 29, 2008 QuoteNo matter how you spin it... Georgie Boy and Dan Quayle types abounded at the time.. and there was NO way in hell any of them was ever goign to Vietnam...period.Forget somebody? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #30 February 29, 2008 QuoteYeah, it was nice of the Drudge Report to act as Al Qaeda informants. My already rock-bottom opinion of the press has been lowered some more. NPR reported this morning that the 'leak' came via the Drudge report as well. (This morning) Drudge appears to link back to UK Sun, UK Observor, and Washington Post articles. This UK Reuters article also suggests that the Ministry of Defense is confirming Drudge as the 'leak.' Does anyone else have confirmation of the source? Is it appropriate to condem the "press" if the main stream media (aka professional journalism) had kept the 'secret,' and it was alternative/blog/web-style "journalism" that did not? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #31 February 29, 2008 QuoteFrom the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7269743.stm QuotePrince Harry in Taleban fighting Prince Harry has been fighting the Taleban on the front line in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed. Harry, 23, who is third in line to the throne, has spent the last 10 weeks serving in Helmand Province. "I finally get the chance to do the soldiering that I want to do," the prince said before he left. ... As someone going to a memorial service next week for a trooper killed in Helmand last year, I say it's good to see Harry taking the same risks. ...and now that the cat is out of the bag, he's being pulled off the line. The press needs to know when to keep its mouth shut. Every report I've read or heard says that Prince Harry is really in his element alongside his men.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #32 February 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteYeah, it was nice of the Drudge Report to act as Al Qaeda informants. My already rock-bottom opinion of the press has been lowered some more. NPR reported this morning that the 'leak' came via the Drudge report as well. (This morning) Drudge appears to link back to UK Sun, UK Observor, and Washington Post articles. This UK Reuters article also suggests that the Ministry of Defense is confirming Drudge as the 'leak.' Does anyone else have confirmation of the source? Second confirmation the source was Drudge: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/europe/29harry.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #33 February 29, 2008 2nd'd. But there's no way that it was going to be kept secret for ever.... Too many people knew.... bit like the "Who Killed Kenedy" or "11/9 attacks" etc conspiracy theories and why they're a crock of shite. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #34 February 29, 2008 QuoteIs it appropriate to condem the "press" if the main stream media (aka professional journalism) had kept the 'secret,' and it was alternative/blog/web-style "journalism" that did not? Good question. In my opinion, if your game is reporting current events to the public in any way, shape or form, you're part of "the press". The mainstream professional (quality) media did handle this particular situation with uncharacteristically good judgement. That is until someone let the cat out of the bag and then it returned to the regular scheduled chaos. In order to enjoy freedom of speech it seems we have to endure those people who just will not shut-the-fuck-up. People think the politicians run the show, but they don't. The press do; in all their ill-informed, blundering, purile, idiotic glory. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to silence the press or revoke freedom of speech or anything of the sort. I just wish people wouldn't use freedom of speech in order to avoid freedom of thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #35 February 29, 2008 QuoteForget somebody? We were talking about RICH BOYS.. from the "best" families.... In the UK... I guess some still believe in service to country even when they are from their royal family. HEre in the US its exactly the opposite.. the upper classes have ZERO desire to teach their young what service to their country means...but they sure will pay LIP service to god and country and patriotism... Gee sounds like a hell of a lot of the followers of our Chimp in Cheif. BC no matter how much you hate him and want to belive that your fascist in charge is an "everyman"...it just wont spin your way no matter HOW much you want it to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #36 February 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteI wish we had someone in our royal houshold who had the balls to actually go to a fight instead of doing everything they can to send the lower classes in their place. I take it that you will be voting Republican this fall? JM will most likely be the only candidate for president who has any combat experience. U.S. Grant had a lot of combat experience too - but he was a lousy president. Lincoln, on the other hand...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #37 February 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteToo bad the pilots who died in accidents while flying F-102 aircraft didn't know that it was a "nice safe job" with a "zero chance of deploying". Maybe you should have informed them? Sorry.. I was active duty during that time and knew far too many who DID go to Vietnam and did not come back. No matter how you spin it... Georgie Boy and Dan Quayle types abounded at the time.. and there was NO way in hell any of them was ever goign to Vietnam...period. Irony score: PERFECT! No matter how you spin it, you can't rewrite history by denying facts. Flying 102s was neither safe nor was it without chance of deployment. Period. Of course, you did have to actually FLY the F102 to be at risk in one. Not on leave to help with an election campaign in a different state, or grounded for lack of a medical.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #38 February 29, 2008 QuoteHarry and his brother may or may not have wanted to join the military. The point is that it was expected of them; just like their father; just like their uncle. reports say he threatend to walk out publically if he was NOT allowed to deploy. One can only wish we had leaders who were worth following the way he apparently is (even if he's only a symbolic leader)____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 February 29, 2008 QuoteBC no matter how much you hate him and want to belive that your fascist in charge is an "everyman"...it just wont spin your way no matter HOW much you want it to. He ain't an everyman any more. Gets more than my annual salary for a single appearance. And no matter how you spin it, he did his best to avoid getting sent to Vietnam. Maybe it was harder for him lacking the family connections, but that doesn't make him any less of a 'coward' than Bush or Quayle or virtually every Republican not named McCain. I don't blame them for it. It is fair to jump on Bush as more of a chickenhawk than Clinton showed himself to be, however if their terms had been reversed, the differences would be much more slight. Bush couldn't have invaded Iraq without 9/11, and Clinton would have at least gone to Afghanistan, and close to even money he dsposes Hussein in some manner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #40 February 29, 2008 QuoteHe ain't an everyman any more. Gets more than my annual salary for a single appearance. And no matter how you spin it, he did his best to avoid getting sent to Vietnam. Maybe it was harder for him lacking the family connections, but that doesn't make him any less of a 'coward' than Bush or Quayle or virtually every Republican not named McCain. I don't blame them for it. It is fair to jump on Bush as more of a chickenhawk than Clinton showed himself to be, however if their terms had been reversed, the differences would be much more slight. Bush couldn't have invaded Iraq without 9/11, and Clinton would have at least gone to Afghanistan, and close to even money he dsposes Hussein in some manner. He got elected by pretending to be an EVERYMAN.. good ole boy.. and a whole bunch of the uneducated rubes in red state land fell for it....and they have been trying to deny that they voted for him ever since.... well except for the dead enders in the right wing who cant come to grips with reality. Tsk tsk tsk..and you STILL dont get what a CHICKENHAWK is.... http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=26413947 It sounds like this is a good time to once again review the definition of "chickenhawk": Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk; sometimes designated after a person's name by [c.h.]) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. I will also throw in the dead enders HERE who support the war lock stock and barrel who yet would never think of going themselves.. and there are a BUNCH of those elitist pussys around here. And I would like to add.. just like Vietnam.. there are Americans over there who died.. because they went instead of the people like Bush and Cheney and all the other fucking cowardly chickenhawks out there and their children who learned how to shirk their responsibility from their cowardly parents. NOTICE this does not apply to those who DO NOT SUPPORT the WAR in Iraq.... so your specious arguement about BC is back to good old jeolousy because unlike so many on the right.. he can and does get laid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 February 29, 2008 Quote The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. He did commit troops on a number of occasions, though he notably refused to do so with Iraq, sending many waves of cruise missiles even though their effectiveness was low in getting an improvement in compliance. But as I said, Clinton (and Bush Sr) operated in a world that still remembered and feared ground troops in a protracted war. No more Vietnams. 2001 removed that hurdle- the people were more than willing to have troops sent out to kill every Arab. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #42 February 29, 2008 QuoteNo more Vietnams. 2001 removed that hurdle- the people were more than willing to have troops sent out to kill every Arab. Some of us remember Vietnam all too well... that is why so many of us think Iraq is a travesty brought about by those who dont have a fucking clue.. The people who attacked us were trained and based out of Afghanistan.. I supported and still support the effort to go after those who wish to do us harm from there. Iraq... is a NeoCon scheme to enrich themselves at any cost by trumping up a bogus enemy so they can give out as many no bid contracts to their friends to fleece the American people..... I guess those4 on the right who are not in the money stream are just to fucking stupid to see what their Chimp in Charge has really done to this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #43 February 29, 2008 Quote Quote No more Vietnams. 2001 removed that hurdle- the people were more than willing to have troops sent out to kill every Arab. Some of us remember Vietnam all too well... that is why so many of us think Iraq is a travesty brought about by those who dont have a fucking clue.. The people who attacked us were trained and based out of Afghanistan.. I supported and still support the effort to go after those who wish to do us harm from there. Iraq... is a NeoCon scheme to enrich themselves at any cost by trumping up a bogus enemy so they can give out as many no bid contracts to their friends to fleece the American people..... I guess those4 on the right who are not in the money stream are just to fucking stupid to see what their Chimp in Charge has really done to this country. They may be stupid but they at least acknowledge that Bush DID serve in the military. Just because you don't recognize the NG as being part of the U.S. military doesn't mean it isn't. By your own definition, your hero, BJ Clinton, was even more of a "chickenhawk" than Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #44 February 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote No more Vietnams. 2001 removed that hurdle- the people were more than willing to have troops sent out to kill every Arab. Some of us remember Vietnam all too well... that is why so many of us think Iraq is a travesty brought about by those who dont have a fucking clue.. The people who attacked us were trained and based out of Afghanistan.. I supported and still support the effort to go after those who wish to do us harm from there. Iraq... is a NeoCon scheme to enrich themselves at any cost by trumping up a bogus enemy so they can give out as many no bid contracts to their friends to fleece the American people..... I guess those4 on the right who are not in the money stream are just to fucking stupid to see what their Chimp in Charge has really done to this country. They may be stupid but they at least acknowledge that Bush DID serve in the military. Just because you don't recognize the NG as being part of the U.S. military doesn't mean it isn't. By your own definition, your hero, BJ Clinton, was even more of a "chickenhawk" than Bush. Fact is, Bush was in a "Champaign Squadron" and even then failed to fulfill his obligations. From public records: On May 24, 1972, Bush submitted a form requesting a transfer to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Alabama. The squadron was under the command of Lt. Colonel Reese R. Bricken. Based on his application, he was already in Alabama at work on the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount, who was a friend of his father. Jimmy Allison was a longtime family friend who helped him get the campaign work. On May 26, Bricken, (commander of the 9921st), approved Bush’s application for transfer. Bricken also made it clear that he understood that the transfer request was highly irregular, writing: “You already understand that this is a Training Category G, Pay Group None, Reserve Section MM proposition.” As an obligated Reservist, Bush was in “Training Category A,” which required the 48 periods of inactive duty training, and 15 days of active duty training, and was required to remain in that Training Category. Training Category “G” offered no training at all. According to Air Force regulations (AFM 35-3, paragraph 14-6), being in "Training Category A" meant that "If a member...will be unable to further train with his unit because of an impending change of residence,...he is required to sign a statement that he has been counseled." That counseling included notifying Bush of his obligation to find a new unit with which he could fulfill his training obligations. Throughout this period, Bush remained obligated to train with his Texas unit, or perform substitute training each month. Bush service chronology shows no indication that the 147th ever transferred Bush out of its control, nor do Bush’s payroll records for the period in question show any indication that any personnel action was officially taken by the 147th relieving him of his obligation to train with that unit. Nevertheless, Bush’s records show that he is credited with no training during these months. Colonel Bricken is on record as stating that Bush made no effort to participate as a Guardsman with the 9921st. And let's not forget chickenhawk Cheney, classified 1A for the draft, who said ""I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #45 February 29, 2008 Was President Bush ever a member of the National Guard? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 February 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteNo more Vietnams. 2001 removed that hurdle- the people were more than willing to have troops sent out to kill every Arab. Some of us remember Vietnam all too well... that is why so many of us think Iraq is a travesty brought about by those who dont have a fucking clue.. Do you want a medal? Yes, some people do remember. But most were all for invasion. Bush didn't have to try hard to convince them and it was at least 2 years (and more likely 3) before more than 50% opposed it. Since history is what it is, you can believe to your death that Clinton would never have done it (and didn't send anyone to Bosnia). What I don't get is your support for McCain who will stay in Iraq till the next millenium if needed, just because he did serve in the army (AF?) before. Is the war ok because he isn't a chickenhawk like Clinton and Bush? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #47 February 29, 2008 Due to the obvious reasons I've wanted to reply, but been a bit reluctant. I think anyone serving in the Helmand valley and putting their lives at risk deserves credit. With Harry it surely deserves even more credit concerning his background. I've always viewed the Queen with nothing more than the utmost of respect - and been disappointed when other Royals have behaved in a way they shouldn't. Including Harry. But what he's doing is of course very admirable - I'd expect many people wish his career to be long and successful. In regards to the media? The desire to gain wealth and success will always overcome moral sense. Hence questionable journalist behaviour. Who would expect anything else? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #48 February 29, 2008 QuoteWas President Bush ever a member of the National Guard? When it suited him. And when it didn't, it seems he had other priorities, like Cheney.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #49 February 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteWas President Bush ever a member of the National Guard? When it suited him. And when it didn't, it seems he had other priorities, like Cheney. Well, since his records show that if nothing else it did suit him for at least the majority of his obligation, we can agree that he did serve in the National Guard. And, since the National Guard is (at least last I checked) a branch of the U.S. Military, then Bush did, in fact, serve in the military. Whether you or Amazon are happy with the extent of his service is irrelevant. Since I am not familiar with any wings, groups, squadrons, etc. classified as a "Champaign Squadron" by the military maybe you could be so kind as to provide a link to show where these are stationed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #50 February 29, 2008 I'm puzzled why you continually run these guys down. If you have even a below average intellect you'd see these poor examples of human beings as what they are. As for people who might disagree, despite having a vote - which is unfortunate; do they matter? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
