Re: OT: British Army Chief calls for Iraq withdrawal

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:11:25 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why doesn't he quit grandstanding and simply launch a coup?

John

Yes, scary, it was my thought as well.
In 'olden days' the military acted (rightly or wrongly) on behalf of our
politicians (i.e the nation) and kept their thoughts to themselves. Loyalty
to the crown an absolute requirement.
This gobby twat should be quickly removed from office, or better offered an
honourable discharge via his service revolver.

Tony Blair isn't 'the Crown' yet.

Nor is the Army responsible to a narrow elitist clique within New Labour.

Then who do they report to?

Unlike you lot, our 'Premier' isn't the C-in-C. I believe the Queen notionally
holds that position.

I don't know the precise details but I imagine they're effectively responsible to
the MoD ( like your DoD ).

---
From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief#United_Kingdom

The title Commander-in-Chief is rarely used by the Sovereign, but
usually refers to local or service commanders-in-chief. However, it
would not be incorrect to describe the Sovereign as being the
Commander-in-Chief. Through longstanding parliamentary practice, the
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has de facto command and
control powers over the British Armed Forces.
---

Having said that, they behave responsibly on their own accord.

---
Sir Richard's remarks can hardly be construed as "behaving
responsibly". Properly, he should have directed his remarks to his
government

It's widely believed he did.

---
Pish-tosh. "Widely believed" is just so much of your typical
bull*** without corroboration, and you know it, you fake.

What's real is that he took it upon himself to let his opinions
(which were detrimental to the prosecution of the war) be made
public, which is a great deal more than a mere slip of the tongue.

General Douglas Mac Arthur made the same mistake in Korea, and
President Truman relieved him of his command because of it.

Here's an excerpt from:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.obituaries/browse_thread/thread/bbb96a6d018c51f1/b6561889d966a5e6?lnk=st&q=Douglas+Macarthur+Retirement&rnum=1#b6561889d966a5e6

"He let it be known that he was displeased with high decisions to
refrain from attacking outside Korea lest the war spread. In a
message to the American Legion, he reiterated his vies and, in a
reply to a request from Representative Joseph W. Martin Jr., the
Massachusetts Republican, he set down a position that Washington did
not believe consonant with its views. In the message, he said:

"There is no substitute for victory."


In April, 1951, he was relieved of his commands in the Far East by
President Truman.


In his book, "Mac Arthur, His Rendezvous with History," the
General's
long time friend and senior aide, Maj. Gen. Courtney Whitney,
recalled the moment General Mac Arthur received the fateful order:


"Mac Arthur's face froze. Not a flicker of emotion crossed it. For a
moment, while his luncheon guests puzzled on what was happening, he
was stonily silent. Then he looked up at his wife, who still stood
with her hand on his shoulder. In a gentle voice, audible to all
present, he said: 'Jeannie, we're going home at last.'"


In the message that accompanied his order relieving General Mac
Arthur, President Truman said:


"Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital
element in the constitutional system of our free democracy. It is
fundamental, however, that military commanders must be governed by
the policies and directives issued to them in the manner prescribed
by our laws and Constitution. In time of crises this consideration
is particularly compelling.


"General Mac Arthur's place in history as one of our greatest
commanders is fully established. The nation owes him a debt of
gratitude for the distinguished and exceptional service which he has
rendered his country in posts of great responsibility. For that
reason I repeat my regret at the necessity for the action I feel
compelled to take in this case."


On April 17, the general, his wife and son arrived in San Francisco.
His return was that of a conquering hero as city after city feted
him with parades."
---

instead of aiding and abetting the enemy by directing
them to the media, assuring their world-wide dissemination.

So, If we had a kind of 'Hitler' running the place you'd agree to the Army doing
illegal things ?

---
You're trying to avoid the issue by likening President Bush to
Hitler and changing the subject, a stunt only a disingenuous coward
like you would try to pull.

If you really do think Mr. Bush is a criminal, then I suggest that
instead of beating your gums here you endeavor to get him charged
with war crimes or whatever you've managed to dream up in that
little cesspool that sits behind your eyes.



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
.

Quantcast