Tuesday 26th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

what's the point .....

what's the point .....

Afghanistan veteran, Leo Docherty, criticises the British military campaign in Helmand province, where the Prince served until his tour of duty was cut short after details of it were leaked on the internet.

Perhaps Prince Harry knows this.  

More likely, however, is that he's not too bothered about it because, for him, as for every other young officer, seeing active service is more important than any other consideration.

This attitude is perhaps unavoidable in a highly trained professional army in which 'cracking on' and doing what you're told is an institutional requirement ...

As Harry said of his time in Garmsir: "It is somewhat what I imagine the Second World War to be like." ... But the Army has over the past few years of the 'war on terror' exceeded itself when it comes to blind obedience.  Take the Iraq war. In 2003 my fellow officers and I knew the WMD issue was a blatant ruse, but we cared little. Scenting action we ignored the fact that we'd been told a pack of lies, and satisfied ourselves with the vague notion that it was all for the good. We simply craved active service. Given the monumental human tragedy that has unfolded in Iraq over the past five years, you'd think that further military adventures hatched on the backs of MoD fag packets would have been guarded against, but along came Helmand province. 

Harry's War: The Ugly Truth

Royal camenbert

Any old republic will do [letters 17/03/08 SMH]

Putting aside Mike Carlton's call for my demise (March 15-16), he should have a better grasp of the facts before he comments on an issue.

John Howard did not rig the referendum question. It was the republican movement that tried to do that. Unbelievably, it tried to have the words "president" and "republic" removed. It was obvious what its polling and focus groups were saying.

The question was finally settled by a committee dominated by republicans and on a model chosen by them.

Carlton talks of "the" republic. The republicans now admit they haven't the foggiest idea what sort of republic they want. They want "a" republic, that is, any old republic. When Carlton says a "republic" is "inevitable", he forgets that when he was young, people like him were saying socialism was inevitable. We all know what is inevitable. Carlton has in fact already issued my arrêt de mort.

And there was no "rational debate" before the referendum. As the eminent media authority Lord Deedes said in London's The Daily Telegraph: "I have rarely attended elections in any country, certainly not a democratic one, in which the newspapers have displayed more shameless bias. One and all, they determined that Australians should have a republic and they used every device towards that end."

David Flint Bondi Beach


----
Ha Monsieurr Dave Flint... Your "arrêt de mort?"... Ho-la-la... Achtung!


There was a rational debate before the referendum. But some influential people made sure it would be steered towards defeat...
And yes John Howard sunk the idea of a republic in Australia, by clever trickery in a  rigged referendum question...
First the Republican Movement led by Malcolm Turnbull was NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the republican sentiment in this country, despite what you may believe. Malcolm and his exclusive little club made sure they hijacked the issue at every opportunity and I believe to this day that "strange" forces were at work in the Howard camp to make sure Malcolm's lousy model would prevail at the republican conference, so that it could be sunk at the referendum... At the time, more than 60 per cent of the population were in favour of republicanism — a system of government in which the people of goodwill can govern themselves without the shackle of archaic ruling usurper dynasties — even as a decorative door-mat for a parliament. Malcolm's model was a disgrace to the spirit of proper republicanism. Polls showed that the majority of people rejected Malcolm exclusive club of pseudo-lords ruling by privilege... I may be wrong but despite "apparent tiffo" between Malcolm and Johnny, I believe Malcolm was working for Johnny to make sure the whole idea would sink like the Titanic... Look, the polls clearly showed that Malcolm's model would be defeated, while the question of having a republic would not be. So why would Malcolm — a "committed republican" — pursue his flawed rigmarole with such vigour and such weight, when he knew it would be sunk? Defiance? Ignorance of the Polls? Stupidity? Stubborn belief in his bootstraps? I believe it was to hand over on a platter the carcass of the republican debate to John Howard.

And you, Mr Royal Flint, why quote a "media expert" (William (Bill, as he preferred to be called by the common riff-raff) Francis Deedes was a journalist and Thatcherite politician, for the conservatives, who became a Baron) that has a "Lord" title in front of it?... You're shooting your biased foot with your biased gun at the same time — while trying to shoot down a proper human ideal that you could never understand!

Why do I bother?...