JFKvsNixon   11 #49 Posted November 9, 2015 For someone in his position he is breaking convention by not kneeling before the Queen when he is admitted to the Privy Council, he also doesn't like to sing the national anthem which is traditional for politicians to do at all functions where it is normally sung. So both. It is also not conventional for the Head of the Armed Forces to make the sort of comments that he did but hey, if Jezza can do it why not everyone else?  Because it would make them hypocrites for criticising Corbyn? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #50 Posted November 9, 2015 For someone in his position he is breaking convention by not kneeling before the Queen when he is admitted to the Privy Council, he also doesn't like to sing the national anthem which is traditional for politicians to do at all functions where it is normally sung. So both. It is also not conventional for the Head of the Armed Forces to make the sort of comments that he did but hey, if Jezza can do it why not everyone else?  Because they arent comparable conventions. If the chief of defence staff refuses to sing the national anthem or not kneel thats up to him, but if he wants to get involved in politics as a service officer then he should get himself elected, voice his opinions in private or stay out of it like his predecessors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Tina53 Â Â 10 #51 Posted November 9, 2015 So many people are at odds with tradition and conventional behaviour nowadays so I am rather surprised there has been so much of a reaction to this. I am not bothered at all about his comments. I am more concerned about Jezza having access to sensitive information to be honest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #52 Posted November 9, 2015 So many people are at odds with tradition and conventional behaviour nowadays so I am rather surprised there has been so much of a reaction to this. I am not bothered at all about his comments. I am more concerned about Jezza having access to sensitive information to be honest.  Its an important convention that has been stuck to pretty well. In the US its regarded as important as one of the things that marks out a developed democracy. there are many examples around the world where the forces have gotten ivolved in politics and ended up enacting coups and forming dictatorships.  I might not agree with his politics, but why should you be concerned about him having access to sensitive information? You have some reason to think hes a security risk?  WASHINGTON — The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue. "The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway."  Mullen's essay appears in the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal that is distributed widely among the officer corps.  The statement to the armed forces is the first essay for the journal Mullen has written as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and veteran officers said they could not remember when a similar "all-hands" letter had been issued to remind military personnel to remain outside, if not above, contentious political debate.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-pent.4.13196027.html?_r=0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
exxon   10 #53 Posted November 9, 2015 Its an important convention that has been stuck to pretty well. In the US its regarded as important as one of the things that marks out a developed democracy. there are many examples around the world where the forces have gotten ivolved in politics and ended up enacting coups and forming dictatorships. I might not agree with his politics, but why should you be concerned about him having access to sensitive information? You have some reason to think hes a security risk?    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-pent.4.13196027.html?_r=0  It's a bit late to say the guy should have not spoken out. It's happened. He came out and said Corbyn wasn't fit to be PM as he would be a danger to the country. What he said was true, so now it has been said and is pretty much what the retired head of NATO had said, what would you want to be done about it?  Sacking a guy for telling the truth won't alter the fact that Corbyn isn't fit to be Prime Minister. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #54 Posted November 9, 2015 It's a bit late to say the guy should have not spoken out. It's happened. He came out and said Corbyn wasn't fit to be PM as he would be a danger to the country. What he said was true, so now it has been said and is pretty much what the retired head of NATO had said, what would you want to be done about it?  Sacking a guy for telling the truth won't alter the fact that Corbyn isn't fit to be Prime Minister.  You just cant resist turning everything into an opportunity for political point scoring. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
I1L2T3 Â Â 10 #55 Posted November 9, 2015 I think any sane person would rather the Generals run the country than Corybn. Â Quite the opposite. You'd have to be insane to want that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Tina53   10 #56 Posted November 9, 2015 Its an important convention that has been stuck to pretty well. In the US its regarded as important as one of the things that marks out a developed democracy. there are many examples around the world where the forces have gotten ivolved in politics and ended up enacting coups and forming dictatorships. I might not agree with his politics, but why should you be concerned about him having access to sensitive information? You have some reason to think hes a security risk?      I don't like his buddies. I put him in the same category as George Galloway, terrorist sympathisers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ez8004   10 #57 Posted November 9, 2015 The protocol is he is meant to keep his opinions to himself and not to make political comments, which shows bias. Everyone else seems to manage it. ---------- Post added 09-11-2015 at 15:00 ----------   He is showing political bias, its not his place to make public political preferences.  If Corbyn wants to follow a path of getting rid of nuclear weap;pons then thats up to him and his party. Its for the public to decide at an election.  Newsflash, the public ALREADY voted on the renewal of Trident. The Tories and the Labour Party made it very clear that the party policies during the General Election was to support the renewal of the nuclear deterrent. The last time I looked, the two parties combined had the majority of votes at the election or does democracy not work like that?  Also, Corbyn did explicitly say that he would seek all expert opinions in their respective fields on all Labour policies. So does a general of our armed forces not count as an expert opinion? I trust the general's well reasoned arguments than some fantasist idealist who wants to surrender the Falklands to Argentina. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #58 Posted November 9, 2015 Newsflash, the public ALREADY voted on the renewal of Trident. The Tories and the Labour Party made it very clear that the party policies during the General Election was to support the renewal of the nuclear deterrent. The last time I looked, the two parties combined had the majority of votes at the election or does democracy not work like that? Also, Corbyn did explicitly say that he would seek all expert opinions in their respective fields on all Labour policies. So does a general of our armed forces not count as an expert opinion? I trust the general's well reasoned arguments than some fantasist idealist who wants to surrender the Falklands to Argentina.  err newsflash the election is over, whilst its right to hold the government to its manifesto, the opposition have a new leader and can devise a new one. If they want to change their policies, then thats up to them. No idea why you are going on about a majority and democracy in this instance.  If you read the thread it isnt about defence policy, its about something else, which is explained in the OP and which you have failed to appreciate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ez8004   10 #59 Posted November 9, 2015 Anyway, re. Nuclear deterrent if we use it first we're attacking, If we use it last, its failed as NOT a deterrent  I had to correct your spelling.  Anyway, why would you want to not keep a weapon system that has a historical success rate of 100% since 1968?  Also, do you not understand what the Trident system is? It is NEVER going to be used as a first strike option. It is a deterrent, as in it "deters" other nations from even thinking about attacking and in that respect, it is completely effective.  ---------- Post added 09-11-2015 at 21:40 ----------  err newsflash the election is over, whilst its right to hold the government to its manifesto, the opposition have a new leader and can devise a new one. If they want to change their policies, then thats up to them. No idea why you are going on about a majority and democracy in this instance. If you read the thread it isn't about defence policy, its about something else, which is explained in the OP and which you have failed to appreciate.  I needed to correct your spelling, sorry.  Did you not read my second paragraph supporting the general's comments? Please read more carefully. Also, you do know that the conversation has moved on in the last three pages or are you not capable to following a thread?  It is a good thing then that the majority of Labour MPs will vote to support the renewal of Trident alongside the Tories isn't it? Since they know what they were elected on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
exxon   10 #60 Posted November 10, 2015 You just cant resist turning everything into an opportunity for political point scoring.  Corbyn is such an easy target, and while ever such a dangerous idiot is in a position of power folk will point that out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...