A Bond That a Prince Restored
More from The Washington Post, published March 7, 2008:
During World War II, my father, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's eldest son, Jimmy, saw combat as a Marine Raider, and all three of his brothers saw combat in the Navy or the Army Air Corps. To protect the military's strategic objectives and the troops involved, their combat locations were never revealed. When their service was reported after each operation was completed, it built morale in the country and the armed services. They gave the national leadership in Washington a very personal connection to the purpose of the fight and the proper material support of Marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen in harm's way.And more:
We have forgotten what it means to have our leaders' own children put their lives on the line for decisions made in Washington and London. Prince Harry, the British government and the British press [front page, Feb. 29; news stories, March 1 and 3] have restored that important connection for the United Kingdom.
JAMES ROOSEVELT JR.
Cambridge, Mass.
Eugene Robinson ignored an obvious justification for the decision of British editors to suppress news of Prince Harry's deployment in Afghanistan ["A Conspiracy Fit for a Prince," op-ed, March 4].[Emphasis added]
While Mr. Robinson acknowledged that as a prince in a hereditary monarchy Harry has restrictions and obligations that are different from most people's, he implied that only national security concerns justify self-censorship and said he "can't see how the public's interest is best served" by this censorship. His challenge was: "Tell me how this was an issue of national security?"
Mr. Robinson does not consider the role of the royal family in Britain. The royals' primary purpose is to serve as symbols and leaders. By sharing the danger faced by British troops in Afghanistan, Harry made a powerful statement about the commitment of the family and undoubtedly earned significant goodwill that will make it easier for the family to perform its functions.
EPHRAIM UNELL
Silver Spring, Maryland
posted by OYE @ 3/07/2008 07:28:00 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
You are promoting war and killing by encouraging people to enlist. Do you really think that is the right thing to do?
What I find humorous is that these guys who write the blog are the laughing-stock of the Democratic Party. They are like our "crazy-old uncle" that will only talk about one thought over, and over, and ooooover.
Never having an original thought, to say OYE is ineffective is an understatement! I mean, they have chosen a very narrow argument, and even then they haven't successfully forced one of these Repubs to actually step up to the plate and serve his country.
Repubs 1, OYE 0
Am I wrong? Is there one person you can take credit for browbeating into service??
You are ineffective and a lame duck. Please shut this sight down, it is pointless and embarrassing!!
This blog doesn't encourage war, if anything it encourages circumspection.
However the YE's utterly craven cock-sure know nothings that they are, seem to be incapable to any sort of self reflection.
This would be evidenced by our friend at 23:13, a Yellow Elephant impersonating a Yellow Jackass.
Anon 1: If you'd been paying attention you'd have known OYE has not taken a position on the war. What do you propose? Are you saying we should go the Code Pink route and try to shut down recruiting stations? Do you prefer our Servicemen that are currently serving do more combat tours and have no new recruits in training to relieve them?
Anon 2: It looks like Rob already called you out as a Yellow Elephant wearing a really bad disguise.
How do you distinguish yourselves from war mongers? Give peace a chance!
The powers that be have already decided long ago that peace doesn't have a chance.
Given that the current administration tends to favor militarily aggressive foreign policy solutions to most of the world's problems.
It's only fair to expect that the ruling regime's most ardent and vocal young supporters should share some of the burdens and sacrifice.
Plus, I believe that a lot of these Yellow Elephants will only support the war in the abstract. They will only support just as long as there is zero chance of facing danger themselves.This is hardly a courageous posture for the so-called "leaders of tommorrow"
Completely unlike the outstanding leadership example provided by Prince Harry.
We gave one generation of shameless chickenhawks a pass during Vietnam.
and look what happened when they grew up and took over the
Government and have a crazy cavalier attitude about war.
Being exposed to the real thing would be a quick cure for that kind of attitude.
You are going in the wrong direction. Pacifism is the answer. What if they gave a war and nobody came? Don't promote war by encouraging enlistment. Time to get on the peace train.
8;30 does not sound like someone who is against the war, but rather like a Rush Limbaugh caricature of what an anti-war person might say. More Yellow Elephant sneakery if you ask me.
Quaker?
It's a sad reflection on the GOP's 'leaders of tomorrow' that these young Chickenhawks aren't smart enough to troll effectively.
The Yellow elephants have to resort being sneaky..
They can't debate this question on any rational terms.
They only thing that sustains them is deceit and cognitive dissonance
welcome to political theory 101
obviously the position oye has established is open to criticism from both the right and the left
true pacifists (left) oppose war, often on religious grounds. they don't believe that war is ever justified and try to convince everyone not to participate in it
ye (right) use war for their political and economic benefit but have created a system (volunteer military) where they don't directly participate in combat
oye promotes enlistment in the military so the pacifists don't agree, and the ye, even though they support war (a creature of their political policy), will not personally enlist (the position oye advocates)
thanks for the interesting political blog
Post a Comment
<< Home