Remember

Today is remembrance day, the Eleventh of the Eleventh, and the ninetieth anniversary of the end of the First World War. I was asleep at 11am GMT, but I will be observing a minute of silence at 11am EST here in Kentucky.

In England, 3 of the 4 surviving British WWI veterans attended the traditional ceremony at the Cenotaph, and Prince Charles attended a similar ceremony in Verdun, France.

And in Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said "We have all endured a most bloody century. Let us resolve afresh at the dawn of this new century.. that this might be a truly pacific peaceful century."

Pilot Lands After Going Blind

Via AMERICAblog comes the amazing story of a British pilot who went blind at 15,000 ft and was then talked down to a safe landing by the RAF:

When the instruments on Jim O'Neill's four-seater Cessna aircraft became difficult to read, he assumed it was the glare of the sunlight as he flew over north England at 15,000ft. It was only when the dials blurred completely that he realised the full horror of his predicament: he was a solo pilot who had suddenly gone blind.

Struggling with the aftermath of a mid-flight stroke – which had put pressure on his optical nerve and robbed him of his sight in one eye and left him with very limited sight in the other – Mr O'Neill found himself unable to follow instructions from civilian air trafficcontrollers attempting to guide him to the nearest airstrip. Instead, an extraordinary rescue was launched when RAF staff, overhearing the emergency, offered to send a military plane to fly alongside Mr O'Neill and shepherd him in to land, issuing instructions to him over the radio.

Brilliant.

Harry Not Going To Iraq

In a dramatic u-turn, the British Army has announced that HRH Prince Harry won't be going to Iraq with his unit after all.

The worst part for the Prince has to be the conflict of emotions. Harry's a smart kid and I'm sure he understands that his presence in Iraq would represent an unnecessary risk, both to himself (which is acceptable) and to his fellow soldiers (which is not), but he's also got to be feeling annoyed that his position is keeping him out of a job he's earned.

Of course, there are those who are missing the point entirely, talking of rank and privilege, that Harry's life is worth more than any other soldier's, but these people - or others just like him - would be just as pissed if he'd been deployed and ended up endangering others.

People who write to local rags and sign themselves "Angry from Dunstable" or "Annoyed in Leighton Buzzard."

Idiots, in other words.

Four Down, Eight To Go

Two pieces of interesting news from home.

The Astute was launched on Monday, four years behind schedule. The biggest attack submarine in the British Navy, she will officially become HMS Astute in 2009 when she enters service. As is traditional, she will be the first in a new class of ships, named after her. The Astute Class will consist of four attack subs - Astute, Ambush, Artful, and Audacious - to be completed over the next few years. For those who like that kind of thing (I do) here is a .pdf with a detailed cutaway drawing of the vessel.

The second piece of news is more sombre. Cpl Rodney Wilson, A Company, 4th Battalion The Rifles, became the 150th member of the British armed forces to die in Iraq. This is neither the time nor the place for rantings for or against the war. Simply remember that people are dying.

Men (And Women) In Uniform

Following the news that legalising same-sex marriage in the UK did not cause the total and irrevocable collapse of civilisation comes the equally shocking news that allowing homosexuals and lesbians to openly serve in the military did not cause said military to devolve into a horrific pantomime of mistrust, violence and bigotry, nor, incredibly, has it destroyed the effectiveness of said military.

Seven years after the British Army changed its policies towards openly gay soldiers, the MoD says that the problems have been pretty much nonexistent.

Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.

Well who in all of the world would have thought it?

Oh, right. Almost everyone who doesn't have their head firmly up their own arse, that's who.

These two non-events have set a worrying precedent. Next these strange gay folk will want to do stuff like stand for political office, and be cops, and - gasp - teachers.

Y'know, be judged on their abilities rather than their sexual orientation.

What a novel thought.

Some, however, aren't convinced by silly, irrelevant stuff like facts and real-world experience. Being gay is immoral, gays in the military are a threat to everything and everyone, blah blah blah.

It's the 21st century, people. Aren't we supposed to be beyond this kind of medieval crap by now?

These Are Our Allies?

One thing that is really getting on my wick is the way that the media over here are treating the 15 Britons just released by Iran.

This whole story must have been quite the dilemma for the rabid right-wingers, especially those at FAUX News and their spiritual brethren.

See, the right-wing mainstream media over here has been very vocal in its support of the Bush administration and, especially, for their efforts to legalise the use of torture - sorry, that's "aggressive interrogation techniques" - by US troops and intelligence personnel. Of course, this means that FOX couldn't exactly condemn Iran for using similar techniques, even when it was concerning illegally detained members of a closely allied power, and especially when the techniques used weren't as bad as those described by some in the media as "frat hazing."

FOX and their ilk have also taken great pains to play up the effectiveness of torture. Phrases like "a weapon in the war on terror" are often trotted out. This all means that they couldn't very well point out that the British troops resisted their captors quite effectively, and, true to their training, provided minimum cooperation whilst doing everything shy of sending up parachute flares to signal that they were appearing in videos and pictures only under duress.

So, the right can't condemn Iran, nor can it support the troops. What's a girl to do?

Well, it seems that The Powers That Be sent down an order from on high: Impugn the troops!

British troops are cowards who crumble as soon as you give them a hard look.

That's the thanks we get for nearly 150 dead and six years of support for Bush's little profit-making scheme.

But it's catching on outside of the conservative-dominated mainstream media.

Top-ranking (and publicity-hungry) US military officers have arrogantly and repeatedly stated that US soldiers would have offered more resistance, that they wouldn't have given up without a fight.

FreeRepublic, the deranged right-wing fucktard's deranged right-wing fucktards, has multiple threads where the Fightin' Keyboarders, safe in mommy's basement, tell us about how the soldiers should have acted, and how they would act if they were captured (and had the balls to join up in the first place).

Hell, even AMERICAblog - one of the more progressive, liberal blogs out there - fires a shot o'er our bows on this issue, erroneously describing Iran as "the enemy."

Yes, it's unfortunate, but the gung-ho, Rambo, Dirty Harry, John Wayne culture in America is so ingrained that some just can't hear for the roar of the testosterone. Stupidity and thoughtless violence is becoming a virtue. Luckily, it's mainly the media and a few wankers with computers, because most people I've spoken to face-to-face understand what really happened and join me in just being thankful that the guys made it home.

Americans in the media (and a minority I've spoken to) stand aghast that the fifteen Brits didn't whip off their shirts, tie on a headband, grab an M-60 and slaughter the entire Iranian Navy before invading Tehran, disposing of the Revolutionary Guard, planning, staging and executing a coup, planning, staging and executing free democratic elections, posing for statues commemorating their bravery and then swimming back to England, making it in time to give 'er indoors a good seein' to, and all in time for the 10 O'Clock News.

Sadly, there are those amongst my countrymen who feel the same way.

Here is the pertinent fact in this case:

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not, at this time, exist in a state of war, neither declared nor undeclared, with The Islamic Republic Of Iran.

Geddit?

This means that the 15 Brits weren't POWs, they were accused criminals.

They weren't captured by the enemy, they were arrested for a crime.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply.

Name, Rank and Number is bullshit.

The Brits weren't cooperating with the enemy, they were doing what they had to in order to survive.

And for all the armchair warriors who believe that there was something dishonourable about the way the Brits surrendered, here's something that I guess would never occur:

Royal Marine Captain Chris Air was in charge of fourteen people; seven Royal Marines and seven Royal Navy sailors, on a mission from HMS Cornwall to board and inspect a vessel suspected of smuggling. These fourteen people were lightly armed and traveling in two "Gemini" rigid raiders. The were confronted by forces from the Iranian Navy and accused of violating Iranian waters. Captain Air knew from his GPS that he was still, at that point, within Iraqi waters, but he also knew that his small crew didn't stand a chance of resisting the Iranians even for as long as it would have taken the Cornwall to arrive. But, more importantly, he was also aware of the fact related above; that Britain and Iran weren't at war.

Capt Air had a choice. Open fire or surrender. Certain of our allies would have you believe that the latter was dishonourable and he should have done the former, even if it cost his life and the lives of his subordinates.

Here is the choice:

Either:

Open fire and "go down fighting", thus sacrificing the fourteen lives under your command, and instigating armed conflict with someone you are not at war with, creating a massive international incident and quite probably sending Britain into a war at a time we can scarcely afford it, with a country with which we have always maintained diplomatic relations and are hoping to have diplomatic relations with in the future, in a region where our activities and the activities of our allies are being viewed with considerable hatred and are already breeding the very terrorism we're supposed to be fighting.

Or:

Swallow your pride, surrender, and let the diplomats sort it all out.

British soldiers are sworn to defend Crown and country, even if the cost is high. Laying down one's life for one's country is a great sacrifice. Capt Air did something much harder, something a lot of Americans - and some Brits - are having a hard time understanding. Most of us wouldn't have had the courage to do it. Most of us would have taken the easy way out and called it "honourable."

Capt Air laid down his ego and his weapon, and in doing so, defended his country.

Bravo.

"Toys For Tots" rejects Jesus doll

The US Marine Corps' "Toys For Tots" programme, which every year collects toys for distribution to needy families, has rejected a talking "Jesus doll".

Four thousand of the dolls were offered by one2believe, the company that makes them. They are a foot tall and quote selected phrases from The Bible at the push of a button. No, not the good stuff about stoning misbehaving kids to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) or people having genitals like a donkey (Ezekiel 23:20), but the "love thy neighbour" stuff and the like.

Bill Grein, vice president of Toys For Tots, said that the Marines don't discriminate when it comes to recipients, and "we don't know anything about their background, their religious affiliations."

Bravo. Toys For Tots is about spreading a little happiness into the lives of poor families, not about proselytising on behalf of the fundies.

Said Grein, "[w]e can't take the chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or Muslem family". Or a Buddhist family, or Wiccan, or any of the hundreds of other religions that don't follow that one diety. Or Atheist. It kinda defeats the point to get this wonderful gift from the caring guys 'n' gals of the US Marine Corps and it turns out to be Blasphemy In A Box.

But, of course, the fundies don't even understand why there's a problem.

Michael La Roe, of one2believe and their parent company, Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co., said "I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible."

That would be Fundamentalist Belief Number 7: "Everybody would be a Christian, if you could just explain it to them", or possibly Number 4: "Everybody is really a Christian, they're just pretending not to be".

Blair's in trouble

It just does my heart good to see Blair getting blindsided by one of the British army's top Generals.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, has already spoken out on soldier's pay, living conditions, length of tour and medical treatment. But then he launched quietly competent attack on the situation in Iraq and the Prime Minister's handling of it.

In an interview with The Daily Mail, Sir Dannatt said:

I am going to stand up for what is right for the Army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth. Leaking and spinning, at the end of the day, are not helpful.

He went on:

I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.

History will show that a vacuum was created and into the vacuum malign elements moved. The hope that we might have been able to get out of Iraq in 12, 18, 24 months after the initial start in 2003 has proved fallacious. Now hostile elements have got a hold it has made our life much more difficult in Baghdad and in Basra.

The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East.

That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition.

He also said:

[We should] get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.

We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren't invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.

That is a fact. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.

He also made comments about Iran:

Particularly with Iran — if we paint them into a corner I think that is being too simplistic. Dialogue and negotiation make eminent sense and military posturing doesn't.

But far better, IMO, is the way that British troops immediately spoke up in praise of the General's comments.

It's good to see that the British army is keeping up the tradition of having at least one officer who cares more about the troops than he does about his political wellbeing.

There's no such thing as flying saucers

Well, now we can lay all that speculation to rest. The Ministry of Defence says so, according to Auntie Beeb.

Just one question, y'know, call it my need to know, but just how much did this frigging ridiculous project cost us?

I may apply for citizenship after all..

Impact Guns are taking pre-orders for civilian-legal versions of the FN P-90, the gun featured in Stargate Sg:1.

The legal versions will come with a longer barrel, apparently so that the weapon, both in terms of overall length and in terms of barrel length, will be designated a rifle rather than a machine gun*.

Also restricted will be the armour-piercing rounds that were specifically designed for the P-90, but civilians will be able to buy standard 5.7mm ball rounds, easily enough for home defence or target shredding.

They just won't penetrate a Jaffa's armour.

Oh, well, I guess I'll have to settle for an airsoft version until I can buy one...

*It should be noted that, with appropriate documentation and processing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the short-barrel version can also be yours.

Thumbs up for HRH Henry

So, the news has broken that Prince Henry, he of the "younger son of the future King" fame, is to join the Household Cavalry. At first glance, the Household Cavalry - who most people consider to be simply the Life Guards (the guys with all the shiny on horses outside Buckingham Palace) - seems like a typical, cushy, never-see-action choice appropriate to a young member of the Royal Family. But don't get smug, because he's actually going to join The Blues And Royals, a unit that is most definitely a combat unit.

As well as boasting a history going back to the 17th century, they've seen action all over the globe, most recently in The Falkland Islands, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq. And in the modern world where massive MBTs and anti-tank weapons bristle just about everywhere, it takes some guts to hurtle around in, what is basically, a tin box on tracks like the Scimitar or Spartan.

Maybe Harry is more his mother's son than it might first appear, or maybe it's the influence of having an ex-SAS officer as personal secretary, but both Harry and his brother are shaping up okay. This bodes well for a future without an English President.

(In case anyone didn't get it, Doombreed is a die-hard Royalist.)

Willy Pete

You may have seen the scandal involving US forces using white phosphorus shells in Iraq - apparently a contravention of a few chemical weapons treaties if the shells were used against civilians. The US military claims they were using them to "illuminate the battlefield" (a story that has since changed).

Well, it seems British forces were using them, too. Only we were using them to "create smokescreens".