Busy as we are on Friday (I’ll probably be here past 10 p.m. again), Mike just gave me a heads-up on this, and being a lover of tradition, I had to pass it on:
An RAF pilot has been ordered to trim his handlebar
moustache by an American General who took offence at its length, but
the British serviceman was not prepared to lose his whiskers without a
fight.The British airman, who sports a
handlebar moustache in the proud tradition of the RAF, refused to
comply when his superior officer in Afghanistan took offence at his
facial hair.Showing a bravado akin to that of
Biggles, he fought back, eventually convincing the general that his
generous whiskers were in line with regulations laid down by the Queen
herself…
I guess he told that cheeky Yank, all right… Let’s here it for Flight Leftenant Ball — hip-hip… Huzzah! Hip-hip…
Related Posts
With this weeks Supreme Court decision about supporting citizens’ rights for prisoners of war and combat detainees, it won’t be long before the function of prosecuting war will move in total from the executive branch where it has always rested under the constitution to the judicial branch and courts.
So I ask you, what is a General to do when he’s no longer allowed to prosecute wars?
Seems to me that ensuring subordinates maintain grooming standards takes on a whole new degree of primary importance under this new scheme handed down by the omnipotent high court.
I’m just sayin.
David
With this weeks Supreme Court decision about supporting citizens’ rights for prisoners of war and combat detainees, it won’t be long before the function of prosecuting war will move in total from the executive branch where it has always rested under the constitution to the judicial branch and courts.
-David
Actually the constitution specifies that only congress can declare war. Since they haven’t the president has no constitutional authority to actually wage anything. The Supreme Court is merely upholding the constitution. Given the fact that 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by a conservative GOP POTUS how can you argue that this is a liberal, activist decision? That is just riiiiiidiculous. Hooray for the Supreme Court. They got this one right.
A formal declaration of war by congress has not been the determining factor as to whether we actually prosecute wars for the last 58 years. This has been true whether the president was a democrat like Kennedy, Johnson or Clinton, or he was a republican like Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 or GW. The actual declaration of war has generally been accepted to be a formality in recent history, and the executive branch has been permitted to carry out foriegn policies that included combat, WITHOUT this ridiculous and draconian new read of judicial powers.
Bud, you’re a fool whose hatred for Bush makes you look silly.
You know what this new scheme will cause, don’t you? Fewer prisoners will be taken… meaning some of the enemy are going to die who would otherwise have lived. And when they die they will take crucial information with them that we might have extracted.
And for no good reason, completely without precedent or justification or the support of recent history, because you and people like you are in a snit about Bush.
Great Bud. Really great. This is liberal thinking and petty conduct that has grown up consequences on display. David
Congress authorized war for President Clinton in 1998, and Clinton launched a bombing campaign against Iraq which dropped 80,000 tons of bombs in 90 days.
President GW Bush continued that war under that authorization, and escalated it to an invasion, under another nearly unanimous vote, which Democrats demanded in order to go on record as favoring war.
—- back on topic ——————-
Admiral Elmo Zumwalt permitted moustaches and sideburns in the Navy during the later part of the Vietnam War. When an general made a comment about this lowering their will to fight, Zumwalt pointed to a picture of John Paul Jones with is muttonchop sideburns, and asked, “Do you think his hair decreased his ability or will to fight?”
Since David and Lee don’t believe we should follow the Constitution they must hate America. Why do David and Lee hate America? I love America.
No one takes Democrats, liberals and socialist seriously when they start talking about The Constitution, and “supporting the troops”.
Democrats are the ones trying to give all sorts of protections to terrorists while denying the same protection for Americans like Randy Weaver and the Davidians, who were found Not Guilty for having shot back at federal police in self defense.
The argument that this imperils us all because alleged war criminals (and the key is ALLEGED) will be prosecuted under the same burden of proof as required of American citizens. If the governments case is strong, it won’t matter under the new rules. People will be convicted.
If the governments case, however, is weak, than the person deserves to be let go. Despite what some people like to presume (I blame this on Nancy Grace and other of her ilk) not everyone whom is arrested either here or abroad, is automatically guilty. Letting the courts sort it out is exactly the foundation that this country has ignored at its own peril throughout history.
Most of those at GITMO were captured with an AK-47 or bomb in their hands. They are guilty of at least that. Any other army would have already shot them.
Gee, and I thought the thing about the mustache was kind of fun. Oh, well. Y’all can thank me for giving y’all a place to argue. Again.
Back to work…
Your original point about the US general and the RAF pilot is yet the latest instance of a recurring theme in military affairs: grooming standards BS.
I was on active duty when the Army introduced new grooming standards in 1971, allowing longer hair and fuller mustaches. They even introduced a poster with pictures of guys adhering to the new standards. Most folks started growing hair, and many commanders took the view that the photos depicted the maximum extent allowed or, in simple terms, what one looked like just before sitting down in the barber’s chair.
It sometimes got really insane for stupid reasons. Detachment A is one example I know of firsthand. Det A was a US Special Forces (SF – Green Beret) unit in West Berlin with the mission of moving out of their barracks into the city to organize a resistance if “the balloon went up,” meaning that if the Soviets went to war against the US and its allies and put “POW Camp” signs around the city. The formal name for their mission was “stay behind” Unconventional Warfare.
To succeed in such a mission, one would expect that the troops would know a bit of the local language and maybe even look like the locals, and in fact, Det A’s members were selected for those qualifications. Unfortunately, this led to two problems.
One was recurring. While Det A’s home was at Andrews Barracks in Berlin, its members often went down to the parent unit 10th Special Forces at Flint Kaserne in Bad Toelz, in Bavaria, southern Germany, to maintain their (parachute) jump status and other qualifications. When they arrived at Flint they were issued uniforms because their assignment in Berlin required that they wear only civilian clothes. The sight of SF troops with long hair and unruly mustaches upset many of the conventional military folks at Flint — it was also home to the NCO Academy — with the result that the Det A guys carried around a letter that indicated that they were not to be hassled for their grooming standards.
The other problem arose in the early 1970s when civil rights activists in the Army complained about the “whiteness” of Det A personnel. The unit in fact had no black, Hispanic, or Asian members, but since the German/Berlin main minority group at the time was Turkish and not any of the groups the activists were concerned about, and given that Det A’s mission requited that its members blend in, the Department of the Army spent some time keeping members of Congress briefed on the vital military rationale for the lily white unit.
The US general had no business taking on the RAF pilot. He should retire at the end of his tour over there.
Well, Lee did try to bring the postings back on topic with Admiral Zumwalt; but as usual, the train has run off the tracks.
So much for the fun topic.
Thank you Brad.
Most of those at GITMO were captured with an AK-47 or bomb in their hands. They are guilty of at least that. Any other army would have already shot them.
And how do you know that, exactly? We don’t even know most of the names of the people held in Guantanamo, and most of them interned don’t even know the evidence that is arrayed against them. I have no idea what the circumstances of their arrests were, and neither does anyone else (except for a few high publicity cases, most have never been revealed, let alone explained fully). Now, with the change of venue, we WILL see exactly what, if anything was alleged to have happened.