Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Military "supports" London In These Hard Times  
User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

This is so disgraceful, I don't know what to say:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCheckraiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2299 times:

This might be some sort of SOP - but I think it sucks.

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2281 times:

Normal, routine. Don't have to like it, but it is not unusual . . .

Why is it disgraceful Prosa?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Agreed, not unusual and routine.

Uncle Sam at times is overprotective of his boys and girls.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13194 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

SOP or not, it sends a very bad message.
Even allowing for the much reduced numbers of US personnel in the UK, compared to the cold war.

It is the lead item on the news here, inevitably, fairly or otherwise, it will be compared to the rapid return to normality by Londoners, or the large event held on Sunday;
WW2 Flypast Over London - 10th July (by GDB Jul 11 2005 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Did no one say 'hold on, what are we saying about ourselves here?'

Worse still, you can bet some Islamist websites will be gloating about this.

A huge PR disaster, never mind the limited numbers of US personnel affected, it's very unfair on them.
It also reinforces some very uncomplimentary stereotypes about the US, from tourists to the political elite.
(And I've seen US tourists, the night after the bombings carrying on as normal in central London, including using public transport, so highly unfair on them).


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12503 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2222 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Is this what Dubya meant yesterday when he said

Quote:
"... the US will not retreat in the face of terrorism."

and

Quote:
"In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know the American people stand with you."

As long as it isn't too close eh?  sarcastic   banghead 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

Though I think its inappropriate it rather looks like a normal routine

User currently offlineSaxdiva From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2382 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2217 times:

Aww, c'mon guys... don't you realize how f'ing HARD recruiting is these days?

I mean, hey---if you're gonna lose one of your headcount, it best be in a declared warzone. If one drops dead on the home turf of an allied nation, then you've gone and screwed up a parade rank for no good reason.





(Geez... when did I get so cynical?)


User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with this?



QFF


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

GDB is right, this is a pretty big story here.

Whilst I don't doubt the decision was taken with the best of intentions, it's not just a PR disaster, it's incredibly stupid. Are the US military banned from going to downtown Detroit as well?

Turn it around. Can you imagine the outrage and uproar if the British government had done the same after September 11th?

I'm sure many in the US administration will be deeply embarrassed by this. They should be.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 10):
Turn it around. Can you imagine the outrage and uproar if the British government had done the same after September 11th?

But it's not about public relations. The US military has a duty of care to all its employees to ensure their personal safety. If they don't warn personel against travel to London and there was (heaven forbid) another attack, imagine the backlash?

It's not like the London economy relies on US servicemen and women - just, like - what is the problem here?

Storm in a teacup.

Get over it.

QFF


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2193 times:

Oh, but it is, QFF.

One of the whole issues when dealing with terrorism is to to ensure that the terrorists don't succeed in changing things. This publicly announces that it has. It publicly says the terrorists have succeeded.

Equally, if London had suddenly become dramatically unsafe, then they would have a point. But in the great scheme of things, one attack with 50 casualties in a city of 8 million is pretty irrelevant. Bombing or no bombing, there are numerous US cities substantially more dangerous than London, so the same thing applies. Are US forces told not to venture there? You cannot say that banning them from entering London is an appropriate response given the very low risk level there is.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2192 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 11):
But it's not about public relations. The US military has a duty of care to all its employees to ensure their personal safety. If they don't warn personel against travel to London and there was (heaven forbid) another attack, imagine the backlash?

So how come it is then that they are the ONLY US employer to make this recommendation ? Are you aware of any other company, US based or otherwise, that has place a blanket ban on travel to London for its employees ?

This is spineless paranoia at its worst, and someone should be fired for this. I'm sure the US armed forces personnel affected are as shocked and embarrassed by this as anyone.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2192 times:

We shouldn't have any military bases in Britain anyway. What, they can't protect their own nation?

User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24928 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

I suppose it kind of shows that theUS might be afraid. Look at normal Londoners, back to work, and life is back to normal. The Yanks ban themselves from going in. If the Londoners can get back to normal life quickly, why can't the Yanks?


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2182 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 12):
This publicly announces that it has. It publicly says the terrorists have succeeded.

I don't agree with that. Going by such logic we could say that the war on terror is provoking the kind of reaction the terrorists crave.

Quoting Banco (Reply 12):
You cannot say that banning them from entering London is an appropriate response given the very low risk level there is.

Indeed. But if they want to do it - then let them. I really don't understand why everyone is getting so emotional about it?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 13):
So how come it is then that they are the ONLY US employer to make this recommendation ?

It's up to each business, government or organisation to issue their own orders. I respect the logic of the US government. Better to be cautious than even slightly risky. The US has a habit of issuing warnings in reaction to even the mildest of threats. Fine by me.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 13):
This is spineless paranoia at its worst, and someone should be fired for this. I'm sure the US armed forces personnel affected are as shocked and embarrassed by this as anyone.

This sort of thing happens all the time. Don't be offended by what the US government has done - it's not a snub on the UK, they're simply acting according to their own duty of care. Don't worry about it - nobody really thinks London is unsafe.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 14):
We shouldn't have any military bases in Britain anyway. What, they can't protect their own nation?

Stop and think - do you not see strategic benefits?

QFF


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5696 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
Going by such logic we could say that the war on terror is provoking the kind of reaction the terrorists crave.

Is it not? This case is a perfect example of overreaction.
On the other hand I really admire the people of London how they managed to get back to normal and did not let the terrorists derail their lives.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
This publicly announces that it has. It publicly says the terrorists have succeeded.

I don't agree with that. Going by such logic we could say that the war on terror is provoking the kind of reaction the terrorists crave.

Not like you to be politically naiive, QFF. You know the score, the US is leading "the war on terror", for better or worse, then comes out with this. That's the problem.

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
Indeed. But if they want to do it - then let them. I really don't understand why everyone is getting so emotional about it?

Oh, sure. But I don't think people are emotional about it. There'll be a few rolled eyes, but I suspect the real damage will be back in the US, not here. It looks a bit poor for them to react like that when London just carries on as normal, especially after all the usual "shoulder-to-shoulder" crap that politicans the world over spout.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14004 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2162 times:

Back in 1940, American ambassador Kennedy (father of John F.) urged American citizens to leave Britain. Now Kennedy was first very isolationist and was afraid that if Americans got hurt in German air raids or an invasion, the US would get pulled into the war, and being Boston Irish, he was not very Britain friendly.
But the amazing result of his call was that Americans resident in Britain joined the British homeguard en masse, mostly bringing even their own weapons with them, some of them even joined the regular British forces (yes, there were about 10 Americans who fought and got killed during the Battle of Britain, flying Hurricanes and Spitfires as airmen of the RAF).

Jan


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 10):
Whilst I don't doubt the decision was taken with the best of intentions, it's not just a PR disaster, it's incredibly stupid. Are the US military banned from going to downtown Detroit as well?

Absoutely - its a PR diasaster for the US, and a PR victory for the terrorists.

Might I add, did they ban their servicemen from going to NYC, flying from BOS or JFK airports or on AA or UA after 9/11? Of course not. Where's the difference.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2157 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 17):
Going by such logic we could say that the war on terror is provoking the kind of reaction the terrorists crave.

Is it not? This case is a perfect example of overreaction.

No - it is not. I don't think the war on terror is an overreaction - I think at the moment it is an underreaction.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 17):
On the other hand I really admire the people of London how they managed to get back to normal and did not let the terrorists derail their lives.

I completely agree. They are to be commended.

Quoting Banco (Reply 18):
Not like you to be politically naiive, QFF. You know the score, the US is leading "the war on terror", for better or worse, then comes out with this. That's the problem.

US foreign policy is riddled with double standards, I know that. But overall I don't see a problem with them doing this. This is an operational issue, and not an emotional one. They're not doing this out of fear, but rather out of a lack of hard intelligence that would warrant a return to normal operations. If they want to do this - let them. Britain has bigger fish to fry.

Quoting Banco (Reply 18):
Oh, sure. But I don't think people are emotional about it. There'll be a few rolled eyes, but I suspect the real damage will be back in the US, not here.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the UK is making this a bigger issue than the US. Add to this a genuine fear for the safety of personel operating internationally amongst the US general population - and you have all the makings of a non-story.

Quoting Banco (Reply 18):
It looks a bit poor for them to react like that when London just carries on as normal, especially after all the usual "shoulder-to-shoulder" crap that politicans the world over spout.

It's not quid pro quo - it's security. Those who see this as a snub or a sign of cowardice need a cold shower.

QFF


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
top and think - do you not see strategic benefits?

I was being sarcastic. I see strategic imperial benefits for the American Empire, not benefits for Americans. Or Britons.

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 15):
I suppose it kind of shows that theUS might be afraid. Look at normal Londoners, back to work, and life is back to normal. The Yanks ban themselves from going in.

Look at the sniveling cowards in D.C., reduced to spineless terror from a Cessna (ja, I'm overexaggerating, but you get my point).


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 21):
Those who see this as a snub or a sign of cowardice need a cold shower.

As far as I can see, no-one here has said any such thing.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineFlyboy36y From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3039 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

To quote martin lawrence:

"what da problem is?"


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13088 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Apparently this order is being recinded due to the publicity of it in the press in London. There is concern that is will discourage tourism to London by all Americans, hurt the image of the USA in the UK, and not be good for moral of the soldiers themselves. I would suggest that there will be guidelines to those military people whom travel to London in the near future that unless on official military business, will be asked to dress in civilian clothes, not wear any items with references to their military involvement. This would be to not only to make them less of a target of potential terrorists, but to not be a target of anti-military and anti-war people. There are major USA military facilities in the UK, including major air bases.

25 ME AVN FAN : - whether "disgraceful" I do not know, BUT it is virtually supporting the terrorists by giving them the feeling to be successful. At least somebody w
26 Arsenal@LHR : I just think it's a mild over-reaction considering it is 5 days since the bombing. London is safe as it was on Wednesday afternoon, and paranoia isn't
27 WhiteHatter : No. We still live in mud huts and throw turds at our enemies. We lease British bases to American services, to be used as staging posts and strategic
28 ANCFlyer : Let me add this to my original post, this thread . . . Having read thru this thread throughout the night I appears this has created quite a shit storm
29 Jalto27R : This is a very common thing done with the military when there is a current hot spot they don't want US personnel or diplomats getting into. It's a si
30 GDB : It has been rescinded, (after all the bad PR). OK, fair enough last Thursday, when you could barely move around London, and workers stranded there wer
31 ME AVN FAN : - are you sure ?? I always understood that "typical" (whomever that may be) US-Americans do not understand Arabs and the Arab World, but I have never
32 Scbriml : Door closed? Horse bolted? Check!
33 PROSA : Very good news.
34 WhiteHatter : What are you rambling on about? I was talking about the directive being a non-issue. It was SOP, but left in place rather than withdrawn. So no probl
35 Soyuzavia : It is no different to the diplomatic services being told at various times to avoid certain airlines. I really can't see what all the fuss is about. No
36 NumberTwelve : Why complaining? That's the "brave" US soldier. Helping British friends, make them feel as if London is Little Bagdad. ANCflyer, you may find it ok, f
37 AGM114L : Cowards?!?! Yes the US military well run headlong into Fallujah, but London is much too dangerous. The restriction forbidding US Airmen to go into Lon
38 ME AVN FAN : -- why so excited ? I was NOT rambling --- but agree that the matter has become a NON-issue --- while a real issue it clearly WAS . - And, no, of cou
39 MD-90 : Sometimes I wonder about some of those Scots...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Vehicle For US Military "cougar" posted Thu May 13 2004 15:41:46 by Galaxy5
FT: US Losing "Billions" In Tourism From Image posted Mon May 9 2005 18:25:09 by NYCFlyer
Top Ten Times In History When Using The "F" Word posted Fri Aug 27 2004 20:06:52 by Tbar220
US Govt :"Foreigners Should Not Interfere In Iraq" posted Tue Jul 22 2003 13:23:13 by B747-437B
Bar In The Movie "the Right Stuff", "Armageddon"? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 21:34:21 by Aerosol
Schumacher "Worst Champion In History" posted Wed Sep 13 2006 15:31:45 by Cosec59
"I Have You In A Tub" And Yugoslavians posted Thu Sep 7 2006 05:17:18 by Mirrodie
David "The Hoff" Hasselhoff - Jump In My Car posted Sat Jul 15 2006 09:13:33 by 9VSPO
DHC Thawrts "possible Terror In The Mall" posted Mon Jan 16 2006 16:43:26 by LHMARK
"Woman Locked In Shed For 25 Years" posted Fri Sep 9 2005 21:58:48 by RedDragon