Queen Elizabeth honors U.S. Marine helicopter pilot

[Peter Dow]

Traitor: U.S. "ROYAL" Marine sells republic for medal
Americans broadcast US “royal” marine surrendering republican principles to terror Queen.

TRAITOR! TRAITOR! TRAITOR!
Queen Elizabeth II presents her new subject U.S. Marine Maj. William D. Chesarek Jr. with the worthless royalist medal.
Stars and Stripes reports this treachery with its own treacherous glee. The Stars and Stripes is the newspaper published for the United States Armed Forces overseas and must now be seen to be the fatal weakness in the coalition effort to win Iraq to freedom and democracy and away from the influence of terrorists, royalist or jihadist. Further, if this medal is received with the agreement of new U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the President of the U.S. George Bush then the war on terror is fatally compromised from within the heart of republican USA. I believe that Condoleezza Rice is the only person in the current U.S. administration with the intelligence to understand the folly of royalty and therefore until she speaks out against accepting medals from the Queen, the U.S. led coalition is doomed to failure in Iraq.

This war on terror received another set back last night when American TV network ABC World News with Charles Gibson broadcast the story of a US marine accepting a royalist medal from Queen Elizabeth. (And CBS too it seems.)

Gibson told it as a "good" news story. But it was not good news. Only a royalist idiot would believe it to be good news. A republican intellectual would recognise it immediately as very bad news indeed.

A US marine, supposed to be serving the republic of the USA, seen throughout the world now to be betraying his nation's republican principles for a humiliating medal of subjugation to a monarch.

What a shame and what an insult to the US constitution and to the US flag. The Stars and Stripes - old glory - new royalist shame.

This US marine was employed and paid to defend the republican freedoms of Americans but now we've seem him begging praise from his new mistress - a US marine descended into the depravity of a mere lap dog for a UK monarch. TRAITOR!

So now there seems to be a new category of marine - a US ROYAL MARINE! What is the danger?

Under the UK terror regime, we have royal marines - plenty of them - and they are good fighters. They can win a battle, they can kill the enemy, but no intelligent person would suggest that royal marines could ever win a war which needs to be won politically, not just on the battlefield.

When a royal marine grows up and learns to abandon his (or her) royalist views and starts to think about republican principles such as democracy, freedom, accountability, the rule of law, elections and so on - that is when a marine becomes a politician too and can start to win the hearts and minds necessary to win a war.

The war in Iraq has not gone well because the coalition has too often thought like royal marines do rather than as republican marines should.
Royal marines could easily take Baghdad in the major combat operations at the start of the Iraq war 4 years ago. A royal marine could NEVER, EVER IN ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SURGING AGAIN AND AGAIN INTO BAGHDAD earn the love and respect of the Iraqi people.

Why? Well, what do you imagine Iraqis think of Queen Elizabeth? Not much and they are certainly not willing to die for her, even if royal marines are.
Any self-respecting Iraqi who considers that an invading army has come to subjugate all Iraqis to the rule of Queen Elizabeth would certainly join the insurgency, and who could blame them?

So the US Marines, by becoming US ROYAL marines and being cheered on in that by US broadcasters like ABC and Charlie Gibson have set the dangerous course for further slaughter and an eventual win for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The royalists cannot defeat the jihadists.

With royalists running the war in Iraq, it is like being on the Titanic, with a royalist captain at the helm going full-speed ahead in the dark into a colossal iceberg and disaster.

The US royal marine with his royalist medal should return that medal to the Queen or destroy it and let the broadcasters know that so America and all who love American freedoms can feel we have a winning strategy in the war on terror.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 21, 2007
CONDI! Save the free world from these royalist idiots!

 

[shuamort]

Ummm, ok. That was really weird. Was that tongue-in-cheek as my sarcasm-o-meter is in the shop?

 

[Gibberish]

Is this a real post or a troll post?

 

[Peter Dow]

Ummm, ok. That was really weird. Was that tongue-in-cheek as my sarcasm-o-meter is in the shop?

Is this a real post or a troll post?

OK guys, I see you need a bit more help to see my points.

Accepting a medal from republican France, or accepting a statue, like the Statue of Liberty from republican France, does not compromise America's republican principles. So no problem with France.

Accepting a medal from royalist United Kingdom does compromise your republicanism, and in fact amounts to self-ridicule, playing the royalist fool, on the part of this particular US marine.

An honour from Britain, which wasn't royalist - say a certificate of praise from the British Labour Party, Tony Blair's party, which is a democratic socialist party in its constitution, however royalist its elected Labour politicians happen to be, would also be good and wouldn't betray one's American republican principles.

This US Marine WAS a fantastic ambassador for America, right up until the point when he blew his credibility by accepting the royalist medal.

If he hadn't betrayed republican principles, I would have been all in favour of this US marine receiving a British honour, so long as that so-called "honour" was not royalist in nature.

Because republicans do not consider royalist "honours" to be true honours - republicans view those more as a kind of a badge of shame - proof that you have simply disgraced yourself by surrendering undeserved authority to some royal or another.

(I should point out by "republicans" here I mean those who understand the principles of republicanism, and I am not referring there to those who vote for the American Republican Party, the GOP, though of course a real "republican" in the US might vote for the GOP, he or she might not. Also an American royalist who wanted a Queen instead of the US President might vote GOP because of their tax or conservative policies)

If the US marine returns the royalist medal, I would be all in favour of him receiving genuine British and American honours, but not while he still courts royalist favour. As of now, he looks to me more like a traitor than a hero, despite his brave and worthy actions.

You think this US marine does not look "subjugated" to the Queen? So you are telling me then are you, if the US President were to order that US marine, with his medal from the Queen, to assassinate that self-same Queen, as an enemy of the United States of America, that marine would then obey that lawful order without question or hesitation?

Thanks for the medal Ma'am. Sorry, I've been ordered by my president to kill you.
BANG! (and the Queen is dead)

Well maybe he would - kill the Queen, I mean, as would be his duty.

But if you ask me, does he look ready to kill the Queen, or ready to take her orders, I'd say this US marine looks ready to take the Queen's orders.

How does he look to you, receiving his medal from the Queen?

 

[jallman]

:shock: For the first time here at DP, I have absolutely no idea what this thread was supposed to accomplish. Is this supposed to upset me or make me laugh hysterically?

 

[shuamort]

How does he look to you, receiving his medal from the Queen?

No different than Eisenhower, Reagan, or Colin Powell being knighted.

 

[Peter Dow]

:shock: For the first time here at DP, I have absolutely no idea what this thread was supposed to accomplish. Is this supposed to upset me or make me laugh hysterically?

Neither. It is political education. It is meant to make you think about political ideas, if you are capable of thought. If not, let it all wash over you.

 

[WI Crippler]

What the hell is a royalist?? Is it as bad as a communist??

 

[jallman]

Neither. It is political education. It is meant to make you think about political ideas, if you are capable of thought. If not, let it all wash over you.

I am quite capable of thought. It would appear that if there is this much confusion over your point, then maybe you don't have one and this thread is, in fact, meaningless bitching about a non-issue. THAT is pretty thoughtless, IMO.

 

[PeteEU]

Royalists in Europe usually means right wing conservative, so no its not the same as communists

 

[Plain old me]

What the hell is a royalist?? Is it as bad as a communist??

I assume someone who supports the royals. I used to, been republican for a little while now though...

...I don't think it was a royal medal, like a knighthood or something, it was a decidedly British award, it was just awarded by our head of state. Lord knows, I wish that head of state wasn't a queen, but I'm not entirely sure why it's such a big issue.

 

[jallman]

I assume someone who supports the royals. I used to, been republican for a little while now though...

...I don't think it was a royal medal, like a knighthood or something, it was a decidedly British award, it was just awarded by our head of state. Lord knows, I wish that head of state wasn't a queen, but I'm not entirely sure why it's such a big issue.

So then even the other Europeans agree that this whole thread is based on meaningless twaddle?

 

[WI Crippler]

Royalists in Europe usually means right wing conservative, so no its not the same as communists

I am still confused as to how receiving a medal from a leader ( albeit a figurehead one) from one of our allies is supposed to be demeaning to this Marine?? And going by what you are saying, why would it have anything to do with republicans??

 

[Peter Dow]

No different than Eisenhower, Reagan, or Colin Powell being knighted.

Well I wondered what traitors to America allowed the UK royals to defend royalism international, including the Saudi royals, who along with other anti-democrats in the middle east so frustrated the development of democratic politics there as to drive some of their young men so wild with the injustice of it all as to go into the arms of the jihadists.

The jihadist terrorists have been allowed free reign in the United Kingdom to organise, recruit and plan terrorist outrages such as 9/11.

So the war on terror has been a long time coming. It has been enabled by undemocratic regimes, such as royalist regimes. Another one was the Shah of Iran, so hated as to cause the Islamic revolution which brought the Ayatollahs to power in Iran, and all the problems they have caused the west.

Yes, when you analyse it carefully, many of our political problems in the world today are down to failures by the likes of Eisenhower, Reagan and Powell to take a principled stand against royalism, and UK royalism in particular.

So those 3 look to me every bit the traitors to America that this US marine with his medal from the Queen looks. I suppose with the presidents one has to ask, was the degree of treason sufficient to warrant impeachment, or should one have simply tried to advise the president to cease with the royalist worship which is against the long-term American national interest?

Condi is deciding to advise President Bush, rather than impeach him and I support Condi in that choice.

 

[Plain old me]

So then even the other Europeans agree that this whole thread is based on meaningless twaddle?

So it would seem...

 

[Plain old me]

It has been enabled by undemocratic regimes, such as royalist regimes.

'Undemocratic regime'? The UK? Cos of a Queen? S'an issue, I admit, but arn't we exaggerating the problem somewhat?

 

[WI Crippler]

Isn't the royal family of England(Britan, Uk, whatever you guys call it )rather powerless. I would assume you are saying that receiving a medal from a foreign monarch with very little power accounts for treason to the United States???

 

[Gibberish]

Seems like Conspiracy theories to me. I'll be sure to bring my foil hat next time.

 

[PeteEU]

I am still confused as to how receiving a medal from a leader ( albeit a figurehead one) from one of our allies is supposed to be demeaning to this Marine??

Dunno, but it seems this person who posted the thread is a hardcore Scottish Nationalist and they dont like the Queen, nore Great Britain that much or so I understand

As for demeaning to the Marine.. not in my eyes.. any honor of any kind is usually well earned and should be given.. there are of course exceptions

And going by what you are saying, why would it have anything to do with republicans??

It dont, just that royalists in Europe are normally right wing parties, usually called conservatives or/and liberal parties.

Saying that most parties in countries that have royalty as head of state, are "royalists" though, as they would basicly be unelectable if they were against the royals.

But that dont mean there are fringe parties that do exist that are against the royals in said countries.. communists traditionally are against them, but they usually dont get many votes anyways.

 

[Peter Dow]

What the hell is a royalist?? Is it as bad as a communist??

Royalist - supporting the monarchy, the Kingdom, the King or Queen as the head of state and commander in chief of the country's military.

Royalist is kind of the opposite of republican - republicans support having an elected president as head of state. So the USA is a republic, with a president. The UK is a monarchy, with a monarch, Queen Elizabeth as head of state, and no president.

Yes it is as bad as a communist, if by communist you mean someone who supports the Marxist principle of "dictatorship of the proletariat", which in practice means the dictatorship of the dictator, be that Lenin, Stalin, or Castro - all in their own ways similar to Kings.

The North Korean "communist" dictatorship is even more like a royalist kingdom, because the current dictator is the son of the previous dictator. The prince of North Korea became the King, so to speak.

Often though the communist dictators, and there are fewer of them than there were, thank goodness, did not pass on power to their son or daughter when they died. Stalin was not Lenin's son.

But apart from that - yes, Marxist communists are very much like royalists.

 

[Gibberish]

Dunno, but it seems this person who posted the thread is a hardcore Scottish Nationalist and they dont like the Queen, nore Great Britain that much or so I understand

He has a very interesting website/William Wallace shrine. I do have to say I can't stand websites with auto playing music.

 

[PeteEU]

Isn't the royal family of England(Britan, Uk, whatever you guys call it )rather powerless. I would assume you are saying that receiving a medal from a foreign monarch with very little power accounts for treason to the United States???

actually the Queen has quite a bit of power... she usually dont use it though. Same goes for most monarchs, on paper they can among other things fire goverments, have to approve and sign all laws and so on.

 

[mikhail]

It really annoys me when people have a go at the queen for a start through tourism she makes more money than she costs also she is a brilliant ambassador for the Uk.

The queen keeps her personnel politics away from the running of the country too.Why do people want to get rid of her really to be far there is much better arguements against prince charles but hey he isnt king yet.

As for the marine he has recieved an award, recognition and yes its a medal from the queen but its recognition for his achievements not some political statement and there is alot more prestige in being given an award by the queen than there is being given it by tony blair.

 

[Peter Dow]

I am quite capable of thought. It would appear that if there is this much confusion over your point, then maybe you don't have one and this thread is, in fact, meaningless bitching about a non-issue. THAT is pretty thoughtless, IMO.

Well let me try to sum the point up.

You have put your faith in some pro-royalist politicians and some members of the military - and they have betrayed you by siding with UK royalty which does not have your, American or British interests at heart. The Queen cares only for her own power and that of her royal family.

Instead of protecting you, the military who support the Queen are stupidly setting us all up for one disaster after another - and 9/11 was just the worst, so far.

The point is a political warning. STOP supporting the Queen because you are hurting yourself by supporting the Queen and monarchy in general.

Stop hurting yourself because of your own political ignorance. Learn why you should hate the Queen and recognise her as your enemy, for she is.

Is that clear enough?

 

[Peter Dow]

Royalists in Europe usually means right wing conservative, so no its not the same as communists

Not the same no. But if you speak out in a royalist regime and get imprisoned or killed for that, or if you speak out in a communist regime and get imprisoned or killed for that, you end up just as in prison or dead, either way.

So not the same, but dead is dead, right?