If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN) Followup We should paint the Medal of Honor recipient as an unstable drunk. That will totally work   (cnn.com) divider line 139
More: Followup, Medal of Honor, Medal of Honor recipients, BAE Systems, defense contractors, infrared sensors  
•       •       •

16776 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Dec 2011 at 1:32 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-12-16 09:40:15 AM
"BAE Systems OASYS and I have settled our differences amicably,"

Cha-ching!

Good for him. The way they treated this man, who has done more for his country than any of the pencil pushers and bean counters at BAE, was ridiculous. How dare he get in the way of profit with his morals and character!
 
2011-12-16 09:44:06 AM
So let me get this straight, a British-owned multinational corporation fired a Medal of Honor recipient for voicing an opinion about selling weapons to the people that tried to kill him and his fellow soldiers. The company then publicly called him unstable and a drunk and got a paper in America to run a story questioning the report of his actions that earned him the Medal of Honor. There is not an insult in the world strong enough to call the executive that thought this was a good idea.
 
2011-12-16 09:45:23 AM
Unstable drunk? C'mon, that's not fair. Everybody will lose fine motor control after a couple of drinks.
 
2011-12-16 09:47:30 AM
To be fair, I also got drunk while playing Medal of Honor.
 
2011-12-16 09:53:03 AM
In Britain, `honour' is spelled with a `u' in it.
On planet Earth, scum-bucket snake-sh*t-asswipe is spelled `BAE Systems OASYS'.
 
2011-12-16 09:58:44 AM
To be honest I thought this article was going to be about Fox News going after a MoH recipient for daring to support something Pres. Obama did.
 
2011-12-16 10:04:29 AM
I'm glad to see this is getting more attention. This is absolutely shameful. We shouldn't be providing any military aid to Pakistan period. They at this point they are the primary enemy in the war on terror and our biggest impediment to any sort of successful conclusion of the war in Afghanistan. What they need is a good biatch slap to help them discover a little enlightened self interest about farking with America. We probably need to get a little less subtle with India too because they are stirring this pot too. Afghanistan will never be secure unless India and Pakistan don't knock of their juvenile tit-for-tat.
 
2011-12-16 10:07:40 AM
Didn't work out well for Brian Dennehy, not going to work for these assholes.
 
2011-12-16 10:15:02 AM
You know, man, I like Medal of Honor recipients, but if there's one thing I can't STAND about them, it's all the "PTSD" and crap. Real turn-off.

/He was sent home for combat-related stress after repeatedly entering a combat area in the face of almost certain death, to extract soldiers and civilians
//Real scumbag, huh, BAE
 
2011-12-16 10:22:27 AM
Call him drunken Ira Hayes
He won't answer anymore
Not the whiskey drinkin' Indian
Nor the Marine that went to war...
 
2011-12-16 10:52:11 AM
WTF Indeed: So let me get this straight, a British-owned multinational corporation fired a Medal of Honor recipient for voicing an opinion about selling weapons to the people that tried to kill him and his fellow soldiers. The company then publicly called him unstable and a drunk and got a paper in America to run a story questioning the report of his actions that earned him the Medal of Honor. There is not an insult in the world strong enough to call the executive that thought this was a good idea.

What if it were true? Not saying it was, because I have no idea, but if it were true, would it still be reprehensible? Or does the guy get immunity to criticism for anything ever because of his MoH?
 
2011-12-16 10:52:43 AM
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!
 
2011-12-16 10:58:39 AM
I am so glad this got greened this way, instead of the "Did this Marine Core Soldier lie about his MoH" bullshiat that was floating around yesterday.

Dear BAE- you just Streisand affected your whole "selling weapons to Pakistan on the QT" issue.

Good luck with that.
 
2011-12-16 11:02:20 AM
what_now: I am so glad this got greened this way, instead of the "Did this Marine Core Soldier lie about his MoH" bullshiat that was floating around yesterday.

Dear BAE- you just Streisand affected your whole "selling weapons to Pakistan on the QT" issue.

Good luck with that.


As opposed to the US selling arms to Pakistan openly, including refurbishing their F-16s?
 
2011-12-16 11:03:31 AM
kronicfeld: What if it were true? Not saying it was, because I have no idea, but if it were true, would it still be reprehensible? Or does the guy get immunity to criticism for anything ever because of his MoH?

The Medal of Honor isn't given out as a PR piece. Now while the fog of war might confuse some facts, for the most part they get it right. Even if the guy was a drunk, the respectful thing to do is to let him go and not publicly insult his character. What BAE did was try to ruin a man's character with the story questioning his service. What most likely happened was that the BAE CEO got a delightful call from the DoD informing them if they didn't settle this case and end the smear campaign the US might find some other company spend their money with.
 
2011-12-16 11:05:36 AM
It is even US official policy to sell arms to Pakistan to keep them (more or less) on our side.

Link

How can Americans criticise a UK arms company for trading with Pakistan while the US happily sells arms to Pakistan?
 
2011-12-16 11:07:56 AM
WTF Indeed: kronicfeld: What if it were true? Not saying it was, because I have no idea, but if it were true, would it still be reprehensible? Or does the guy get immunity to criticism for anything ever because of his MoH?

The Medal of Honor isn't given out as a PR piece. Now while the fog of war might confuse some facts, for the most part they get it right. Even if the guy was a drunk, the respectful thing to do is to let him go and not publicly insult his character. What BAE did was try to ruin a man's character with the story questioning his service. What most likely happened was that the BAE CEO got a delightful call from the DoD informing them if they didn't settle this case and end the smear campaign the US might find some other company spend their money with.


Or, to look at it another way, what this Marine did was to criticise a British company for doing exactly the same sort of arms sales that the US openly does.
Why would ist be "wrong" for a UK company but "okay" for the US arms industry and the US government official policy?
 
2011-12-16 11:09:29 AM
Flint Ironstag: It is even US official policy to sell arms to Pakistan to keep them (more or less) on our side.

Link

How can Americans criticise a UK arms company for trading with Pakistan while the US happily sells arms to Pakistan?


Hi, you're obviously new, so welcome to America. It is official policy to always do as we say, and not as we do.
 
2011-12-16 11:14:21 AM
Flint Ironstag: Or, to look at it another way, what this Marine did was to criticise a British company for doing exactly the same sort of arms sales that the US openly does.
Why would ist be "wrong" for a UK company but "okay" for the US arms industry and the US government official policy?


Look buddy, you want to keep running your point that America gives military aid to Pakistan, that's fine. However if you can't see the difference between a private corporation and a government, then you really are just yelling at the wind.
 
2011-12-16 11:19:32 AM
WTF Indeed: Flint Ironstag: Or, to look at it another way, what this Marine did was to criticise a British company for doing exactly the same sort of arms sales that the US openly does.
Why would ist be "wrong" for a UK company but "okay" for the US arms industry and the US government official policy?

Look buddy, you want to keep running your point that America gives military aid to Pakistan, that's fine. However if you can't see the difference between a private corporation and a government, then you really are just yelling at the wind.


This may be a shock to you but the US government does not actually make any arms. "US arms sales" mean the US government approving of US based private corporations selling arms.

So what is the difference?

Why can the US government approve of US corporations selling arms but it be wrong for a UK corporation to sell arms to the same people?
 
2011-12-16 11:48:41 AM
kronicfeld: WTF Indeed: So let me get this straight, a British-owned multinational corporation fired a Medal of Honor recipient for voicing an opinion about selling weapons to the people that tried to kill him and his fellow soldiers. The company then publicly called him unstable and a drunk and got a paper in America to run a story questioning the report of his actions that earned him the Medal of Honor. There is not an insult in the world strong enough to call the executive that thought this was a good idea.

What if it were true? Not saying it was, because I have no idea, but if it were true, would it still be reprehensible? Or does the guy get immunity to criticism for anything ever because of his MoH?


Okay, Pakistan aside, let's look at what happened. Guy complains about a company policy to his supervisor. Supervisor then spends 3 months taunting guy, saying his MoH is undeserved, calls guy a glory hound, and generally makes guy's life there miserable. Guy leaves the company when he gets an offer at another company. Former supervisor writes a letter to NEW supervisor at other company, saying he shouldn't hire Meyer because he's mentally unstable and a suspected drunk. New company withdraws offer letter.

On one hand, you risk your job by complaining about a company's policy, MoH or not. On the other hand, the supervisor at BAE is a dick and Meyer's treatment, on the job and after, was ENTIRELY out of line.
 
2011-12-16 12:40:05 PM
Flint Ironstag: Why can the US government approve of US corporations selling arms but it be wrong for a UK corporation to sell arms to the same people?

Okay, let me spell it out slowly for you. The US government places orders for weapons from private corporations. The government regulates which nations said company can sell certain weapons too, eg. Lockheed can't sell F-35s to any country they want. The US government also has stockpiles of older weapons that it sells or gives secondhand to other nations, like your a fore mentioned F-16s.

In this case, the advanced scope optics that Meyer helped designed were not covered under a no-sale order and their was talk of BAE selling these scopes to Pakistan, which would have ended up in the hands of people actively trying to kill NATO soldiers.

Now that you've gotten a How the Real World Works 101 lesson, would you like to know more?
 
2011-12-16 12:46:33 PM
Reporter embedded with the patrol claims the Marines version of events was not true.

"McClatchy found that the claim that Meyer saved the lives of 13 U.S. Marines and soldiers couldn't be true. Twelve Americans were ambushed - including this correspondent - and of those, four were killed. (One wounded American would die a month later.) Moreover, multiple sworn statements affirm McClatchy's firsthand reporting that it was the long-delayed arrival of U.S. helicopters that saved the American survivors."

So we have an American journalist claiming his story isn't true.

Anyone got a link to the story about BAE giving him a bad reference and bullying him? Google does nothing.
 
2011-12-16 12:49:07 PM
WTF Indeed: Flint Ironstag: Why can the US government approve of US corporations selling arms but it be wrong for a UK corporation to sell arms to the same people?

Okay, let me spell it out slowly for you. The US government places orders for weapons from private corporations. The government regulates which nations said company can sell certain weapons too, eg. Lockheed can't sell F-35s to any country they want. The US government also has stockpiles of older weapons that it sells or gives secondhand to other nations, like your a fore mentioned F-16s.

In this case, the advanced scope optics that Meyer helped designed were not covered under a no-sale order and their was talk of BAE selling these scopes to Pakistan, which would have ended up in the hands of people actively trying to kill NATO soldiers.

Now that you've gotten a How the Real World Works 101 lesson, would you like to know more?




So it's okay for the US to sell arms to Pakistan but wrong for the UK? Check.

Because I'm pretty sure the UK government does not just let BAE sell anything it wants to anyone....
 
2011-12-16 01:10:57 PM
How much money do you think he got from BAE?
 
2011-12-16 01:12:21 PM
SoCalSurfer: How much money do you think he got from BAE?

Flint Ironstag or Meyer?
 
2011-12-16 01:17:01 PM
WTF Indeed: SoCalSurfer: How much money do you think he got from BAE?

Flint Ironstag or Meyer?


I'm not the one claiming that the US government carefully regulates its arms trade (like the "Fast and Furious" gunrunning scandal?) while the UK just let its arms companies do anything they want with anyone....
 
2011-12-16 01:26:17 PM
Flint Ironstag: Anyone got a link to the story about BAE giving him a bad reference and bullying him? Google does nothing.

First^ link from Google for "meyer bae"
Second^ one, too

/your Google-fu is weak
 
2011-12-16 01:30:24 PM
Flint Ironstag: WTF Indeed: SoCalSurfer: How much money do you think he got from BAE?

Flint Ironstag or Meyer?

I'm not the one claiming that the US government carefully regulates its arms trade (like the "Fast and Furious" gunrunning scandal?) while the UK just let its arms companies do anything they want with anyone....


No, but you are the one claiming there's no difference between a company selling top-of-the-line thermal scopes, ones better than what are given to our own troops, to a country that is known to have not only aided our enemies, but also to have directly attacked our soldiers and selling 30-year-old F-16s that we could swat out of the sky with impunity to those same people.
 
2011-12-16 01:33:31 PM
Shostie: To be fair, I also got drunk while playing Medal of Honor.

Especially after that one mission with the dancing dogs

/nightmare fuel
 
2011-12-16 01:37:16 PM
IgG4: I'm glad to see this is getting more attention. This is absolutely shameful. We shouldn't be providing any military aid to Pakistan period. They at this point they are the primary enemy in the war on terror and our biggest impediment to any sort of successful conclusion of the war in Afghanistan. What they need is a good biatch slap to help them discover a little enlightened self interest about farking with America. We probably need to get a little less subtle with India too because they are stirring this pot too. Afghanistan will never be secure unless India and Pakistan don't knock of their juvenile tit-for-tat.

You should express your sentiments to FLIR Systems INC. Those money-hungry, shameful bastards practically give away their technology to Pakistan.
 
2011-12-16 01:37:38 PM
SoCalSurfer: How much money do you think he got from BAE?

enough that he'll never have a problem getting laid again... though that probably already came with the Medal of Honor recipient territory
 
2011-12-16 01:39:31 PM
FTA:
Meyer said. "I am gratified to learn that BAE Systems OASYS did not ultimately sell and does not intend to sell advanced thermal scopes to Pakistan."
Meyer praised the defense firm's support for veterans and generosity to the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation.

---- DAMN RIGHT.
They probably got heat from every angle on this, and BAE decided to kiss ass and bend before things got any worse. I bet they got bomb threats too.
 
2011-12-16 01:40:58 PM
timujin: Flint Ironstag: Anyone got a link to the story about BAE giving him a bad reference and bullying him? Google does nothing.

First^ link from Google for "meyer bae"
Second^ one, too

/your Google-fu is weak


From the first link: "Mr. Roehrkasse, the BAE spokesman, said the decision to sell defense equipment is made by the State Department, not BAE. "In recent years, the U.S. government has approved the export of defense related goods from numerous defense companies, including BAE systems, to Pakistan as part of the United States' bilateral relationship with that country," he said."

The supervisor accused of sending the email and bullying him is also an ex Marine. Makes things a bit more complicated...
 
2011-12-16 01:41:06 PM
keylock71: How dare he get in the way of profit with his morals and character!

I was going to add something, but I don't think I can do better than this.
 
2011-12-16 01:42:09 PM
timujin: Flint Ironstag: WTF Indeed: SoCalSurfer: How much money do you think he got from BAE?

Flint Ironstag or Meyer?

I'm not the one claiming that the US government carefully regulates its arms trade (like the "Fast and Furious" gunrunning scandal?) while the UK just let its arms companies do anything they want with anyone....

No, but you are the one claiming there's no difference between a company selling top-of-the-line thermal scopes, ones better than what are given to our own troops, to a country that is known to have not only aided our enemies, but also to have directly attacked our soldiers and selling 30-year-old F-16s that we could swat out of the sky with impunity to those same people.


How about the bit where BAE said the approval to make that sale came from the State Dept?
 
2011-12-16 01:42:27 PM
Actually there have a been a few MoH awardees who were known as hard drinkers, (This doesn't take way from the fact they have huge brass balls)
Pappy Boyington comes immediately to mind. Hell, the guy was even able to tie one on when he was a POW in Japan.
 
2011-12-16 01:43:36 PM
IgG4: We shouldn't be providing any military aid to Pakistan period.

people say this, but lest we forget:

PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR COUNTRY

having them disintegrate and 100+ nuclear warheads go missing is NOT AN OPTION.
 
2011-12-16 01:44:20 PM
Bermuda59: Actually there have a been a few MoH awardees who were known as hard drinkers, (This doesn't take way from the fact they have huge brass balls)
Pappy Boyington comes immediately to mind. Hell, the guy was even able to tie one on when he was a POW in Japan.


It was an American who made the claim. I doubt a British person would have cared. Hell, Churchill was sloshed most of the time.
 
2011-12-16 01:44:42 PM
Okay, but this is the last time you get to use the MoH card as an "I WIN" button. Every recipient should get that privilege once... but just once. You use it as a shield again, and you have to turn it back in, okay?
 
2011-12-16 01:44:50 PM
IgG4: I'm glad to see this is getting more attention. This is absolutely shameful. We shouldn't be providing any military aid to Pakistan period. They at this point they are the primary enemy in the war on terror and our biggest impediment to any sort of successful conclusion of the war in Afghanistan. What they need is a good biatch slap to help them discover a little enlightened self interest about farking with America. We probably need to get a little less subtle with India too because they are stirring this pot too. Afghanistan will never be secure unless India and Pakistan don't knock of their juvenile tit-for-tat.

Um... Afghanistan is an ally with Most Favored Nation status with both the US and the UK, at least officially. We have no problem with the nation as such, we're just hunting terrorist cells inside their borders without permission, which is apparently a thing we do now.

While the company is a dick for going the character assassination route in response to an employee complaint, I can't say that I really sympathize with the complaint either. The cold war is over, if a nation is an ally it's an ally and if it's an enemy it's an enemy, we don't do that "both at once" shiat anymore.
 
2011-12-16 01:45:17 PM
Flint Ironstag: timujin: Flint Ironstag: WTF Indeed: SoCalSurfer: How much money do you think he got from BAE?

Flint Ironstag or Meyer?

I'm not the one claiming that the US government carefully regulates its arms trade (like the "Fast and Furious" gunrunning scandal?) while the UK just let its arms companies do anything they want with anyone....

No, but you are the one claiming there's no difference between a company selling top-of-the-line thermal scopes, ones better than what are given to our own troops, to a country that is known to have not only aided our enemies, but also to have directly attacked our soldiers and selling 30-year-old F-16s that we could swat out of the sky with impunity to those same people.

How about the bit where BAE said the approval to make that sale came from the State Dept?


wow, you move those goalposts quickly!
 
2011-12-16 01:47:17 PM
Jim_Callahan: The cold war is over, if a nation is an ally it's an ally and if it's an enemy it's an enemy, we don't do that "both at once" shiat anymore.

Have you been paying any attention to U.S./Pakistan relations over the course of the last couple of years?
 
2011-12-16 01:48:07 PM
IgG4: We shouldn't be providing any military aid to Pakistan period.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. The flub is over a foreign company attempting to sell products to Pakistan. US Military aid to the state doesn't enter into it.
 
2011-12-16 01:48:49 PM
brigid_fitch: kronicfeld: WTF Indeed: So let me get this straight, a British-owned multinational corporation fired a Medal of Honor recipient for voicing an opinion about selling weapons to the people that tried to kill him and his fellow soldiers. The company then publicly called him unstable and a drunk and got a paper in America to run a story questioning the report of his actions that earned him the Medal of Honor. There is not an insult in the world strong enough to call the executive that thought this was a good idea.

What if it were true? Not saying it was, because I have no idea, but if it were true, would it still be reprehensible? Or does the guy get immunity to criticism for anything ever because of his MoH?

Okay, Pakistan aside, let's look at what happened. Guy complains about a company policy to his supervisor. Supervisor then spends 3 months taunting guy, saying his MoH is undeserved, calls guy a glory hound, and generally makes guy's life there miserable. Guy leaves the company when he gets an offer at another company. Former supervisor writes a letter to NEW supervisor at other company, saying he shouldn't hire Meyer because he's mentally unstable and a suspected drunk. New company withdraws offer letter.

On one hand, you risk your job by complaining about a company's policy, MoH or not. On the other hand, the supervisor at BAE is a dick and Meyer's treatment, on the job and after, was ENTIRELY out of line.


Can you imagine being that supervisor now? "Hey Jones, you remember that time you taunted that MoH winner and just for spite got his new job offer withdrawn? Well it cost us more than you'll make if you worked her for another 100 years. Thanks. By the way, you're fired. But feel free to leave me as a reference...."
 
2011-12-16 01:49:06 PM
Let's be honest, if you head a multi-billion dollar organization whose job it is to develop and sell things that kill other people to people who kill other people...you are probably somewhat lacking in morals. In fact, if you head a multi-billion dollar organization in general, you probably lack in morals.

I understand the underlying need for defense, but I am not surprised in the least by defense contractors and their tactics. After all:
- their motto is 'offense is the best defense'
- they probably have a huge legal department because they deal in matters of life and death
- they work at the behest of the US government so they are entirely corrupt
- growing arms revenues typically involves either 1) generating more war or 2) selling to both sides of a war

But seriously BAE, the guy saved several people's lives, earned a Medal of Honor, and had a very good 60 Minutes story done about him which was flattering. You are going to find it very hard to ruin this guy's reputation. Total fail.
 
2011-12-16 01:49:24 PM
Guy brought his personal politics to the job and got shiat canned, as he should have.
 
2011-12-16 01:49:51 PM
kronicfeld: What if it were true? Not saying it was, because I have no idea, but if it were true, would it still be reprehensible? Or does the guy get immunity to criticism for anything ever because of his MoH?

Complete immunity? No. If he started molesting children, or went on a murder spree, or something like that, he'd be fair game.

In this case, though, the guy had a concern that, on the face of it, isn't all that absurd. It would be perfectly fine to argue against his concern, but when you bring his private life into it in an attempt to smear his credibility, and then actively work to prevent him from finding other employment, then yeah, it's pretty reprehensible, especially since you hired the guy precisely *BECAUSE* he was an MoH recipient, and you sell military equipment.
 
2011-12-16 01:50:23 PM
Jim_Callahan: The cold war is over, if a nation is an ally it's an ally and if it's an enemy it's an enemy, we don't do that "both at once" shiat anymore.

You do realize that all countries play the Frenemy game, right? We aren't enemies with Pakistan, but we sure as shiat ain't friends with them either. We flew into their country and shot the world's #1 terrorist in their backyard.

You're retarded if you don't think world leaders still play the "My enemy of my enemy is my friend" game.
 
2011-12-16 01:52:11 PM
HotWingConspiracy: Guy brought his personal politics to the job and got shiat canned, as he should have.

Should he also have been slandered and had doubts raised about the events that led to his receiving the MoH?

Because that happened.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »