what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[Scutta]

Because at this time of year the media seems full of them going on about how terrible war is, without any of them having been anywhere near one, mebbes should have put "middle class types/politicians/celebrities"

war is terrible, is it not? not sure what your point is? you would rather they advocate it?

EDIT: and tbf it seems this time of year the media seem to be doing the exact opposite imo...for the reasons that have already been said....

 

[Sasaferrato]

Consider this a rhetorical question, because I genuinely don't want to get into personal arguments with people on this topic, but don't you think there is an interesting and perhaps ironic conflict or contradiction in the juxtaposition of those two sentences?

Yes, and deliberately so.

As a soldier, you make an assumption that when you are sent to fight, you are sent to fight in at least the national interest, at worst because of the hubris of the national leader, but at least you should understand why you are being sent to fight.

I went a very long way to a couple of insignificant islands. I was bombed and shot at, although the greatest danger was when I nearly drowned.

Those insignificant islands belonged to us, and another nation had decided to take them, so we went, and we won them back. It was probably the most clear cut action that the British forces had undertaken since WWII, and remains so. If Argentina decides to take them tomorrow, we cannot take them back. We don't have the men and materiel.

Gulf I, I was very briefly involved in. Had Hussein been allowed to keep Kuwait, the rest of the Gulf would have followed, strangling oil supplies to the West, which we need. War in the national interest, if you like.

Iraq and Afghanistan are a stain that will never wash out. I am very very glad that my soldiering days were over by that point. The quiet voices that accurately foretold what would happen in Iraq were not heard at the time, and are not being held now. Would I have gone? Yes, of course I would, but I am very glad I didn't have to.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

war is terrible, is it not? not sure what your point is? you would rather they advocate it?

EDIT: and tbf it seems this time of year the media seem to be doing the exact opposite imo...for the reasons that have already been said....

And this year, it coincides with withdrawal from Afghanistan. Cue talk of a difficult job achieved, etc etc. Not 'they killed and died for less than nothing'. tbh Coley, I see rather the opposite at this time of year - comfortable types who have never been near war acting tough and war-mongering.

 

[Thimble Queen]

coley when you said bombing isis saves lives that was advocating war. It's about what you say not whether you wear a poppy or not.

 

[ska invita]

As a soldier, you make an assumption that when you are sent to fight, you are sent to fight in at least the national interest, at worst because of the hubris of the national leader, but at least you should understand why you are being sent to fight.

Its more serious than that = post Neuremburg "I was only following orders" is no longer an excuse, if it ever was. To my mind it is now more than ever down to the conscience of each solider to decide if the war they are being sent to is legal or not.

 

[toggle]

Totally agree, don't think I could even begin to understand how they maintained it.

that's because the picture we have of people that we cannonise tends to be enhanced by a lot of myth making into the man we wanted them to be - perfect at all times, rather than an actual human with more complex views and someone capable of mistakes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

that's because the picture we have of people that we cannonise tends to be enhanced by a lot of myth making into the man we wanted them to be - perfect at all times, rather than an actual human with more complex views and someone capable of mistakes.

yes and no. MLK continued even though he knew he would be killed for it. He had a special kind of courage.

 

[likesfish]

I don't want to get all argumentative on your arse - you clearly feel strongly about this issue, whereas I, TBH, do not.

But how is wearing a white poppy hijacking anything? The British Legion (or whoever it is) don't own the image of all poppies, they use a red poppy. Other people have chosen to use a white poppy to symbolise something else (just as the red ribbon originally used to symbolise AIDS/HIV has now been adapted in various other colours to symbolise various other illnesses).

Just as it's up to you and all the red poppy wearers to chose to do your thing, surely it's equally up to the white poppy wearers to chose to do their thing, to chose their own symbol to convey their message.

Because white poppys only ever turn up at the same time as the british legions campaign and the odious peace pledge union http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Pledge_Union#Appeasement_of_Nazi_Germany

 

[andysays]

Yes, and deliberately so.

As a soldier, you make an assumption that when you are sent to fight, you are sent to fight in at least the national interest, at worst because of the hubris of the national leader, but at least you should understand why you are being sent to fight.

I went a very long way to a couple of insignificant islands. I was bombed and shot at, although the greatest danger was when I nearly drowned.

Those insignificant islands belonged to us, and another nation had decided to take them, so we went, and we won them back. It was probably the most clear cut action that the British forces had undertaken since WWII, and remains so. If Argentina decides to take them tomorrow, we cannot take them back. We don't have the men and materiel.

Gulf I, I was very briefly involved in. Had Hussein been allowed to keep Kuwait, the rest of the Gulf would have followed, strangling oil supplies to the West, which we need. War in the national interest, if you like.

Iraq and Afghanistan are a stain that will never wash out. I am very very glad that my soldiering days were over by that point. The quiet voices that accurately foretold what would happen in Iraq were not heard at the time, and are not being held now. Would I have gone? Yes, of course I would, but I am very glad I didn't have to.

So perhaps there is something wrong with soldiering as a career, in that you willingly* give up any right to be able to choose to take part in a conflict on the basis of your own view on whether it is just/in the national interest/whatever you want to call it.

Once you've signed up, you've abidicated your ability to make any moral choice over your actions to someone else.

*although you may not necessarily recognise the full implications of this at the time you first sign up

 

[andysays]

Because white poppys only ever turn up at the same time as the british legions campaign and the odious peace pledge union http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Pledge_Union#Appeasement_of_Nazi_Germany

So everyone who wears a white poppy is a Nazi appeaser?

I said before I didn't want to get into any personal arguments on this thread, but if you carry this shit on I may well make an exception...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Its more serious than that = post Neuremburg "I was only following orders" is no longer an excuse, if it ever was. To my mind it is now more than ever down to the conscience of each solider to decide if the war they are being sent to is legal or not.

I think this is really difficult. Surely 'following orders' sometimes is an excuse. It has to be, given the relative powerlessness of your ordinary squaddie, and the negative consequences for him of not following an order. There is something of a contradiction for me there.

 

[krink]

The local Legion secretary is still an EDL organiser and they've started a campaign 'shaming' local shops who don't sell poppies so no poppy for me again this year, ta.

 

[Thimble Queen]

So everyone who wears a white poppy is a Nazi appeaser?

I said before I didn't want to get into any personal arguments on this thread, but if you carry this shit on I may well make an exception...

Coley got personal with me as soon as I started posting on here. It's inevitable on this thread I think.

 

[toggle]

Because white poppys only ever turn up at the same time as the british legions campaign and the odious peace pledge union http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Pledge_Union#Appeasement_of_Nazi_Germany

isn't it odd how a pacifist group that supported appeasement should be singled out, when it was such a widely held policy at the time.

the leaders, the aristocrats who supported appeasement and hitler, were, for the most part rehabilitated. a few black sheep, like the mosleys. but most managed to rewrite their personal histories to a significanty degree. eg, nancy astor.

but the more ordinary people who supported the policy out of a genuine belief in pacifism, they are demonised. the daily mail called for their banning ffs. to cover for their own past. the shouts of ban the appeasers rather than horay for the blackshirts have created a mythology arround opposition to the war

and still no one stops to think why a small powerless pacifist group was deemed so evil, by people who a few years earlier had been arguably worse

 

[andysays]

Coley got personal with me as soon as I started posting on here. It's inevitable on this thread I think.

Getting a bit personal is one thing (don't know specifically what Coley said, so not commenting on that one way or the other), and for those who feel strongly it's maybe understandable.

But to roll out nazi appeaser shit is waaaay beyond getting a bit personal.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

isn't it odd how a pacifist group that supported appeasement should be singled out, when it was such a widely held policy at the time.

yep. And cries of 'appeasement' have been (mis)used ever since by warmongers.

 

[andysays]

isn't it odd how a pacifist group that supported appeasement should be singled out, when it was such a widely held policy at the time.

I'd call it instructive rather than odd - it's almost like Neville Chamberlain was forced into his actions by a handful of proto-hippies, and the Daily Mail and more members of the establishment than I can be bothered to list were all bang up for opposing Hitler from day one.

Whose interests does that version serve, I wonder?

 

[Bakunin]

isn't it odd how a pacifist group that supported appeasement should be singled out, when it was such a widely held policy at the time.

the leaders, the aristocrats who supported appeasement and hitler, were, for the most part rehabilitated. a few black sheep, like the mosleys. but most managed to rewrite their personal histories to a significanty degree. eg, nancy astor.

but the more ordinary people who supported the policy out of a genuine belief in pacifism, they are demonised. the daily mail called for their banning ffs. to cover for their own past. the shouts of ban the appeasers rather than horay for the blackshirts have created a mythology arround opposition to the war

and still no one stops to think why a small powerless pacifist group was deemed so evil, by people who a few years earlier had been arguably worse

This remark from a certain Hermann Goering gives food for thought:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

 

[toggle]

This remark from a certain Hermann Goering gives food for thought:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

i've looked in some detail at the boer war and ww1 era pacifists and a great many found the accusations of insuficient patriotism to be one of the hardest things to bear. because they also believed they were patriots, doing the best thing to protect their country from cocking it up all over again.

 

[toggle]

yep. And cries of 'appeasement' have been (mis)used ever since by warmongers.

and it's not as though there was anyhting that NC could have done to stop hitler at that stage anyway. perhaps marched our 5 divisions against germany's 40 odd. and stood back to watch the slaughter.

 

[coley]

coley when you said bombing isis saves lives that was advocating war. It's about what you say not whether you wear a poppy or not.

I have no bother understanding pacifism and actually admire genuine pacifism, but until we are all pacifists we need defence forces and I think they should be honoured for what they are prepared to do, as for bombing ISIS I am totally in support as long as it's limited to engaging ISIS.

 

[coley]

Coley got personal with me as soon as I started posting on here. It's inevitable on this thread I think.

Pardon, just where did I get personal? If I remember rightly, you were the only one engaging in personal criticisms, starting, with the " bizarre" remark.

 

[Thimble Queen]

Yes your comment about waving a white poppy in Gaza and Kobane was incredibly bizarre. That's not a personal remark.

Unlike you, I didn't describe anyone as odd for wearing a red poppy. Or make assumptions about anyone's class.

 

[coley]

Yes your comment about waving a white poppy in Gaza and Kobane was incredibly bizarre. That's not a personal remark.

Unlike you, I didn't describe anyone as odd for wearing a red poppy. Or make assumptions about anyone's class.

It wasn't bizarre you just didn't make the connection, I do find the wearing of the white poppy at this time of the year mildly irritating and I don't know you or you me,so why do you believe I was directing my comments at you? having said that it was me just having an irritated mini rant and I agree I could have put it better.

 

[Thimble Queen]

If you weren't directing your comments at me then why were you quoting me in your replies?

 

[coley]

If you weren't directing your comments at me then why were you quoting me in your replies?

Directing comments yes, being personal no, as I have done here.

 

[Scutta]

It wasn't bizarre you just didn't make the connection, I do find the wearing of the white poppy at this time of the year mildly irritating and I don't know you or you me,so why do you believe I was directing my comments at you? having said that it was me just having an irritated mini rant and I agree I could have put it better.

it was bizarre hence why you've been called out numerous times on your bizarre double standards throughout this thread...

 

[Thimble Queen]

It wasn't bizarre you just didn't make the connection, I do find the wearing of the white poppy at this time of the year mildly irritating and I don't know you or you me,so why do you believe I was directing my comments at you? having said that it was me just having an irritated mini rant and I agree I could have put it better.

If you weren't directing your comments at me then why were you quoting me in your replies?

Directing comments yes, being personal no, as I have done here.

Do you read what you've written?

 

[coley]

Suit yourself, I find people insisting on wearing the white poppy mildly annoying at this time of year.
I would love to see a conflict free world but it isn't going to happen in my lifetime or I suspect my great, great etc grandsons life time, and given the current ongoing conflicts, waving peace symbols around in protest is nothing but an empty gesture, but one which people are entitled to do should they wish.

 

[Thimble Queen]

My first post on this thread stated that I don't wear a poppy. You've been arguing with yourself this whole time.