Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
That's a little different to above, perhaps I miss understood you.
Silence at work - rememberance
- Thread starter elmarko
- Start date
That's a little different to above, perhaps I miss understood you.
I would not consider someone who used war as an excuse to commit crimes as serving.....self serving perhaps, but that is not what Remembrance Day is about..at least not to me it isn't. I remember the people close to me and those I knew in some way who gave their lives in defence of others and what they believed in, both civilian and military. It includes the examples I gave above.
I think the basic point is that remembrance isn't about remembering or honouring war, but the people who died defending others because of war.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
That's a specific thing then and not all conflicts. Many wars we as a country have fought were not about defending others because of war. Many wars were fought for anything but defending others and in fact by your definition we could should be remembering the other side rather than British soldiers (in some conflicts, in my opinion that would include Iraq as we weren't defending anyone at the time unless we were doing it for past crimes, but let's not go back there)
Last edited:
No, its applicable to all conflicts. Iraq included...people died protecting Kurds, Shia, Sunnis and others from the incipient regime and the subsequent foreign and native insurgency led sectarianism and a bloody civil war...the actual invasion of Saddams Iraq was over very quickly and with minimal resistance, it was the subsequent insurgency and resulting civil war that led to the hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths...and for the most part, coalition forces were indeed defending ordinary Iraqis from such violence and training the Iraqis to defend themselves...even with the withdrawal of coalition forces, the situation in Iraq is worsening as regards civilian casualties..partly due to that withdrawal.
So I disagree with you, but like I said..how I choose to honour those I feel deserve my gratitude is a personal thing...it is not an inferred obligation on you, you are free to choose your own way or not at all...whichever you feel your conscience allows....so really the debate is moot.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
What about the people who died trying to protect against the people western forces were killing. People trying to defend others against shock and awe described as having a similar effect of a nuclear weapon. Or the people who just wanted to have clean tap water which was impacted by western forces destoying sanitation, infrastructure, power. Or people defending others from being hit by "stray" missiles etc etc your logic is weird, you go in and invade a country which was fairly stable at the time, destabilise the crap out of it by killing or removing the political and social structure, then claim your defending ordinary Iraqis, the cheek!
Any my fault shouldn't have brought Iraq back.
Who were we defending in the opium wars, in many colonial conflicts, slave trading etc heck I'm sure you could name more than me, given these are just off the top of my head.
Are you seriously suggesting all conflicts Britain has been in were about defending others?
Any my fault shouldn't have brought Iraq back.
Who were we defending in the opium wars, in many colonial conflicts, slave trading etc heck I'm sure you could name more than me, given these are just off the top of my head.
Are you seriously suggesting all conflicts Britain has been in were about defending others?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
You said first it's about remembering soldiers in all conflicts, then remembering those who died in conflicts defending others. Just saying that the two are incompatible unless you think every conflict/war was just or in every war/conflict Britain was defending others. Given britains history of serving itself I cant see how you would be suggesting either.
Given Cameron apologised to India for britains colonial past is contrary to what you are saying.
Given Cameron apologised to India for britains colonial past is contrary to what you are saying.
Last edited:
War has collateral effects, Iraq is not unique, you can apply that to World War Two specifically...millions died as a consequence of the war. It is part of the reason why we remember our War Dead, as do other nations globally.
I'm sorry, but your idea of what actually happened on the ground in Iraq is coloured by your prejudice...Iraq was only a stable country if you were a Ba'athist supporter...thousands of Iraqis were killed, maimed and otherwise subject to the regimes suppression. The facts are that if there had been no insurgency and subsequent civil war as terrorist and sectarian groups fought for supremacy then the political and infrastructure rebuilding of Iraq would have been relatively quick...you are also misrepresenting what I said, I did not say we went to Iraq with the express objective of defending Iraqis from themselves, but that during the Iraq war people died defending Iraqi civilians from both the Iraqi Regime and the subsequent insurgent and sectarian forces. I also did not say that the war, or specifically the situation after the initial invasion was conducted in a competent way..there is much to criticise about the Iraq War, both the reasons for it and the actions of the Governments in assessing the risks and what was necessary to remove the Saddam Regime and create a stable, democratic state after his removal.
As I didn't suggest that all conflicts are about defending others, your point is irrelevant..what I said is that in any conflict there are people who defend others and deserve that remembrance of their sacrifice...how that manifests is not always apparent to the casual observer, and last time I attended a remembrance service, no mention was made of honouring those engaged in the Slave Trade or Trade Wars, although I suspect that even those events had people who died in defence of their brothers and families.
You are misrepresenting what I said.....I said it is about remembering those who died in serving in conflict..both military and civilian. I specifically said it is not about the specific conflicts themselves or the reasons for them. subsequent answers to you have dealt with specific questions you asked and are framed from that point of reference and context, to conflate them into a singular answer in order to manufacture the appearance of contradiction is disingenuous and a game I have no wish to play.
Whether a subsequent Prime Minister apologises for our colonial past or not is not contrary to anything I have said. David Cameron did not apologise for Britain's Colonialism in any case..he simply expressed that a particular massacre in Imperial India was a shameful event, and rightly so...here is what he said on the matter:
Somewhat different from the way you portray it.
Like I said, if you are so opposed to it, simply don't do it. Judging me or others who feel differently isn't really necessary. So I'll leave you with that before you lose your temper and begin to throw the usual insults about. Goodnight Craterloads, just follow your own conscience and do what you feel is right in your own mind, and give others the same freedom to the same.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Why would I loose my temper, thought it was pretty light hearted and civilised chat, but apparently not. I'm going to leave the Iraq stuff as we have polarising opinions and we won't get anywhere.
My issue is with your statement of remembrance for the dead that served in all conflicts. You even changed the goal posts to those protecting others but hey.
Why would someone deserve remembrance defending fellow soldiers in the opium wars? Or soldiers defending each other in the colonisation period in India? I'm not judging you or others just trying to clarify what you are saying as I couldn't understand why you would remember soldiers from all conflicts when many conflicts the motives and soldiers were evil or did such evil things they aren't worth remembrance, more suited to remember them with distain rather than honour. You've gone on to expand what you personally think of during remembrance and it seems like a perfectly normal and honourable thing to do, just it isn't the same as what you initially described remembrance as.
All I wanted to know is this day to remember all fallen soldiers from all conflict or just the more honourable conflicts, as aren't worth remembering.
How does that change anything, you do realise the opium wars was a stain in British history and those involved should be remembered with disgust not honour unless you think what they did was honourable. Unless china came to Britain to attack it's impossible in any moral or honourable manner for them soldiers defend their brothers or families given what they were there to do to the Chinese.
Just because someone is British and died in conflict is not alone enough to be worthy of honour, rather their actions should define who we honour.
My issue is with your statement of remembrance for the dead that served in all conflicts. You even changed the goal posts to those protecting others but hey.
Why would someone deserve remembrance defending fellow soldiers in the opium wars? Or soldiers defending each other in the colonisation period in India? I'm not judging you or others just trying to clarify what you are saying as I couldn't understand why you would remember soldiers from all conflicts when many conflicts the motives and soldiers were evil or did such evil things they aren't worth remembrance, more suited to remember them with distain rather than honour. You've gone on to expand what you personally think of during remembrance and it seems like a perfectly normal and honourable thing to do, just it isn't the same as what you initially described remembrance as.
All I wanted to know is this day to remember all fallen soldiers from all conflict or just the more honourable conflicts, as aren't worth remembering.
How does that change anything, you do realise the opium wars was a stain in British history and those involved should be remembered with disgust not honour unless you think what they did was honourable. Unless china came to Britain to attack it's impossible in any moral or honourable manner for them soldiers defend their brothers or families given what they were there to do to the Chinese.
Just because someone is British and died in conflict is not alone enough to be worthy of honour, rather their actions should define who we honour.
Last edited:
I did not change the goalposts, as I explained you are being disingenuous in conflating answers made on different contextual parameters...in any case, do what your conscience demands Craterloads, if you do not think someone or a group of people deserves your respect or remembrance then withhold it. If you do not agree with Remembrance Day then simply do not participate...you are under no obligation to do so.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Sorry you feel I'm being disingenuous, that's not the case though and am simply going off what you are saying. I have made no such statement or even hinted at me disagreeing with Remembrance Day. my only issue was with your statement of "all conflicts" and then trying to justify truly horrendous conflicts on our part. Sorry let me rephrase that, find things within these awful conflicts to justify remembrance for your blanket "all conflict" for example soldiers defending the families in the opium wars, but obviously if you actually think about it you can't given the situation and roles of each side in the wars.
So I guess it's perfectly acceptable to serve remembrance according to your own morals, which is much more deserving than a blanket remembrance. given some of the conflicts discussed are only worthy of remembrance for the party who were victims of British armies.
So I guess it's perfectly acceptable to serve remembrance according to your own morals, which is much more deserving than a blanket remembrance. given some of the conflicts discussed are only worthy of remembrance for the party who were victims of British armies.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 4,504
- Location
- Wales
Some of the posts in this thread are unbelievably disrespectful.
I will ALWAYS lower my head and i will NEVER forget about the brave men and women that have paid the ultimate sacrifice, both past and present.
I will ALWAYS lower my head and i will NEVER forget about the brave men and women that have paid the ultimate sacrifice, both past and present.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
I assume the ultimate form of respect to people who have sacrificed themselves is to strive to never put anyone else in that position. To do this we must know how others that have fallen came to be in the position they were in and avoid it - as we can all agree it is a terrible position for any human being to be in. If a 2 minute silence helps uninformed people become more informed - so be it.
Last edited:
You asked whether Remembrance Day was for the World Wars only..I explained it is not about specific conflicts, but those Fallen in Conflict.
This illustrates the misconception you have regarding my opinion....we are not remembering the conflicts...simply our Fallen War Dead. I added the link to wiki in order to illustrate that many countries follow their own version of remembrance and to show that the conflicts themselves are not being honoured or remembered in any positive way...only those fallen in them.
You seem to be trying to prove some point that I am not discussing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
But why would we want to remember/honour bad people, under a light of honour? I understand what you said but I disagreed about not remembering the conflict given how important it is as determines what the soldiers were doing.
Why would you want to honour fallen soldiers from the opium wars (insert any other bad war) in a positive way? They should be a lessen to what bad soldiers are, and what our current soldiers should strive to be the opposite of.
Why would you want to honour fallen soldiers from the opium wars (insert any other bad war) in a positive way? They should be a lessen to what bad soldiers are, and what our current soldiers should strive to be the opposite of.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 4,504
- Location
- Wales
Craterloads,
When you say ''strive to be the opposite of' what do you mean exactly? What would you change about how a soldier goes about their job? Genuinely curious to know.
When you say ''strive to be the opposite of' what do you mean exactly? What would you change about how a soldier goes about their job? Genuinely curious to know.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,154
I take it as giving us all a sense of Unity for a short time while we remember The people who have died while in war ..
You're an idiot.
I sort of agree with OP (I'll still stay silent, of course), but that doesn't mean I have no respect. I'll wear a poppy, and I spend most of the day thinking of the people who have made sacrifices, not just 60 measly seconds. It should be more than that, like a public holiday, etc.
Which is exactly why we do not honour the actual conflicts themselves. It is a memorial of those who died in conflict, not a honouring of the conflicts themselves, the reasons for them or the appalling things that people may have done in them. Bad Wars do not necessarily imply bad Soldiers..only bad politicians.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
Not to be used as a tools of evil, oppression and murder.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
No because soldiers are responsible for their own actions, as history has shown us. Why is it you want to shift responsibility away from soldiers for their actions. Without invoking godwins, were nazi executioners excused of responsibility because it was orders.
What in death deserves honour that you did not earn in life? If I remember correctly your stance with Amy Winehouse. Does death automatically result in honour regardless of actions, of course not. Every soldier involved in the opium wars should rot in hell for what they did to the Chinese during the opium war depending on their personal actions.