|
|
ChowanFarmBoy
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 93
|
|
|
We enjoy the freedom of speech and thought and expression we use here becasue others who have gone before us paid with their lives. Let us not forget their sacrifices and the sacrifices made my their families.
Especially to my British brothers I say again that half the world is only civilized because Britain made it that way, and my country owes a debt of gratitude to yours for the democratic institutions, however flawed they may sometimes be, that we all enjoy and take so much for granted. And so today, I wear a poppy for you in my heart.
We sang this in church this morning, and I'd like to pass it along. I'm told that in most "Anglican" oriented prep schools it's sung at chapel on Remembrance Day.
O valiant hearts who to your glory came
Through dust of conflict and through battle flame;
Tranquil you lie, your knightly virtue proved,
Your memory hallowed in the land you loved.
Proudly you gathered, rank on rank, to war
As who had heard God’s message from afar;
All you had hoped for, all you had, you gave,
To save mankind—yourselves you scorned to save.
Splendid you passed, the great surrender made;
Into the light that nevermore shall fade;
Deep your contentment in that blest abode,
Who wait the last clear trumpet call of God.
Long years ago, as earth lay dark and still,
Rose a loud cry upon a lonely hill,
While in the frailty of our human clay,
Christ, our Redeemer, passed the self same way.
Still stands His Cross from that dread hour to this,
Like some bright star above the dark abyss;
Still, through the veil, the Victor’s pitying eyes
Look down to bless our lesser Calvaries.
These were His servants, in His steps they trod,
Following through death the martyred Son of God:
Victor, He rose; victorious too shall rise
They who have drunk His cup of sacrifice.
O risen Lord, O Shepherd of our dead,
Whose cross has bought them and Whose staff has led,
In glorious hope their proud and sorrowing land
Commits her children to Thy gracious hand.
[Updated on: Sun, 11 November 2007 16:00] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
the larks, still bravely singing fly
scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. short days ago
we lived, felt dawn, saw sunsets glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flander's Fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
to you from failing hands we throw
the torch; be yours to hold it high,
if you break faith with with us who die
We shall not sleep, tho poppies grow
In Flander's fields.
Lt col. John McCrae
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
There are so many people to remember. The kids who lied about their age to go and fight, and who died aged 14 or sometimes less. The cannon fodder, the inexplicable heroism, the purely banal, trivial, mundane deaths.
This date started on Armistice day, and yet we remember all who have fallen in all wars since, in all battles since, in all skirmishes since, whether the event was "just" or "unjust" the soldier dies anyway.
I am grateful that the worst I have had to live through was an economic recession and unemployment.
[Updated on: Mon, 12 November 2007 08:54]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I lost several friends in Viet Nam...... I think about them often but mostly on this day of mourning and honor.....
I've called several people today, relatives and other friends of my lost friends.....
We remembered, we cried.....
When will we learn that war, sending our children into battle is no answer?
When?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How right you are, Marc:
When will we learn that war, sending our children into battle is no answer?
The generals that commanded our troops in the first world war were responsible for the greatest unnecessary slaughter the world has ever known.
War is the greatest of the man-made evils as Einstein said.
If we had not invaded Iraq there would be no need for the huge loss of civil liberties that has occurred in the UK since then. Now the authorities can put anyone in prison for 28 days; all they have to say is that the prisoner is a 'suspected terrorist'. If YOU live in the UK YOU are vulnerable. The authorities in the USA can't do that. No other supposedly civilised country can imprison people without showing cause; not even for half that time.
Those of us that had to do 'National Service' in the forces are usually a great deal less sympathetic to the military ideals.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 19:49] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I accept that it is right to remember those who gave their lives in war. I think that 'In Flanders Field, the poppies grow ... " is a poignant and entirely legitimate expression of the horrors of war.
I do NOT approve of the way that Remembrance Day ceremonies are hijacked to glorify militarism. In the UK this year, those badly wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan were denied the right to take part in the Armistice Day Parade 'because serving military personnel are not allowed to participate.'
Can anyone see the moral justification for hiding the appalling injuries of these guys? The fact that they are 'serving soldiers' is the tritest of technicalities; they have absolutely no future in army service.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Cossie. Thats exactly the right word. "Hijacked"
I don't support or take part in these ceremonies because to do so is to support militarism. I knew that the authorities prevented injured or invalided out people from taking part - just think of the hypocrisy! Glorify those that 'gave their lives' and sweep those that only gave a leg or arm or eye under the carpet.
Most of the dead didn't 'give' their lives. They had their lives taken from them = and quite often through the incompetence of their commanders or by the 'friendly fire' of their allies. Who thinks that is "glorious"?
While serving in the forces you may, at any time, be required to do something that is immoral or illegal. How can a thinking person serve willingly? I did my National Service in the Navy 1953-1955 and have come to the conclusion that to allow oneself to be put in the position of having to obey orders, however immoral they may be, is something no-one should ever do. The Iraq war ought to have brought that truth home to people and it ought to have made military recruitment difficult. Pity it doesn't seem to have done that.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
It probably has something to do with a regulation... or military law...
After all, since they are still attached to the military, even as woulded soldiers, then they are bound to the same regulations that all the others are bound to...
Did unwoulded, presently serving soldiers march?
Morality seems to have nothing to do with it... the rules are the rules...
Hmmm.... Sounds alot like something I've read elsewhere reciently... I think a pattern is emerging.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
There are many things that are dehumanizing.... many that demoralize and many that invade a persons dreams....
War isn't the only hell....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I think it's important to appreciate that my previous post and Anthony's subsequent comments really ARE concerned with ethical/moral issues. The question is not whether there is a rule, but whether there is any moral justification for interpreting it in the manner described.
In fact, there seems to be some reticence about the 'rule'. It cannot be a matter of military law; military parades, like any other parades or demonstrations, are subject to municipal authotity. It seems probable that it is not so much a regulation as a matter of policy, and as it seems to apply to all three armed services, it presumably emanates from the Ministry of Defence.
It's easy to understand why active servicemen should not participate; the event is (ostensibly) to commemorate memory of those who 'gave their lives for their country', though as Anthony has commented that is something of a distortion of the facts. But despite that, most Remembrance Day Parades are militaristic affairs, with much marching and military symbolism, and the predominant impression is that the ex-servicemen, rather than those who died, are the stars of the show.
But the rule, or policy, or whatever it is, is being used to prevent severely injured and disabled former soldiers from participating. As Anthony suggests, this sends a strange message; it seems that ex-servicemen who came back safe from war, or even those who were never called upon to fire a shot during their military service, are welcome to take part; those who lost there lives are commemorated, but those who came back horrendously burned, or paralysed from the neck down, are to be kept out of view. To describe these individuals as 'serving military personnel' is a distortion of language; they may remain on the Ministry of Defence payroll - and indeed they should - but they cannot 'serve'; they will never 'serve' again. Yet they suffer as much, and arguably more, than those who lost their lives. Surely, of all those who have fought in military service, these people are most deserving of respect and appreciation on Remembrance Day.
So why is a rule or policy obviously intended to address the general principle of non-participation by active servicemen used in such a distorted way to prevent participation by those who have retuned with severe injuries? The only logical explanation that I can see is that it would remind the watching crowds of what war is REALLY like, and would dissipate the euphoria of remembering 'The Glorious Dead'. The dead were victims; war is sometimes unavoidable, but it is NEVER glorious.
Marc, I'm afraid that I just cannot accept your oft-repeated mantra that rules, laws, regulations or whatever else you care to include are sacrosanct. I regard myself as a law-abiding person, but I believe that any responsible individual has a moral duty to resist and oppose injustice wherever it occurs, even when it arises from the enforcement of an unjust law.
At the Nuremberg trials following World War II, a substantial number of defendants claimed that they were obliged to follow the orders of a superior officer as a matter of military law. In terms of military law, that is undoubtedly a valid contention. It didn't stop the executions.
Morality is surely an absolute concept; regardless of race or religion, wealth or power, victory or defeat, it demands that justice should not influenced by vindictiveness or by rank in the hierarchy of men, but by what, in the ordinary context of the word, is 'right'. Our views of 'right' may differ, but we ought always to express those views. That's how civilisation progresses.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I am not asking that you accept anything...... I am vocing my opinion....
Or am i misinterpreting something here?
Is you mantra that I shouldnt express my opinion?
That's how it seems to me.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I always understood that the process of discussion involved expansion and defence of opinions which are challenged, not mere unqualified repetition of those opinions without any attempt to defeat the logic of the challenger.
Obviously, I seem to be misunderstanding something here.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
I'm afraid that I just cannot accept your oft-repeated mantra that rules, laws, regulations or whatever else you care to include are sacrosanct. I regard myself as a law-abiding person, but I believe that any responsible individual has a moral duty to resist and oppose injustice wherever it occurs, even when it arises from the enforcement of an unjust law.
Cossie, I am sure you will be shocked to the very depth of your being to consider that the most eloquent expression of your thesis is to be found in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence by the USA. Furthermore, the thesis that "unjust laws" should not be obeyed is what brought the USA in being - and that was just because King George (poor man) placed a tax on tea.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
But there is a diffrence....
Tha American revolution was between the parties involved.... those being the Brittish and the colonists opposed to the oppression.
They were not remote from the incident....
Here however, There is distance, a remotness that insulates those advocating for gay activity in Iran....
It makes me wonder just how brave you would be if you were in Iran yourselves.
As much as your arguements are valid, so is mine.... and when it comes right to it.... If by the odd chance that some person from Iran were to see these threads.... I would much prefer that they take my slant on issues there rather than acquire a bit of bravery that your slant might instill....
You see, it is easy to be just, correct, brave, when you aren't the one at risk.... Not the ones doing the dying....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I'm not sure why your post is in this thread.
In the relevant thread, you haven't suggested before that you were limiting yourself to the viewpoint of an Iranian resident, and having read the posts again it's pretty obvious that you were not limiting yourself in that way.
I don't think that there is any ambiguity in my psition; it's absolutely clear that I was saying that we (outside Iran) should express opposition, regardless of whether a single voice can have an impact.
That being the case, the last paragraph of your post is intolerably rude.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I made no referance to looking at the problem from the viewpoint as a resident of Iran.... I have no idea what you mean there....
I see tha last paragraph as valid nonetheless.
It is easy to stand back and promote a position when there is no risk involved.
[Updated on: Mon, 19 November 2007 05:22]
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
...In the relevant thread, you haven't suggested before that you were limiting yourself to the viewpoint of an Iranian resident..
As Marc noted, he said nothing about being a resident of Iran. What he SAID was:
"It makes me wonder just how brave you would be if you were in Iran yourselves."
Cossie wrote:
That being the case, the last paragraph of your post is intolerably rude.
Don't see how the paragraph was rude. If he wanted to be rude he could have implied that you were immoral for disagreeing with him.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
I don't think that there is any ambiguity in my psition; it's absolutely clear that I was saying that we (outside Iran) should express opposition, regardless of whether a single voice can have an impact.
It seems that other Americans agree with you in principle. The following, from a very respected American cleric, arrived this morning in my inbox (the emphases are mine):
In a tiny little article buried deep in the paper, the Los Angeles Times reported the other day that a Saudi Arabian woman who was gang raped will receive six months in jail and 200 lashes – for being in a car with men who were not her relatives. She was originally supposed to be lashed 90 times, but because she complained to the media, the judges increased her punishment. This is a U.S. ally? This is a government the U.S. protects? Where’s the public outcry?
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
First, what happened to the men that raped her?
If they were awarded a madal of honor for raping her and she was prosecuted then there is something to complain about.
If however, the men were equally prosecuted to the full extent of the law then there is nothing really to go off about....
She knew the consequences..... She got into the car..... She knew who were and were not her relatives.....
You CAN NOT EXPECT other nations, cultures, religions, to operate according to standards other than their own.
Hell, one could argue that the Jewish faith promotes, no... requires mutilation of innocent children..... And yes.... lopping off the end of someones dick is mutilation.... to do it to an undefensible infant is criminal....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... and I regret that the topic has invaded a thread where it doesn't belong.
The discussion about homosexuality in Iran began reasonably enough. Then on 10 November JFR posted a piece referring to the recently-published minutes of a meeting between Iranian MP Mohsen Yahyavi and British Government officials, in which Yahyavi said that those who displayed 'this behaviour' (homosexuality) should be tortured; he then quickly corrected himself, and said they should be put to death. The posted article also referred to constant criticism of Iran's human rights record from the British government and from various human rights groups.
Marc responded with a post entitled 'Get used to it', which I quote in full below.
Because there is nothing in this big blue ball that will alter their opinion. Their religion has its laws. It's just that simple. Keep behind closed doors or face the consequences. It's a simple rule. If that doesn't work then emigrate to another country. Only a stupid person walks into a fire..... but what kind of person walks in and stands there.....
Being a reply to JFR's post, the clear implication is that the status quo should be accepted and that criticism is futile. Note also the phrase 'Their religion has its laws' - not Iran has its laws.
It is abundantly clear that, in the exchange which followed, JFR was putting forward the argument that the practice should be condemned. Marc, in effect, was simply repeating his view that it was the law of a sovereign state and there was no point in protesting about it.
I entered the discussion to protest that the suggestion that 'Their religion has its laws' was unfair; there are many Muslims who adopt a relatively moderate interpretation of the Quran, just as many Christians adopt a moderate interpretation of the Bible. However, in relation to the queation of condemning Iranian practice I made it absolutely clear that I was arguing as an outside observer. I quote my final sentence:
"In my personal view, to fail to oppose something which is manifestly wrong, even in the knowledge that my single voice will achieve nothing unless it helps to inspire the voics of many thousands of others, would be a total abdication of my sense of moral responsibility."
At no time did I suggest or in any way imply that Iranian gays should declare themselves; the danger of doing so is self evident. I did attempt to suggest that ultimately the fault lay in religious fundamentalism, and was thus comparable with the homophobic Christian fundamentalism found in some parts of the USA.
My arguments were dismissed but not addressed. I was subsequently accused of suggesting that Marc approved of the executions. I invite anyone to point to anything I have said which could conceivably be interpreted in that way. I was accused of generalising a topic which was obviously limited to Iran. I refer to the quote 'Their religion ...' mentioned above. I suggested that the United States was not a committed respecter of territorial sovereignty nor of international law - not from any anti-American sentiment, but simply because that's where Marc lives. My points were disregarded.
Then the question of whether the law should be accepted or criticised moved to this thread.
I made a fairly long and carefully thought out post about the refusal to allow seriously injured soldiers to participate in UK Remembrance Day parades. Marc did not attempt to respond to any of the points I raised - he simply accused me of denying his right to express an opinion.
JFR then made a perfectly valid point about the attitude of America's founding fathers to unjust laws. Marc dismissed that out of hand as being different. Why? At the time in question the British Government was the lawful authority. (I should make it clear that in my view this was a perfect example of an occasion when it was right to oppose an unjust law.)
Then we come to the most recent excvhanges.
Marc says "You see, it is easy to be just, correct, brave, when you aren't the one at risk.... Not the ones doing the dying...." That is intolerably rude, because I have never at any stage suggested that Iranian gays should declare themselves; to anyone taking the trouble to re-read the thread it is patently obvious that I have consistently argued that WE - those outside of Iran - should reject the view that criticism is pointless. I am not trying to be brave, easily or otherwise; I am expressing a sincerely-held view, and providing ample supporting argument as to why I am doing so.
Marc's comment is cheap and nasty, and I protest strongly because I truly believe that I have never said anything which could remotely be interpreted as meriting such rudeness. I enjoy this forum very much, but I see no reason why I should accept rudeness from someone else when I do my best to avoid being rude to others.
And the subsequent reference to circumcision in the Jewish religion is even more despicable, since it is obviously aimed at JFR, whom Marc knows perfectly well to be a member of that religion. And this from a resident of the only country in the Western world in which circumcision is routinely carried out - and that largely as a result of the wealth, influence and twisted fundamentalism of the inventor of cornflakes.
The words at the head of the forum surely apply to everyone - don't they?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Cossie, for your post, all of which is most welcome. I would like to relate just to one matter you raised:
And the subsequent reference to circumcision in the Jewish religion is even more despicable, since it is obviously aimed at JFR, whom Marc knows perfectly well to be a member of that religion.
What Marc wrote was:
Hell, one could argue that the Jewish faith promotes, no... requires mutilation of innocent children..... And yes.... lopping off the end of someones dick is mutilation.... to do it to an undefensible infant is criminal....
From the purely sociological point of view Marc is quite mistaken. In Israel there is no law which requires circumcision and yet 97% of the male population (both Jewish and Moslem) are circumcised. Since the percentage of religiously observant people is Israel is set at around 20%-25% it follows that the overwhelming majority of these circumcisions are social or traditional in nature - and the excuse for a good party.
There are several facts to be born in mind.
Firstly, even though an enormous number of circumcisions are performed in this country every year one almost never hears of 'mishaps'. For every ritual circumciser ("mohel") who is sued by distraught parents there are 23 surgeons who are sued by patients or their families for bungling an operation (Israel Government Statistical Annual, 2005).
Secondly, on three occasions during my lifetime (so far) I have been accorded the honour of being the godfather of babies. This involves holding the baby during the ceremony and during the actual circumcision, which takes place on the eighth day of the child's life. The circumcision itself takes about 5 seconds. On one of the three occasions the baby did not cry at all; on the two other occasions the baby stopped crying immediately he was given a bandage to suck which had been dipped in sweet wine. (In a certain professional capacity I have seen this happen time after time.)
Thirdly, the huge influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union brought to Israel thousands upon thousands of males who were not circumcised. The older men mostly chose to remain uncircumcised, but the overwhelming majority of the youngsters (I have heard that it is over 90% but have no source for that) demanded to be circumcised.
Fourthly, there is in Israel an association of parents who are against circumcision. The association has 52 members (in a population of some 7 million), one of whom is a great philanthropist. A couple of years ago the association had a campaign aimed at breaking down the social acceptance of circumcision. They were admitted into hundreds of high school classrooms where they explained to the students how wrong it is for parents to mutilate their newborn boys: they claimed that the circumcision should wait until the boys were old enough to decide for themselves whether they wanted to be circumcised or not. As an incentive, they offered to pay the court fees of any teenager who would sue their parents over 'enforced circumcision'. Not one teenager accepted their offer and the media reported that in most cases the representatives of the association were laughed out of the classroom.
Cossie, like you, I am at a complete loss to understand how anybody can seriously compare the moral turpitude involved in the hanging of a person for homosexual behaviour or the lashing of a women for being in a car with men with the custom of ritual circumcision among Jews in general and in the State of Israel in particular.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I do so agree with your header....
You see, it is easy to be just, correct, brave, when you aren't the one at risk.... Not the ones doing the dying....
The easiest thing to do is to give advice.... It's cheap.... Free even....
But no amount of advice will serve the people in Iran any good unless it will help them.
Lip action surely doesnt help their situation.... and lip action that could possibly give an Iranian strength to step into danger is reprehensible.... When it continually echoes, it is out and out dangerous.
[Updated on: Wed, 21 November 2007 02:04]
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ChowanFarmBoy
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 93
|
|
|
I think I'll stick to posting only humor, and cartoons, and nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eldon wrote:
I think I'll stick to posting only humor, and cartoons, and nonsense.
Do not be sorry and do not dare to carry out your thought. Please.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again someone made a simple post of respect for our soldiers who lost their lives in battle to defend the piece of the world into a diatrib of political correctness of war. I dont think Eldon or anyone else was trying to give creedance to the act of war. It was mearly an attempt to honor and respect those who have died in our defense. Why couldnt it have just been left like that? If you wanted to make a statment against war then you should have started another thread. Eldon has every right to be upset cause he saw his attempt at honoring our brave dead turned into a soapbox for pieceniks and war hawks. I, like Eldon, Its not right to try and be respectful of the dead who have for whatever reason given thier lives, turned into a circus. I sorry Eldon, maybe I should keep my mouth shut for a change.
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Curtster! Donny's not really pissed off, but we're both sort of amazed that all these guys don't have anything better to do than get into all this crap with each other. Maybe they all need fewer high colonics and more random sex....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I am often surprised at the direction things take.
Oddly I do not see a disconnect between the simple remembrance of those killed and injured in the armed forces and people expressing a strong dislike for war, or even for the politics of other nations.
Please post serious and fun things. We learn more about each other. That new unserstanding forges stronger bonds
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I think I'll stick to posting only humor, and cartoons, and nonsense.
I'm sorry I didn't post sooner. I joined the service with my best friend shortly after high school. His older brother had joined just prior to us and was killed by a sniper. I lost two other close friends as well. I pictured your congregation singing that song and it filled my eyes with tears. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your post and I hope you don't abide by your threat to stick only to humor and cartoons. It feels good to know that people remember, especially those as young as yourself.
Hugz
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...and of those who fell that day, one in four was from North Carolina."
DEO VINDICE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Thanks for the pics, and in keeping with the original intent of this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Well, actually it's the other way round.
Eldon, I'm sorry that your thread was hijacked and that I contributed to the hijacking, albeit reluctantly. It was a perfectly legitimate topic, and I hope you won't be discouraged from posting in the future on any topic whatsoever, be it out of interest, curiosity or just pure devilment. You and your (admittedly disreputable) friends have brought new life and humour to our forum, and I very much hope that you will stay with us for the long haul. From a purely personal view, I'm always glad to have new people to insult; even I have to admit that my repertoire of put-downs about the Welsh is getting pretty close to the bottom of the barrel ... and it did cross my mind that tarheels might be a suitable replacement .... ?
I apologise also to any of our US posters who were offended by my initial digression from the preceding expressions of remembrance; any such offence was absolutely unintentional. I think that in the UK the attitude to war differs from that in the US, despite the fact that our nations have fought together so many times over the years. It may in part be due to the fact that Brits suffered so much civilian death and destruction in their own land from the WWII air raids, though I rather doubt that; I think the shift in popular thinking is a little more recent. In any event, it seems clear that attitudes to war in the UK have hardened; our national flag is no longer seen as a symbol of patriotic fervour (except perhaps at international soccer matches!) and even our national anthem is heard much less frequently than was the case half-a-century ago. Public (as opposed to political) support for the invasion of Iraq was never strong; the prevalent attitude was somewhere between ambivalence and outright opposition. I suppose I should confess that, at the time, I supported the invasion, but that is because I thought Saddam Hussein was dangerously unstable and I was sufficiently naive to believe the 'intelligence' about weapons of mass destruction. From the earliest days of our involvement in Afghanistan, UK press and television focused strongly at a national level upon the return of the bodies of British soldiers killed in action. I don't think that specific anti-war sentiment is stronger here than elsewhere, but I suspect that most Brits do not regard war as being remotely glorious; it's simply seen as being something which unfortunately cannot be avoided.
So when it comes to Remembrance Day, I think that it is entirely right that we should remember those who lost their lives in war, be they soldiers or civilians. Note that I say 'lost' their lives, not 'gave' their lives. Some were truly heroic, and can certainly be said to have given their lives; most never had the opportunity for individual heroism, nor had they any choice in being servicemen. They were simply victims of warfare. So I believe that our respect and remembrance should be focused very firmly upon those who died, and not - as tends to happen - upon military pomp and circumstance. That is why I felt it right to object to the prohibition on the participation of soldiers severely wounded in our current war zones. They are as deserving of our concern and respect as those who died and, as I indicated, the only reason I could see to account for the prohibition was a desire by our Ministry of Defence to conceal the realities of war in order to protect future recruitment.
I hope this clarifies my position on that issue; I would hate anyone to think that I was in any way opposed to the concept of remembering those who died or suffered in war - there are names from my own family on the war memorials in my home town. But let's focus on THEM, not on military jingoism.
Finally, I regret that the altercation about Iran spilled over into this thread, and I am deeply sorry that I did not immediately post my response in a new thread, as I certainly ought to have done. For that, I apologise unreservedly to anyone I may have offended. That topic will now move to another thread, and I will try to may it clear why I feel obliged to take it further.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Forward boys! Forward for the Old North State! 
