National Day Of Commemoration

Poccington

Although many may not care or probably failed to even realise, today the National Day of Commemoration was marked in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham.

To those that have gone, I can only hope that those of us still serving are living up to the standards you set and that by doing so we continue to honour your memory.

iceage

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0712/commemoration.html

Morpheus

What a disgrace, I didnt even know it was on, zero coverage in the run up to the day is apparent...

arybvtcw0eolkf

I was going to make a post in AH yesterday about it, but realised that people (esp. young people) don't give a bollox about it.

Its a down right disgrace that our fallen aren't properly remembered.

What would it cost to have a minutes silence, just once a year? - feck all.

Its wouldn't have cost a damn penny to have had a minutes silence in Croke Park yesterday, but Noooooo.

And leaving all politics aside, we're remembering our war dead ffs - I don't give a toss for who or for what side they fought & died, they were IRISH MEN & WOMEN.

.

Hagar

I was surprised to see this thread. The event has almost gone unnoticed. The whole thing was so low key it's unbelievable. It's a disgrace. Say what you like about our neighbours but at least they have a tradition of honouring those who have fallen. We could learn from them. A bit of national pride and gratitude is badly needed.

McArmalite

Keyla Sour Lamb wrote: »

I was going to make a post in AH yesterday about it, but realised that people (esp. young people) don't give a bollox about it.

Its a down right disgrace that our fallen aren't properly remembered.

What would it cost to have a minutes silence, just once a year? - feck all.

Its wouldn't have cost a damn penny to have had a minutes silence in Croke Park yesterday, but Noooooo.

And leaving all politics aside, we're remembering our war dead ffs - I don't give a toss for who or for what side they fought & died, they were IRISH MEN & WOMEN.

.

Well since the National Day Of Commemoration honours Irishmen who were in the british army, among other armies ofcourse, I can fully understand the GAA not wanting to commerate the army that murdered many Irish people in its main ground. Not that Bloody Sunday 1920 was the first and last time the british forces murdered GAA players and memebers. Indeed commerating the british army in a stadium with parts of it named in remebrance of Micheal Hogan, Hill 16 is indeed just a good sign of how out of touch some people are in our great wee republic. And since so many GAA clubs are named after Irish people who suffered and died at the hands of the british army, Wolfe Tones, O'Donovan Rossa, Aodh Rua, Sarsfeilds etc it would be the greatest preversity to honour the army that had inflicted such injustices on the country even if their were Irish men in it's ranks.

We must surely be one of the few if not the only one that honours the army of occupation and conquest.

Morpheus

blah blah blah blah ... something constructive as ever from the republicans.

I had family members who fought for Europe's freedom from tyranny in both wars and Im proud of them and what they did, and they DID see it as a cause, they went over and spilled their blood so others could sit here with their airs and graces take the so called moral high ground.

The IRA complained when it was originally held in the gardens of remembrance, when it was moved to the RHK - originally a british hospital ... guess what, they STILL complained. theres no pleasing some people. A small minority at that.

Hagar

The Garden of Remembrance was built specifically to commemorate those who died fighting for Irish Freedom. It was opened on Easter Monday 1966 as part of the 50th year commemorations of the 1916 Rising. It was never intended to include Irishmen who fought for the freedom of other nations in foreign armies. That is not an insult to those men, it's just not what it was built for.

It is entirely appropriate that a National Day of Commemoration be held to honour the deceased servicemen of other armies who made their own sacrifice but it is an entirely different ceremony and it should have its own memorial.

If you lay flowers on your Uncle Sean's grave does it mean you are showing disrespect to your Uncle Pat in another graveyard? No, obviously not.

Can we not just put the bickering aside and show due respect to both set of men who all went bravely to battle regardless of which enemy they fought?

iceage

Well said that man. Take your minute of silence for those that fell. Where ever they happened to fall.

Morlar

Morphéus wrote: »

What a disgrace, I didnt even know it was on, zero coverage in the run up to the day is apparent...

My thoughts exactly.

Zero advance publicity.

I would love to have gone and I know others who would love to have attended also.

diverdriver

indeed just a good sign of how out of touch some people are in our great wee republic.

Well said, except that you prove once again how out of touch you are. Still carrying resentment for historic events but unable to take ownership of more recent atrocities committed in your name.

As if to prove how out of touch:

We must surely be one of the few if not the only one that honours the army of occupation and conquest.

That's nonsense. It's a national day of commemoration for all Irish soldiers who fought and died in all wars. It's not about armies. Poppy day in November isn't about isn't about the British army. It's about the people who died. No more, no less.

But in any case, the reason the day is mostly unremarked is the simple fact of it being a cobbled together compromise designed to see off any suggestions that we mark November 11th on any kind of official level. However moving the ceremony is, and I watch it every year if I can. You cannot help feeling that it's political lash up and the usual 'Irish' solution to a problem.

An equally valid reason for the disinterest in the ceremony is the lingering disdainful attitude of the public at large to our own military. Few have served in the army and fewer still have any interest. There is even a strong anti military feeling amongst some. The is very little pride in the Irish army in this country probably in no small part due to the fact that it hasn't seen much war has has suffered relatively light casualties in peacekeeping operations.

On top of that they way our history has been handed down to us has produced a crop of what I call 'negative patriots', mostly Republicans. People who think being patriotic is all about being anti British instead of being pro Ireland. We have a good example here. They only offer the same tired old cliches and rehashed history. They have nothing to offer this country. The even hijacked our flag.

So it's a combination of things really. It's so all encompassing that in fact we are expected to commemorate Irishmen who died fighting for France against the Austrians with the same due reverance as some more recent and relevant wars. That's too broad a spectrum. So it will never catch the public's imagination.

McArmalite

Hagar wrote: »

The Garden of Remembrance was built specifically to commemorate those who died fighting for Irish Freedom. It was opened on Easter Monday 1966 as part of the 50th year commemorations of the 1916 Rising. It was never intended to include Irishmen who fought for the freedom of other nations in foreign armies. That is not an insult to those men, it's just not what it was built for.

It is entirely appropriate that a National Day of Commemoration be held to honour the deceased servicemen of other armies who made their own sacrifice but it is an entirely different ceremony and it should have its own memorial.

If you lay flowers on your Uncle Sean's grave does it mean you are showing disrespect to your Uncle Pat in another graveyard? No, obviously not.

Can we not just put the bickering aside and show due respect to both set of men who all went bravely to battle regardless of which enemy they fought?

Ok you'v emade some good points, maybe it's been bull headed of me, it will be about the first and last time I have ever been wrong on something :)

Morlar

diverdriver wrote: »

An equally valid reason for the disinterest in the ceremony is the lingering disdainful attitude of the public at large to our own military. Few have served in the army and fewer still have any interest. There is even a strong anti military feeling amongst some.

When you say 'disinterest in this ceremony', I think there is a distinction between disinterest among the public or disinterest among those who did not promote the ceremony in any kind of meaningful way.

I think that is a very small but overly-vocal anti military minority in this country, however I think the calibre of politicians we have today plays a part in this attitude also. I know they are different events but if you consider the massive public support for an event properly promoted like, for example the 2006 1916 Anniversary parade through Dublin you will see that by and large Irish people are not anti-military it is just an overly vocal, overly represented minority.

McArmalite

Morlar wrote: »

When you say 'disinterest in this ceremony', I think there is a distinction between disinterest among the public or disinterest among those who did not promote the ceremony in any kind of meaningful way.

I think that is a very small but overly-vocal anti military minority in this country, however I think the calibre of politicians we have today plays a part in this attitude also. I know they are different events but if you consider the massive public support for an event properly promoted like, for example the 2006 1916 Anniversary parade through Dublin you will see that by and large Irish people are not anti-military it is just an overly vocal, overly represented minority.

I watched the 2006 parade and fully support it. Also the reinternment of Kevin Barry and the other volunteers in 2001 had a crowd turning out to watch estimated to be 20,000 dispite it been kept low in the media in the run up to the ceremony.

Morlar

McArmalite wrote: »

I watched the 2006 parade and fully support it. Also the reinternment of Kevin Barry and the other volunteers in 2001 had a crowd turning out to watch estimated to be 20,000 dispite it been kept low in the media in the run up to the ceremony.

Well maybe if other people had the privilege of knowing about this event & ceremony (the National day of Commemoration) in advance we could guage public opinion on it by the response.

There was no republican network publicising this event unlike the Kevin Barry one (regardless of mainstream media coverage of either).

Unlike the 2006 parade this event (though different in nature) had basically no meaningful advance publicity at all, is my point.

McArmalite

McArmalite wrote: »

Well since the National Day Of Commemoration honours Irishmen who were in the british army, among other armies ofcourse, I can fully understand the GAA not wanting to commerate the army that murdered many Irish people in its main ground. Not that Bloody Sunday 1920 was the first and last time the british forces murdered GAA players and memebers. Indeed commerating the british army in a stadium with parts of it named in remebrance of Micheal Hogan, Hill 16 is indeed just a good sign of how out of touch some people are in our great wee republic. And since so many GAA clubs are named after Irish people who suffered and died at the hands of the british army, Wolfe Tones, O'Donovan Rossa, Aodh Rua, Sarsfeilds etc it would be the greatest preversity to honour the army that had inflicted such injustices on the country even if their were Irish men in it's ranks.

We must surely be one of the few if not the only one that honours the army of occupation and conquest.

We are commemorating IRISH people. Lots of the old IRA served in the British Army and got valuable experience there!!
blah blah the brits are pure evil blah blah nanananaa :rolleyes:
I have a great grandfather and two great uncles who fought in WW1 and then on the side of the IRA during the War of Independence (one died at the Somme).

Our war dead deserve remembrance.

neilled

diverdriver wrote: »

So it's a combination of things really. It's so all encompassing that in fact we are expected to commemorate Irishmen who died fighting for France against the Austrians with the same due reverance as some more recent and relevant wars. That's too broad a spectrum. So it will never catch the public's imagination.

Driverdriver, tut tut, the same courtesy and reverence must be afforded to the Irish Generals of the Holy Roman Empire! The names, Plunket, Taafe and De Lacey stand out amongst many Irish went on to become generals, field marshals and counts of the Holy Roman Empire and held these titles until the abolition of the nobility in Austria after WWI. There's an story told by one of my university lecturers who has done a fair bit of research about the Irish in overseas service, about a bunch of officers with Irish surnames being captured by the British Armys 38th Irish (London Irish, Inniskillings, Irisu Fusiliers) at the Monte Cassino in WWII and being questioned about their origins and why they were fighting for the Germans, and retorted to their captors (In Irish), why on earth were they doing fighting for the British.

Whilst Fontenoy is often remembered, for the Irish brigade (with the swiss) turning the course of the battle, not many realise the brigade took the colour of the Coldstream Guards during the battle.

For many it was a career and a way out of a country with limited oppertunities and they fought under the flags of other states, sometimes against their fellow countrymen.

iceage

A grand uncle of mine put it very well once to me, "The Irish aren't happy unless they're fighting somebody. Who that somebody is doesn't really matter"

He fought the Germans in WWII. but he always said the Germans had fantastic boots!

MarchDub

McArmalite wrote: »

Well since the National Day Of Commemoration honours Irishmen who were in the british army, among other armies ofcourse, I can fully understand the GAA not wanting to commerate the army that murdered many Irish people in its main ground. Not that Bloody Sunday 1920 was the first and last time the british forces murdered GAA players and memebers. Indeed commerating the british army in a stadium with parts of it named in remebrance of Micheal Hogan, Hill 16 is indeed just a good sign of how out of touch some people are in our great wee republic. And since so many GAA clubs are named after Irish people who suffered and died at the hands of the british army, Wolfe Tones, O'Donovan Rossa, Aodh Rua, Sarsfeilds etc it would be the greatest preversity to honour the army that had inflicted such injustices on the country even if their were Irish men in it's ranks.

We must surely be one of the few if not the only one that honours the army of occupation and conquest.

This was my take on the event also - why are we honouring those who served in foreign armies? The narrative surrounding this event seemed to just skid over this fact - emphasizing the dead and not the army or even the actual country served. I know of no other country which does this.

Do the British honour the Brits who served in the French Armies etc.? - not to my knowledge.

Morlar

MarchDub wrote: »

Do the British honour the Brits who served in the French Armies etc.? - not to my knowledge.

Ireland and england do not compare in that regard.

Irish people have, for a lot of reasons, always fought in large numbers in foreign armies, (mostly british).

British soldiers do not fight in foreign armies to the same extent. Nor do they have the same history of occupation and emigration.

They have a sizeable, well developed military in comparison to ours and their foreign policy legacy means that they do not historically have the same need for as many of their citizens to go join foreign armies to see military service.

So the fact that they don't have a ceremony to honour their citizens who fought in foreign armies means nothing to this conversation.

We are in a unique position here and since when have we sought to validate our position on the basis of theirs ? I think we are mature enough to not need to mirror our nearest neighbour.

iceage

I'm curious cos I wasn't there......like a lot of you lot here. Did the President McAleese say " this is for the Irish men and Women who have fallen in conflicts around the world" or did she exclude the ones who served with the British. Theres no brushing over, or touching on the subject. Its part of Irish History..deal with it.

Also they managed to incoporate all religions, or as many as they could, with an interfaith service ie. the main Christian denominations, Judaism and Islam. In todays religious turmoil that pretty accommodating.

And still this all boils down to old bull****..... I know that I took my minutes silence. And I spent it well.

concussion

Can everyone who has an anti-British agenda kindly fcuk off somewhere else. I'm sick and bloody tired of every thread which has the merest hint of the British armed forces getting dragged off tangent with 'do you not remember what they did to us' posts. I'm well aware of Irish history thanks very much - why don't you start a thread called 'The Barstool' so you can agree with eachother about that their imperialistic ways and how every Irishman to serve with them is a traitor and a mercenary.

MarchDub

Morlar wrote: »

Ireland and england do not compare in that regard.

Irish people have, for a lot of reasons, always fought in large numbers in foreign armies, (mostly british).

British soldiers do not fight in foreign armies to the same extent. Nor do they have the same history of occupation and emigration.

They have a sizeable, well developed military in comparison to ours and their foreign policy legacy means that they do not historically have the same need for as many of their citizens to go join foreign armies to see military service.

So the fact that they don't have a ceremony to honour their citizens who fought in foreign armies means nothing to this conversation.

We are in a unique position here and since when have we sought to validate our position on the basis of theirs ? I think we are mature enough to not need to mirror our nearest neighbour.

This is precisely what it feels like we are doing with ceremonies like this.

We see on our TV screens the laying down of wreaths on the war dead of other countries and seeing as how we have been ashamed of our own war dead - for example take any battle, Yellow Ford, Kinsale, 98, down to 1916 - we have now "invented" a brand new ceremony to make us look just like [and feel like?] our neighbours and most importantly, palatable to the EU version of the "new Ireland." - truly European with "respectable" war dead and all.

That's what I see when I see ceremonies like this. Respectable heroes for the "new Ireland" to honour.

iceage

MarchDub wrote: »

We see on our TV screens the laying down of wreaths on the war dead of other countries and seeing as how we have been ashamed of our own war dead - for example take any battle, Yellow Ford, Kinsale, 98, down to 1916

Ashamed, How so? And why such a statement? There was a perfect opportunity to honour the Irish dead, by the Irish people, it was two days ago and I have to say it was very poorly advertised, or even mentioned for that fact. The usual members of state and church were there and RTE made a half fisted attempt at telling the world. I came across it on page 5 on an Irish paper, now you tell me whats wrong with that. I'm a cynic (you've probably guessed) but that speaks volumes to me, there was more interest in the marches.

In all honesty I have to now say that many here have completely missed the point. Too tied up in old news and yes I''ll admit it atrocities. get the fvck on with it, its a brave new world we live in.

netwhizkid

Saw a bit of this on late night today and there was a Muslim Cleric saying prayers in Arabic and a rabbi and an Othordox priest also, anyone care to tell me what they were doing at a ceremony to commemorate Ireland's fallen dead, because last time I knew Ireland was not a Muslim country or a Jewish one either when our men went to battle.

MarchDub

iceage wrote: »

Ashamed, How so? And why such a statement?

Well, until recently - and from the 1970s - there was no official celebration of 1916 for example. Felt like the government was "ashamed" of something to me. And even commemorating our own battles has to now be tempered with celebrating those of other countries. It all smacks of political correctness...and national fear that we might not "fit in". And we all know what a tragedy that would be...

iceage wrote: »

In all honesty I have to now say that many here have completely missed the point. Too tied up in old news and yes I''ll admit it atrocities. get the fvck on with it, its a brave new world we live in.

That's the point the "old news"and "atrocities" are our actual true history - we don't have to mimic someone else's.

It might be a new world but "brave" it sure ain't - not when we have to import ceremonies to make us look like everyone else.

neilled

MarchDub wrote: »

This is precisely what it feels like we are doing with ceremonies like this.

We see on our TV screens the laying down of wreaths on the war dead of other countries and seeing as how we have been ashamed of our own war dead - for example take any battle, Yellow Ford, Kinsale, 98, down to 1916 - we have now "invented" a brand new ceremony to make us look just like [and feel like?] our neighbours and most importantly, palatable to the EU version of the "new Ireland." - truly European with "respectable" war dead and all.

That's what I see when I see ceremonies like this. Respectable heroes for the "new Ireland" to honour.

Where do you think the veterans of yellow forde and kinsale went to if they could?

After their chiefs and leaders to Europe.

Morpheus

as regards judaeism and islam....

this may be to do with the fact that serving members of the DF are jewish and or muslim - or that irish people have fought in armies of countries of all faiths?

not sure, thats just a guess, if anyone knows why this was an interfaith service in a largely catholic country please elaborate?

concussion

netwhizkid wrote: »

Saw a bit of this on late night today and there was a Muslim Cleric saying prayers in Arabic and a rabbi and an Othordox priest also, anyone care to tell me what they were doing at a ceremony to commemorate Ireland's fallen dead, because last time I knew Ireland was not a Muslim country or a Jewish one either when our men went to battle.

Because not all Irish soldiers are Catholic maybe???!!

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

This was my take on the event also - why are we honouring those who served in foreign armies? The narrative surrounding this event seemed to just skid over this fact - emphasizing the dead and not the army or even the actual country served. I know of no other country which does this.

Do the British honour the Brits who served in the French Armies etc.? - not to my knowledge.

This is why

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61123716&postcount=205

MarchDub wrote:

as usual it was the banks who came out of it on top and the working classes who shed the blood.

Wars are fought by normal joe soaps, they join armies for personal reasons, none of those reasons include going off to die.

Did anyone, least of all the Irish, join any of the armies in WWI, WWII, Vietnam or Korea to die? You yourself pointed out that Irish people who became resident in other countries were conscripted, do they not deserve a moments thought?

What about the people who thought they were doing the right thing? fighting the forces of evil by signing up to free little Belgium, or to fight Fascism or the Nazis?

Just because you have the benefit of clear black and white 20/20 hindsight vision, does not detract from the sacrifices others have made throughout history.

Fratton Fred

concussion wrote: »

why don't you start a thread called 'The Barstool' so you can agree with eachother about that their imperialistic ways and how every Irishman to serve with them is a traitor and a mercenary.

isn't it called RaN

Hagar

There's probably a "Romper Room" somewhere too.

Morlar

netwhizkid wrote: »

Saw a bit of this on late night today and there was a Muslim Cleric saying prayers in Arabic and a rabbi and an Othordox priest also, anyone care to tell me what they were doing at a ceremony to commemorate Ireland's fallen dead, because last time I knew Ireland was not a Muslim country or a Jewish one either when our men went to battle.

That seems completely bizzare to me also. Maybe it is to honour those who killed Irish troops in the Lebanon over the years.

Hagar

Morlar wrote: »

That seems completely bizzare to me also. Maybe it is to honour those who killed Irish troops in the Lebanon over the years.

No, it was done in the spirit of inclusion. Like it or not Ireland is fast becoming a multi-ethnic society and it is fitting to include other faiths in what are to some extent religious ceremonies.

MarchDub

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, well said - as usual it was the banks who came out of it on top and the working classes who shed the blood.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wars are fought by normal joe soaps, they join armies for personal reasons, none of those reasons include going off to die.

Did anyone, least of all the Irish, join any of the armies in WWI, WWII, Vietnam or Korea to die? You yourself pointed out that Irish people who became resident in other countries were conscripted, do they not deserve a moments thought?

What about the people who thought they were doing the right thing? fighting the forces of evil by signing up to free little Belgium, or to fight Fascism or the Nazis?

Just because you have the benefit of clear black and white 20/20 hindsight vision, does not detract from the sacrifices others have made throughout history.

Hey Fred - taking a quote of mine from the History and Heritage Forum on a separate topic and transferring it here....because??? You ran out of argument on your historical knowledge? Not biting Fred. As a trained researcher I understand all about context.

And I think a mod ought to get after you for this contrivance.

BTW you are joking about poor "little Belgium" right? You aren't seriously still buying into that clever propaganda? Oh, you are....right.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Hey Fred - taking a quote of mine from the History and Heritage Forum on a separate topic and transferring it here....because??? You ran out of argument on your historical knowledge? Not biting Fred. As a trained researcher I understand all about context.

And I think a mod ought to get after you for this contrivance.

report the post if you think it has broken forum rules. It was actually meant to be agreeing with a post you made in history. It was actually one of the few unpatronising posts you made in that debate. Shame you can't keep it up.

MarchDub wrote: »

BTW you are joking about poor "little Belgium" right? You aren't seriously still buying into that clever propaganda? Oh, you are....right.

No, but a lot of people did. Many of whom were remembered in the service on Sunday, which is my point, sorry if that was too subtle for you.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, but a lot of people did. Many of whom were remembered in the service on Sunday, which is my point, sorry if that was too subtle for you.

One of the utter tragedies of war is the senseless killing of young men - and they are mostly young men - in the name of whatever. These commemorative ceremonies never seem to get around to addressing the issue of what "lies" brought these youngsters into the war - propaganda, faux patriotism, conscription or whatever. Talk about "don't mention the war" - let's just cover all that up by honouring the dead. The unfortunate dead who maybe ought not to have died in mud fields - but don't let's go there.

The recent death of Robert McNamara in the US highlights the gulf between the makers of wars and those who die. McNamara came to see his war, Vietnam, as a mistake. Well, tell that to the families who lost husbands, sons, fathers, brothers in this mistake. Won't come up at any of the commemorative ceremonies usually organised by those - politicians - who have more of an interest in future wars [and keeping the heroic aspect alive] than in addressing the mistakes and senseless deaths of past wars.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

One of the utter tragedies of war is the senseless killing of young men - and they are mostly young men - in the name of whatever. These commemorative ceremonies never seem to get around to addressing the issue of what "lies" brought these youngsters into the war - propaganda, faux patriotism, conscription or whatever. Talk about "don't mention the war" - let's just cover all that up by honouring the dead. The unfortunate dead who maybe ought not to have died in mud fields - but don't let's go there.

The recent death of Robert McNamara in the US highlights the gulf between the makers of wars and those who die. McNamara came to see his war, Vietnam, as a mistake. Well, tell that to the families who lost husbands, sons, fathers, brothers in this mistake. Won't come up at any of the commemorative ceremonies usually organised by those - politicians - who have more of an interest in future wars [and keeping the heroic aspect alive] than in addressing the mistakes and senseless deaths of past wars.

The idea of a commemoration service is that it is non political and inclusive of all walks of life, hence the different political leaders who attend and the different religious groups.

There are a million and one places the politics of war can be discussed, but a service of rememberence is not the place. it is simply to remember those who died.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The idea of a commemoration service is that it is non political and inclusive of all walks of life, hence the different political leaders who attend and the different religious groups.

There are a million and one places the politics of war can be discussed, but a service of rememberence is not the place. it is simply to remember those who died.

If you think for a moment that a commemorative service is non political and without any agenda then tell that to the 1916-1922 vets and their families who had to go into hiding from the early 1970s. No official commemorative service for that one for years - too much of a POLITICAL hot potato.

George Bush propagated another war on the US with the tactic of "support the troops" - separate out the troops from the war and you can silence the dissenters by displacement.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

If you think for a moment that a commemorative service is non political and without any agenda then tell that to the 1916-1922 vets and their families who had to go into hiding from the early 1970s. No official commemorative service for that one for years - too much of a POLITICAL hot potato.

George Bush propagated another war on the US with the tactic of "support the troops" - separate out the troops from the war and you can silence the dissenters by displacement.

i think the appropriate phrase at this time is "Whatever".

JumAPond

I think this post has gone off its intended path.

The point of it, to me, was to make a point that Ireland was celebrating a National Day of Commemoration for those who have fallen to make it is what it is today, and to give it a tomorrow. I have a hard time believing, with what some people have said, that they have served, or have relatives serve in wars/conflicts.

As a citizen of the United States, I don't have to agree that all of our actions have been right. And I don't always. But I will always support, respect, and honor members of the military. Memorial Day in the United States doesn't discriminate against wars and conflicts, not even our Civil War which almost split the country. It remembers all that have served regardless or sex, creed, or race. In my book, anyone who goes to protect his/her country, while understanding they may not come back, deserves to be honored.

I hope that people set aside their idealogical differences on what war was right/wrong and take a minute to understand there is something bigger.

prinz

To paraphrase Tommy Tiernan, he said something like "if Tanzania and Botswana went to war in the morning, there'd be a Paddy and a Mick in opposite trenches". Honour them all.

MarchDub

Sorry to have intruded on the "Oh what a lovely war" thread but I will leave you with the wisdom of a great Irishman:

"History robbed of the exposition of its causes and laws, is a profitless thing, though it may allure a fool". Oscar Wilde

prinz

MarchDub wrote: »

Sorry to have intruded on the "Oh what a lovely war" thread...

It's called a memorial.Not an autopsy.

blondie83

I have to say I was very suprised when I saw it on the news - no pre promotion of it at all on any of the channels! I was delighted to catch it by chance later that night though on RTE (dunno why they didnt bother mentioning on the news that it was being shown then). I thought it was all very well done myself, and the Cadets were excellent! I don't think we need to be scared that events like this in some way make us "sell out" to PC or to accusations of copying our neighbours.

marco murphy

Wonder why there was a lack of publicity in the run up.

prinz

Perestroika wrote: »

Wonder why there was a lack of publicity in the run up.

Probably to prevent any protestors or counter demos ruining the day.

marco murphy

prinz wrote: »

Probably to prevent any protestors or counter demos ruining the day.

Now I think the likelyhood of that would be nil.

prinz

Perestroika wrote: »

Now I think the likelyhood of that would be nil.

Really? There was a Tom Crean commemoration a couple of years ago and it attracted a few of the local vocal protestors to condemn him for his British service.
I would say any sort of gathering with the Taoiseach, President and a number of the Cabinet would attract some sort of protests.

Morlar

prinz wrote: »

Probably to prevent any protestors or counter demos ruining the day.

I think that is sadly the only explanation that makes any sense.

marco murphy

Let me clear this up, was this for Irish men who died on UN service, specifically.