Will you wear a poppy 2013?

T runner

Judgement Day wrote: »

I'm sure that it would have satisfied your quaint, politically correct agenda if the the Americans had not dropped the bombs on Japan and instead fought for every square inch of Japanese soil. However, chances are that as many if not more would have died in this scenario. Total war is just that and Dresden can be justified on that basis alone.

Ah,....i see...its not terrorism...its total war...lol!

Hitler is justified in bombing London and Coventry in your book? In fact, if he had a nuke, he should keep atomic bombing London until Britain surrendered thereby reducing the overall human cost of the war?

Not clever is it?

Indiscriminate bombing was internationally outlawed. The Washington Treaty (1922) expressly forbade the use of bombing against civilian populations. Although not ratified by the Geneva Conventions, it was still universally agreed that terror bombing (of civilians) would not be employed. Nonetheless, between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 million souls were destroyed or devastated in a bombing campaign that was unquestionably initiated by the British government

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

Ah,....i see...its not terrorism...its total war...lol!

Hitler is justified in bombing London and Coventry in your book? In fact, if he had a nuke, he should keep atomic bombing London until Britain surrendered thereby reducing the overall human cost of the war?

Not clever is it?

Do you not think he WOULD have Bombed London with a nuke if he had got there first?

Where did the hundreds of thousands die from the indiscriminate bombing by the way?

MonstaMash

WTF...is this still going on?

bumper234, you're obviously an ex-member of the British armed forces & have pro-British sentiments...it is right & proper therefore for you to honour your fallen in the time prescribed way of wearing a poppy...

Me as an Irish nationalist chooses to wear an easter lily for the exact same reason...to honour those that fell for the cause of Irish freedom...

Bottom line, we all choose to honour our dead by displaying a symbol that represents the cause (no pun intended) to which we have sympathies for, nothing wrong with it, just different strokes for different folks.

T runner

bumper234 wrote: »

No no please.....name the cities where these 100's of thousands died because all you said was Northern Germany and that's a big place.

All the cities of Northern Germany within range of course!

Hamburg, Kiel, Bremen, Dresden, Berlin, Nurnmerg, Essen, Dortmund, Koln, Dusseldorf...etc etc..

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Germany_during_World_War_II

420,000 dead in these raids mainly by RAF.

Dont ask me to check things for you again without a valid reason.

Now answer the question.

Should the men who ordered, bombed and indiscriminately killed men, women, children and babies benefit from poppy sales. YES or NO?

Dont cower from answering the question please.

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

All the cities of Northern Germany within range of course!

Hamburg, Kiel, Bremen, Dresden, Berlin, Nurnmerg, Essen, Dortmund, Koln, Dusseldorf...etc etc..

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Germany_during_World_War_II

420,000 dead in these raids mainly by RAF.

Dont ask me to check things for you again without a valid reason.

Now answer the question.

Should the men who ordered, bombed and indiscriminately killed men, women, children and babies benefit from poppy sales. YES or NO?

Dont cower from answering the question please.

Yes they should.

T runner

bumper234 wrote: »

Do you not think he WOULD have Bombed London with a nuke if he had got there first?

Where did the hundreds of thousands die from the indiscriminate bombing by the way?

You (and other peace loving poppy wearers) here seem to be condoning the targetting of innocent civilians. Cant you see from my posts that i regard this as terrorism? Therefore why on earth would i want ana tomic bomb to strike LOndon?
Please read the posts SLOWLY and CAREFULLY before replying.

drquirky

T runner wrote: »

All the cities of Northern Germany within range of course!

Hamburg, Kiel, Bremen, Dresden, Berlin, Nurnmerg, Essen, Dortmund, Koln, Dusseldorf...etc etc..

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Germany_during_World_War_II

420,000 dead in these raids mainly by RAF.

Dont ask me to check things for you again without a valid reason.

Now answer the question.

Should the men who ordered, bombed and indiscriminately killed men, women, children and babies benefit from poppy sales. YES or NO?

Dont cower from answering the question please.

T-runner. I'm not remotely a fan of bombing civilians. However I think it's a bit rich for any Irishman to pontificate about WW2 when your country didn't have the courage to confront fascism ( you could argue the gov here was fascist but that's a different story)

The reality for those of us from countries where our grandfathers did fight is that many of us would not be here if the Allies didn't use their superior air power to demoralize the German population into surrender.

How would you have dealt with fascist Germany and Imperial Japan? I hope it wouldn't be to hide behind phony "neutrality"

Before you start lobbing war mongering accusations my way I have actively opposed every war my country has fought since WW 2

Oh and I wouldn't wear a poppy as I think they celebrate war

T runner

bumper234 wrote: »

Yes they should.

And that sums up everything thats wrong with the poppy of war!

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

You (and other peace loving poppy wearers) here seem to be condoning the targetting of innocent civilians. Cant you see from my posts that i regard this as terrorism? Therefore why on earth would i want ana tomic bomb to strike LOndon?
Please read the posts SLOWLY and CAREFULLY before replying.

You meet force with force.

The Luftwaffe bombed London and other major UK cities indiscriminately killing men women and children. The same was done to German cities by the UK and US airforces. It's war.....innocent people get killed it's called collateral damage. If Hitler had a nuke he would not have hesitated for a second to use it on London.

T runner

These beautiful and true words should be read for anyone who is unsure....
Maybe a White Poppy !?...

I would wear a red poppy if it was a symbol of remembrance for all the victims of war, and not just the ones who did the killing. By excluding the non-military victims of war from remembrance, the red poppy upholds a moral hierarchy of worthy and unworthy victims: the heroic soldier who is worthy of respect and official commemoration, and the unworthy, unnamed civilians killed or maimed by the heroic soldier who remains unacknowledged and unremembered. This validation of those who wage war and the moral hierarchy of victims is a central part of the cultural architecture which upholds the continuing institution of war in our society. It is a central part of what makes war possible. When the red poppy comes to be associated with an honest public acknowledgement of all the people killed by our soldiers, enemy soldiers and civilians alike; when it symbolizes our sorrow and regret for all the victims of war, not just a chosen few; then I would consider wearing a red poppy.
I would wear a red poppy if it did not function to hide the truth and obscure reality – if it wasn’t a way of enforcing a particular kind of collective memory which is actually designed to forget uncomfortable realities; if it wasn’t intimately tied up with a whole series of myths and untruths about heroic sacrifice and necessary violence in war. The truth is that war is cruel, bloody, and inglorious, and that the soldiers we remember are there to kill and maim fellow human beings, and to die screaming for their mothers. The truth is that when we send soldiers to kill others, we consign those who survive to mental and moral injury; a huge proportion of them will attempt suicide in one way or another after they return home. The truth is that many of our wars are nothing to do with freedom, liberty, or democracy; they are often illegal, pointless, or predatory. When the red poppy is associated with an honest debate on the reality and morality of our wars; when it acknowledges the truth about the horror of war and its often pointless slaughter of our best and brightest; then I would consider wearing a red poppy.
I would wear a red poppy if its fund-raising and symbolism had the true interests of the military personnel it purports to support at heart. The fact is that the best interests of every military person would be to never have to kill or face death or mutilation ever again, and certainly not for the squalid purposes most often dreamed up by our venal and vainglorious politicians. The funds raised by the red poppy should be used to work for the end of all war, not to make up for the short-coming in state support for military personnel or to prepare the nation for the further slaughter of our fellow citizens in future wars.I would wear a red poppy if it wasn’t a way for the state to offset the costs of war so that it can engage in ever more military adventures. In truth, the state sends the nation’s young people to war and then refuses to spend the necessary money on supporting them when they return home. Buying a red poppy is in effect a second tax for funding war, as it allows the state to spend the money it should have spent on rehabilitation on buying new weapons and training new soldiers. Instead of buying a red poppy, we should demand that the state pay the full support and rehabilitation of all soldiers who need it out of the taxes we have already paid to the military. If this means that there is not enough money for the next military adventure because we are taking care of the last war’s victims, then this is how it should be. It should not be easy for governments to take the decision to go to war; they must pay the full cost. If the red poppy came to symbolize a challenge to government to properly care for service personnel; if it was a means to really question the decision to go to war, instead of implicitly supporting every war regardless of its morality; I would consider wearing a red poppy.
I would wear a red poppy if it wasn’t used socially to enforce an unthinking patriotism, and to punish and discipline those who would question the morality of war or the values of militarism. Those who fervently promote the red poppy often assert that the soldiers we remember fought for our freedom, but this does not include the freedom to question military values or public displays of violent patriotism. Anyone should be allowed to refuse to wear a red poppy in public on the basis of conscience without being questioned or looked down upon, or even to wear a different coloured poppy.
I would wear a red poppy if it wasn’t part of a broader militarism in our society which makes war more likely, rather than less; if it wasn’t bound up with national narratives of heroism and the legitimacy and rightness of military force; and if it wasn’t implicitly supportive of military values. If the red poppy came to symbolize opposition to war and support for peaceful values; I would consider wearing it.I wear the White Poppy because it is an unambiguous commitment to peace, the end of all war and opposition to militarism. The Red Poppy may have once been part of a commemorative culture shortly after the First World War that was aimed at working towards ensuring that no one ever had to experience the horrors of war again; but this meaning has long since vanished, replaced instead by an insidious military patriotism. The White Poppy is now the main symbol of a commitment to remember all the victims of war, to tell the truth about war, to work to ensure that no soldier ever has to suffer its horrors again, and to make peace the central value of our culture, instead of militarism

bumper234

drquirky wrote: »

T-runner. I'm not remotely a fan of bombing civilians. However I think it's a bit rich for any Irishman to pontificate about WW2 when your country didn't have the courage to confront fascism ( you could argue the gov here was fascist but that's a different story)

The reality for those of us from countries where our grandfathers did fight is that many of us would not be here if the Allies didn't use their superior air power to demoralize the German population into surrender.

How would you have dealt with fascist Germany and Imperial Japan? I hope it wouldn't be to hide behind phony "neutrality"

Before you start lobbing war mongering accusations my way I have actively opposed every war my country has fought since WW 2

Oh and I wouldn't wear a poppy as I think they celebrate war

I am guessing a protest outside the German embassy and if that didn't work then a MAJOR leaflet campaign.

Nodin

bumper234 wrote: »

You meet force with force.

The Luftwaffe bombed London and other major UK cities indiscriminately killing men women and children. The same was done to German cities by the UK and US airforces. It's war.....innocent people get killed it's called collateral damage. If Hitler had a nuke he would not have hesitated for a second to use it on London.

Well it wasn't collateral damage as they were the target a lot of the time. However, in seeking to defeat something as evil as Nazism, all methods are on the table.

bumper234

T runner wrote: »

These beautiful and true words should be read for anyone who is unsure....
Maybe a White Poppy !?...

TLDR

bumper234

Nodin wrote: »

Well it wasn't collateral damage as they were the target a lot of the time. However, in seeking to defeat something as evil as Nazism, all methods are on the table.

As was most of London, Birmingham and Liverpool.

Carawaystick

old hippy wrote: »

Ach, it always comes down to bloody sunday. You cannot judge all soldiers by one horrific case.

If only there was one Bloody Sunday instead of two.
fool me once...

Nodin

bumper234 wrote: »

As was most of London, Birmingham and Liverpool.

....did I somewhere talk about an ethical Nazi bombing programme?

Nodin

Carawaystick wrote: »

If only there was one Bloody Sunday instead of two.
fool me once...

But the fact is there were innumerable incidents all over the Empire, many far far far worse. That's the problem - it was the way it was, not some exceptional blip.

bumper234

Nodin wrote: »

....did I somewhere talk about an ethical Nazi bombing programme?

No no I was agreeing with you

Karl Stein

bumper234 wrote: »

TLDR

What you mean is 'la-la-la-not-listening-la-la-la'.

Were you not listening when the majority of British people did not want 'their' soldiers sent to Iraq in 2003?

bumper234

Carlos Roca wrote: »

What you mean is 'la-la-la-not-listening-la-la-la'.

Were you not listening when the majority of British people did not want 'their' soldiers sent to Iraq in 2003?

No what I meant was I could not be bothered reading a copy/pasted wall of flowery text from someone.

bumper234

Carlos Roca wrote: »

What you mean is 'la-la-la-not-listening-la-la-la'.

Were you not listening when the majority of British people did not want 'their' soldiers sent to Iraq in 2003?

Also where do you get that the majority of British people opposed the Iraq war? Fwiw I am against the second one.

Hilly Bill

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Common knowledge than Britain did feck all in WWII, small army really in the grand scheme of things. Sure, D-Day was only won thanks to the involvement of the Yanks. Germany would've walked into Britain had it not been for them losing heavily on their Eastern front. And if the Yanks hadn't come to Britain's aid....well....

I does beg the question as to why didn't the Germans invade neutral Ireland and surround Britain? I suppose the answer is the absolute arrogance of the Nazi war leaders who believed their men (and machines) would brush aside all enemies.

Also, Stalin didn't annex Poland, although his army did invade it even though a treaty previously signed with Britain & France said that Russia would not.

See the previous page regarding Yalta for how Poland was mistreated by the Allied forces during the closing stages of WWII.

The OP only asked if you would wear a poppy this year or not

Donkey Oaty

bumper234 wrote: »

Also where do you get that the majority of British people opposed the Iraq war? Fwiw I am against the second one.

It fluctuated wildly, but there's an interesting Guardian editorial here:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/18/politics.iraq

...from a month or so before the war started.

Majority against (52% vs 29%) but some surprising details, such as 50/50 with Tory voters, and more Labour voters in favour than against.

Polls can be misleading of course, but there we go.

MonstaMash

^ great user name Donkey Oatey, pissed meself guffawing :pac::pac::pac:

Crooked Jack

MonstaMash wrote: »

^ great user name Donkey Oatey, pissed meself guffawing :pac::pac::pac:

Only after getting it there, well spotted.

Donkey Oaty

Back on topic, you lot!

Feckin' windmills, yez are.

T runner

bumper234 wrote: »

You meet force with force.

The Luftwaffe bombed London and other major UK cities indiscriminately killing men women and children. The same was done to German cities by the UK and US airforces. It's war.....innocent people get killed it's called collateral damage. If Hitler had a nuke he would not have hesitated for a second to use it on London.

As we have established, these were primary targets not collateral targets.

Indiscriminate bombing was internationally outlawed. The Washington Treaty (1922) expressly forbade the use of bombing against civilian populations.

Targetting civilians is called terrorism. Obviously you have no issue with the provisional IRAs bombing campaign in mainland Britain?



(I hope people are seeing more clearly what the poppy is really about)

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

You meet force with force.

Isn't that what all 'terrorists' say?

SoulandForm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What selfish reasons?

Good point; the fact is that Britain could have stayed out of WWII and stayed out of to its own benefit as Maurice Cowling showed. Churchill much as I dislike the man was actually taking a principled stand against Nazism when he brought the UK into the war. Yes war crimes were committed by the British Forces but overall Britain deserves vastly more praise than blame for its actions in those years.

The Irish whether "Nationalist" or "Unionist" given how both behaved during Europe's darkest hour really should be quiet on the subject. When people go on about the "Betrayal of Yalta" and than go on about Dresden which definitely was a war crime most Europeans would start to wonder did they wish that Hitler had won the war.

T runner

Nodin wrote: »

But the fact is there were innumerable incidents all over the Empire, many far far far worse. That's the problem - it was the way it was, not some exceptional blip.

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre (also known as the Amritsar massacre), was a seminal event in the British rule of India. On 13 April 1919, a group of non-violent protesters, along with Baishakhi pilgrims, had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh garden in Amritsar, Punjab. On the orders of Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer, the army fired on the crowd for ten minutes, directing their bullets largely towards the few open gates through which people were trying to run out.[1] The dead numbered between 370 and 1000. The "brutality stunned the entire nation",[2] resulting in a "wrenching loss of faith in Britain’s good intentions".[3] The ineffective inquiry and the initial accolades for Dyer by the House of Lords fueled widespread anger, leading to the Non-cooperation movement of 1920-22.[4]

These guys benefitted from Poppys also i take it?