Rememberance Sunday. (1 Viewer)

[ColinEssex]

Today in the Uk is what is known as Rememberance Sunday. People buy poppies, there are huge parades of old soldiers in London and other cities. Wreaths are laid at memorials and there is a huge rememberance service on TV at the Albert Hall.

The object is "not to forget" the 1st world war, known as "The Great War" or "The War to end all wars" as well as successive combats and to not get into such conflicts again.

Given that there are more wars now spread across the world than ever, it seems that the objective of Rememberance Day has failed.

Is it time to forget this bleating and lamenting of past wars? Do we really need to have it rammed down our throats? If we want to see war atrocities, we can see it on the 6pm news as it happens, not on some faded photo's of dead soldiers in North France.

World War 2? We all buy Japanese goods, yet the Japs were less than kind to allied troops.

What do you think? Continue to remember? or Forget it as part of human nature?

We never remember the Napoleonic wars et al - why pick on the 2 world wars?

This post is not a knock at the USA or any other country.

Col

 

[Rich]

Why do the men in frocks have to keep appearing, is it because god supports and wants war?

 

[GaryPanic]

Colin

The Rememberance day will continue in its current fashion until allthe old soldiers from the first war have died (about 6 left)
after which thee is some discussion on what to do

given that nearly 1 million Soldiers from WW1 died which was quite a percentage of the population at the time - it does warrant some kind of Rememberance....
even if its just the stupidity of war

 

[Brianwarnock]

Just because the country didn't care about its soldiers pre ww1 doesn't mean that we shouldn't now, although I agree that there is much hypocritic public lamenting by leaders who are only to willing to send rhe men to fight.
However I think that money from the sale of poppies does go to help soldiers charities, its a pity charities are needed, if only Tony bliar would donate a decent percentage of the money he is earning from his backing of American aggression the charities would be better off.

Brian

 

[Alisa]

I think remembering is good, but glorifying is bad. Here in the U.S., memorial day is this coming Tuesday. It seems to be an occasion for everyone to glorify our heroic, patriotic soldiers, without talking about the actual horror of war, prisoners of war, torture, collatoral damage, the killing of innocent civilians, etc.

It is especially hard to commemorate the lives of the soldiers that have died in our current wars, since there wasn't any greater purpose served by sending those young men and women to their deaths.

 

[David Eagar]

I think the important purpose of this event is to remember the poor soldiers who had to endure unspeakable horrors during the wars - not glorify war itself and certainly not to glorify the politicians who created these wars.

Even with the current wars going on (which very few people support) the soldiers have not had any decisions in this, they have been sent and they are a hell of a lot braver than I

 

[dkinley]

The extreme majority of soldiers only wanted to have an honorable profession to earn respect and are so committed to their country they are willing to put their life on the line.

Somehow, though, here in the US their service is twisted by those unwilling to serve or don't understand what it means to serve. The majority of those that don't understand would rather criticize 365 days a year. It seems the only way to thank our service members is by declaring a special day for them by law.

Since most never earned the right to criticize and would rather bash all year long, I say give them the soldiers their day - they've certainly earned it.

-dK

 

[Rich]

Colin

The Rememberance day will continue in its current fashion until allthe old soldiers from the first war have died (about 6 left)
after which thee is some discussion on what to do

given that nearly 1 million Soldiers from WW1 died which was quite a percentage of the population at the time - it does warrant some kind of Rememberance....
even if its just the stupidity of war

The problem here is that it covers up the ineptutude and incompetence of those who sent them into war and the troop's so called professional leaders at the time, most of whom were honoured by the state at the sacrifice of so many. If one looks at the lack of care given to those badly injured both then and even now by the state one can easily come to the conclusion that the whole event is tainted by the hipocrisy of politicians.
Perhaps it's time to stop politicians from attending these events and leave it to the people that really matter

 

[statsman]

given that nearly 1 million Soldiers from WW1 died which was quite a percentage of the population at the time - it does warrant some kind of Rememberance....
even if its just the stupidity of war

Gary said it. The vast casualties inflicted on all sides during the Great War (WWI) were unprecedented. That plus the general carnage and the civilian casualties (unheard of before this war) caused everyone to pause and think. The result was Rememberance Day.

Rememberance Day has since morphed into a general rememberance ceremony for all service men and women from all wars. I think it should be retained but re-invented into a "lets think twice before we start a war" type of day.

 

[ColinEssex]

Gary said it. The vast casualties inflicted on all sides during the Great War (WWI) were unprecedented. That plus the general carnage and the civilian casualties (unheard of before this war) caused everyone to pause and think. The result was Rememberance Day.

Rememberance Day has since morphed into a general rememberance ceremony for all service men and women from all wars. I think it should be retained but re-invented into a "lets think twice before we start a war" type of day.

I agree.

It seems odd to me that our leaders attend these ceremonies, they bow their heads in respect - yet the next day they send more troops into Kandahar or wherever to kill and injure or to be killed.

It's not easy, I know if terrorist extremists get their way then they will kill and injure innocent people. But the "war to end all wars" (WW1) obviously didn't work. I have no idea what will - if anything.

I'm guessing this has been a problem since cave-man times when one area would fight another for whatever reason. Will man ever learn? I think not.

Col

 

[Alisa]

I think it should be retained but re-invented into a "lets think twice before we start a war" type of day.

Or better yet, a "let's just think about it until the urge to go to war has passed, and do something reasonable" day instead.

 

[Rabbie]

I think it is right that we remember those who lost their lives fighting for their country if only because it means that we look at war and the horror of war. Without a special day it is too easy to gloss over this and avoid the issue.

As to why this started with the First World War this i probably because this was such a traumatic war with such high casualties that it shocked people into doing something

 

[ColinEssex]

I think it is right that we remember those who lost their lives fighting for their country if only because it means that we look at war and the horror of war.

But it's not having any effect, so why bother?

Everyone says "terrible, how awful" then carry on killing and starting wars.

Col

 

[Rabbie]

The main reasons I can see for carrying on with Remembrance Day is to raise money for Military Charities, and to show the relatives of the fallen that we appreciate what they did even if we don't agree with the war in the first place.

 

[ColinEssex]

The main reasons I can see for carrying on with Remembrance Day is to raise money for Military Charities, and to show the relatives of the fallen that we appreciate what they did even if we don't agree with the war in the first place.

Why have a charity payout for doing their jobs? I don't have a charity bailing me out.

Ok, so they get injured, these days they know that when they voluntarily join up. Surely that's part of the job. They get compensation from the government.

If someone succumbs to an illness that puts them in a wheelchair aged 40 and they can't work, they survive on benefits and family goodwill - not a freebie payout from the public every year. What's the difference between that and a soldier being injured and in a wheelchair.

Col

 

[Rabbie]

Why have a charity payout for doing their jobs? I don't have a charity bailing me out.

Ok, so they get injured, these days they know that when they voluntarily join up. Surely that's part of the job. They get compensation from the government.

Remember that many of the soldiers in both world wars were conscripts and not volunteers. Also at the time of the first world war there was no National Health Service or Welfare State so people in need were in general often supported by charities.

If someone succumbs to an illness that puts them in a wheelchair aged 40 and they can't work, they survive on benefits and family goodwill - not a freebie payout from the public every year. What's the difference between that and a soldier being injured and in a wheelchair.

Col

In our area we have collections for Charitable organisations that help the terminally ill. It's not just for ex-service people.

 

[statsman]

Why have a charity payout for doing their jobs? I don't have a charity bailing me out

Working for the NHS I don't think you ever faced someone who was armed and dangerous...OK, I'll grant you dangerous.

Ok, so they get injured, these days they know that when they voluntarily join up. Surely that's part of the job. They get compensation from the government.

They do get compensation for being wounded or injured. How many people do you know who live on a military pension. Trust me, they don't take vacations in Spain. The money goes to rent, food and maybe 1 pint a week at the pub.

If someone succumbs to an illness that puts them in a wheelchair aged 40 and they can't work, they survive on benefits and family goodwill - not a freebie payout from the public every year. What's the difference between that and a soldier being injured and in a wheelchair.
Col

We ask our service men and women to put their lives on the line. With the possible exception of the police and fire, we don't ask that of any other group. Granted they volunteer for this work but given the risks, I don't think it's unreasonable to top them up a bit. Contributions to charities are voluntary. If you don't want to make a contribution, you don't have to.
BTW I don't know if they do this in the UK but in Canada most Unions have similar arrangements for persons inured on the job and unable to work.

 

[Rich]

Working for the NHS I don't think you ever faced someone who was armed and dangerous...OK, I'll grant you dangerous.

That's no longer true

 

[ColinEssex]

I should point out I'm not against it per se. I think it's just a lot overhyped.

I agree we need military protection and we need to quell the terrorist risings before it all becomes out of hand. The military do a brilliant job, no question.

But I sometimes feel the emphasis is more on their deeds and subsequent support whereas there are many other deserving people who get nothing from charities and live on benefits because they have no choice.

I appreciate it's not easy, and in the words of Monty Python - there's more to this distribution of wealth than meets the eye.

Col

 

[Fifty2One]

I feel it is important to honour those who have come forward to give up everything for the sake of others, this includes those on the front line and the people close to their hearts.
I feel the same towards those persons who are doing the same these days. Even though I do not neccessarily agree with the mission they have been tasked, they are still never the less risking everything and more.