REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY.....

[ProfessorDavey]

That you don't feel it is worth retracting a misrepresentation is up to you.

Given that I was giving my view on your and my recent posts how can it be a misrepresentation - unless I am somehow misrepresenting my own views.
 

As for hurfeckinrah. I take it you understand hurrah? And that you can interpolate a word? And the feckin is a softer, generally Irish take on fuckung? Then just put it all together.

I understand.

[Nearly Sane]

Given that I was giving my view on your and my recent posts how can it be a misrepresentation - unless I am somehow misrepresenting my own views.
  I understand.

I wasn't doing tit for tat. Do you want to retract that! Or are you saying I am lying?

[ProfessorDavey]

I wasn't doing tit for tat. Do you want to retract that! Or are you saying I am lying?

So you claim - my view was that it appeared you were - hence my comment. Given that it was my view how can I be misrepresenting you? I could just as easily claim you are misrepresenting my view that it was tit for tat by claiming it wasn't. I tend, however, not to demand retractions and apologies at the drop of a hat.
Anyhow - off for a work dinner so not more tit for tat for a while, and no retraction of my earlier comments ever.

[Nearly Sane]

So you claim - my view was that it appeared you were - hence my comment. Given that it was my view how can I be misrepresenting you? I could just as easily claim you are misrepresenting my view that it was tit for tat by claiming it wasn't. I tend, however, not to demand retractions and apologies at the drop of a hat.
Anyhow - off for a work dinner so not more tit for tat for a while, and no retraction of my earlier comments ever.

Yes, I state it wasn't my motivation, and you tell me that isn't true so ergo I must be lying. So again when you want to retract that get back to me.

[Walter]

Yes, I state it wasn't my motivation, and you tell me that isn't true so ergo I must be lying. So again when you want to retract that get back to me.

FFS , NS get over yourself.

[Nearly Sane]

FFS , NS get over yourself.

Your problem, caller?

[Walter]

Your problem, caller?

how about a nice cuppa tea and a cuddle mmwah !

[Nearly Sane]

how about a nice cuppa tea and a cuddle mmwah !

The sad thing is that Prof D and I are disagreeing over something essentially meaningless while we kill people and sell weapons to have people killed by regimes that are disgusting

[Walter]

The sad thing is that Prof D and I are disagreeing over something essentially meaningless while we kill people and sell weapons to have people killed by regimes that are disgusting

i can't fault that sentiment NS , perhaps the whole world could do with a cuppa tea and a cuddle
(Don't quote me , I've got an image to protect ) x

[ProfessorDavey]

Back on topic.

I think this move to include conflicts other than the two world wars in the Remembrance commemorations is a pretty new thing and mainly associated with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Perhaps my memory is playing tricks but in the 80s and 90s I don't remember there being any focus on soldiers who'd died in Northern Ireland or even the Falklands - it was about the world wars.

Someone mentioned Korea some while ago - as a forgotten war, which is probably true - but the reality is that over the years (and certainly since 1914) there have been many conflicts and many service deaths, albeit any low levels, dwarfed by the two world wars and even by the first day of the Somme.

So I've stated my view that the focus should be on the world wars - you may not agree but there is a logical argument that because of the magnitude of death they are simply incomparable with other conflicts since. However if it is to be all service deaths in all conflicts (or even all since 1914) why should the focus be so clearly only on Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the world wars. That really seems to make no logical sense.

Interesting link to service deaths here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_casualties_of_war

Worth noting that there were more than twice as many deaths of British service personnel in a completely forgotten Afghan war between 1919 and 1921 as there have been since 2001 in the recent one. Likewise far more died in Iraq in the 1920 conflict than in the 2003 war, yet the former I suspect is pretty well completely forgotten.

Either we give all equal billing (but we don't) or we accept that certain conflicts are so different to all the others that they deserve specific commemoration - and the only two that really stand out since 1914 are, of course, the world wars.

[ekim]

The used to be a Veterans' Day which has been renamed as Armed Forces Day, sometime in June.  Perhaps this should be given more prominence.

[jeremyp]

why should the focus be so clearly only on Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the world wars. That really seems to make no logical sense.

You have to be in your 40's to even remember the Falklands War. The focus is on Afghanistan and Iraq because most adults can remember them.

Either we give all equal billing (but we don't) or we accept that certain conflicts are so different to all the others that they deserve specific commemoration - and the only two that really stand out since 1914 are, of course, the world wars.

If Remembrance Sunday is only for the two World Wars, we'll be able to wrap it up soon. It won't be many years before the last survivors are dead. Plus we are in the process of turning our backs on our European friends and the Great Project that arose from the ashes of the Second World War. We aren't worthy of the people we commemorate on Remembrance Day.

[Anchorman]

You have to be in your 40's to even remember the Falklands War. The focus is on Afghanistan and Iraq because most adults can remember them.
If Remembrance Sunday is only for the two World Wars, we'll be able to wrap it up soon. It won't be many years before the last survivors are dead. Plus we are in the process of turning our backs on our European friends and the Great Project that arose from the ashes of the Second World War. We aren't worthy of the people we commemorate on Remembrance Day.

Good point

[floo]

You have to be in your 40's to even remember the Falklands War. The focus is on Afghanistan and Iraq because most adults can remember them.
If Remembrance Sunday is only for the two World Wars, we'll be able to wrap it up soon. It won't be many years before the last survivors are dead. Plus we are in the process of turning our backs on our European friends and the Great Project that arose from the ashes of the Second World War. We aren't worthy of the people we commemorate on Remembrance Day.

I agree.

[ProfessorDavey]

If Remembrance Sunday is only for the two World Wars, we'll be able to wrap it up soon. It won't be many years before the last survivors are dead.

I think that is completely missing the point of Remembrance - don't forget that the primary purpose is to remember those that died - and in the case of WW1 those people have been dead for 100 years.

I was born 50 years after the Somme - I clearly therefore don't remember it - but it is critically important that as a society we create space to remember the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars - indeed I think it is perhaps more important that we do after all those who actually experienced it are dead - while they remain alive they can tell of the horrors - regardless of whether there are survivors left alive we must still remember, reflect and learn. The idea that we would simply 'wrap it up' soon once all the survivors of WW2 have died is appalling - we must continue to reflect and remember - only by doing this do we have any chance of learning.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have to be in your 40's to even remember the Falklands War. The focus is on Afghanistan and Iraq because most adults can remember them.

But this shift away from the world wars towards other conflicts (any other conflicts) is, as far as I see, new. Sure the Falklands was is some 35 years ago now but back in the late 80s and early 90s it would have been as fresh in people's memories as Afghanistan/Iraq is now. But I don't remember in the late 80s and early 90s any significant focus of Remembrance Day on the Falklands (or Northern Ireland or even Iraq 1) - nope the focus was the world wars.

This mission creep is new.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that is completely missing the point of Remembrance - don't forget that the primary purpose is to remember those that died - and in the case of WW1 those people have been dead for 100 years.

I was born 50 years after the Somme - I clearly therefore don't remember it - but it is critically important that as a society we create space to remember the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars - indeed I think it is perhaps more important that we do after all those who actually experienced it are dead - while they remain alive they can tell of the horrors - regardless of whether there are survivors left alive we must still remember, reflect and learn. The idea that we would simply 'wrap it up' soon once all the survivors of WW2 have died is appalling - we must continue to reflect and remember - only by doing this do we have any chance of learning.

Post of the week.

[floo]

I think that is completely missing the point of Remembrance - don't forget that the primary purpose is to remember those that died - and in the case of WW1 those people have been dead for 100 years.

I was born 50 years after the Somme - I clearly therefore don't remember it - but it is critically important that as a society we create space to remember the industrial scale slaughter in the world wars - indeed I think it is perhaps more important that we do after all those who actually experienced it are dead - while they remain alive they can tell of the horrors - regardless of whether there are survivors left alive we must still remember, reflect and learn. The idea that we would simply 'wrap it up' soon once all the survivors of WW2 have died is appalling - we must continue to reflect and remember - only by doing this do we have any chance of learning.

The point of Remembrance is to surely remember those who died in WW1, the war to end all wars, and all those who have died in wars since that unnecessary one.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point of Remembrance is to surely remember those who died in WW1, the war to end all wars, and all those who have died in wars since that unnecessary one.

Until recently the focus was on the two world wars - and while there have been relatively small numbers of deaths in other conflicts they were not the focus. I think that is the right approach. The two world wars are so massively different to anything else that has happened since that they should be the specific focus for Remembrance events as they were until relatively recently. That's my view. I do not want Remembrance commemorations to slowly turn into a kind of 'armed forces day' - that has a very different focus and if people wish to include remembrance of those who died in other conflicts that can be the focus of armed forces day (or another time) - but 11th Nov, and the nearest Sunday should be about the dead of the two world wars.

[floo]

Until recently the focus was on the two world wars - and while there have been relatively small numbers of deaths in other conflicts they were not the focus. I think that is the right approach. The two world wars are so massively different to anything else that has happened since that they should be the specific focus for Remembrance events as they were until relatively recently. That's my view. I do not want Remembrance commemorations to slowly turn into a kind of 'armed forces day' - that has a very different focus and if people wish to include remembrance of those who died in other conflicts that can be the focus of armed forces day (or another time) - but 11th Nov, and the nearest Sunday should be about the dead of the two world wars.

In your opinion, I think many people, if not most, would totally disagree with you.

[ProfessorDavey]

In your opinion, I think many people, if not most, would totally disagree with you.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. I think Remembrance day should return to its original meaning - which was from 1919 to 1939 remembrance of WW1 and from 1945 onwards of both world wars. The addition of 'and all other conflicts' is recent and in my opinion detracts from its significance by sort of suggest that all conflicts that British troops have been involved in since 1914 are somehow equivalent - I don't believe they are.

[Nearly Sane]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. I think Remembrance day should return to its original meaning - which was from 1919 to 1939 remembrance of WW1 and from 1945 onwards of both world wars. The addition of 'and all other conflicts' is recent and in my opinion detracts from its significance by sort of suggest that all conflicts that British troops have been involved in since 1914 are somehow equivalent - I don't believe they are.

No, the idea is that deaths and suffering of the individuals is equivalent.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, the idea is that deaths and suffering of the individuals is equivalent.

But their numbers are so massively different to make the conflicts not close to being equivalent. You can argue till the cows come home which of the non world war conflicts since 1914 was the most tragic/significant etc, but the fact remains that the two world wars are orders of magnitude different to anything else since 1914.

There is also the point about conscripts vs professional soldiers who have chosen the military as a career. And if we carry on down that line why is the death of a professional soldier in the line of duty somehow different to the death of a police officer or firefighter in the line of duty.

[floo]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is mine. I think Remembrance day should return to its original meaning - which was from 1919 to 1939 remembrance of WW1 and from 1945 onwards of both world wars. The addition of 'and all other conflicts' is recent and in my opinion detracts from its significance by sort of suggest that all conflicts that British troops have been involved in since 1914 are somehow equivalent - I don't believe they are.

Unbelievable! Fortunately it isn't going to happen.

[Nearly Sane]

But their numbers are so massively different to make the conflicts not close to being equivalent. You can argue till the cows come home which of the non world war conflicts since 1914 was the most tragic/significant etc, but the fact remains that the two world wars are orders of magnitude different to anything else since 1914.

There is also the point about conscripts vs professional soldiers who have chosen the military as a career. And if we carry on down that line why is the death of a professional soldier in the line of duty somehow different to the death of a police officer or firefighter in the line of duty.

I didn't say the conflicts are equivalent. So why argue against a point that wasn't  made?