Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Poppies.
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
I think more to weigh the argument. Is it coincidence that the winners get VCs and the losers get executed? History gets written by the winners is a common statement.
Maybe he didn't really say it but the qoute often attributed to Churchill springs to mind:
"Poor Neville will come badly out of history. I know, I will write that history".
He is also credited for " Madam I'm drunk and you're ugly but in the the morning I shall be sober" What he actually said at that party, drunk out of his mind was "Madam....Fuck off!"
This makes for chilling reading on the subject of how widespread eugenics was across the world between 1900-1940. Not just the Nazis.
Churchill and Eugenics
If I can just go back to the original post, I wear a red poppy to remember the service men and women who died to protect us all.
I do not think wearing a red poppy is war mongering - it is a respect thing.
Who are the "us all" they were protecting. Read up on the number of civilian deaths in wars. Who do you think killed them?
I believe Hitler actually praised America for their eugenics programme and was influenced by a lot of their ideas. The camps that the British used in South Africa to imprison Boer women and children were also the main influence for the Nazi concentration camps.
Churchill was a necessary evil and was kicked out of office by the UK population shortly after the war - that is the difference between Britain and Nazi Germany.
Is this thread still going? Blimey.
It will be over by Christmas
I'm not referring to his record as a wartime leader.
As far as the actions of British soldiers or decision makers - like I said they have to be judged in the light of the fact that Britain was fighting a war of self defence. No that doesn't give carte blanche to do anything - but this argument started over the claim that all war was murder and the implication that it couldn't be justified.
The point is - and not a controversial one - that just because you can pick out instances where Britain carried out actions that were not justified Britain's engagement in the war was justified and to call all the soldiers murderers is crass.
It would be crass to call all the soldiers murderers. Probably why nobody said it. Mostly it's been a call to judge all sides of war the same. One war crime is the same as another.
Well RunningMan said all war is murder making hispoint that you can't differentiate. Ifyou read this thread you'd think for him the only difference between Britain and Germany in WW2 is that we were the victors. What he and you miss out is that, contrary to what you said a few pages back, for Britain this was a clear cut war of self defence.
Yes both sides used some horrible tactics but formthe vast majority of what was done on our side the ends justified the means.
That is unless you see no moral difference between Britain's motivation to enter the war and that of Nazi Germany.
Hate to quote myself, but I clarified my view that War is state sponsored murder, and I stand by that.
I also said I would never condemn the Soldier, he is told it is alright to kill so he does what is expected of him. This does not make it right
You are actually admitting now that both sides are probably guilty of Genocide, but one is right, the other wrong, which takes a long and winding road back to the beginning to say that the winners decide who was on the side of right (therefore justified) and the losers are war criminals.
Where I would disagree with you, Runnin Man, is that, though you may be right about the victors writing history in the short term, the long view tends to change things. And I also believe there are wars that are about more than 'state-sponsored murder' - the Spanish Civil War might be a good example. Was the war against Hitler worth fighting? I would say that the balance tips a long way towards yes.
It isn't genocide . Yes war involves killing - but where a country is totally justified in fighting that war it isn't murder or genocide.
I've asked once and you didn't answer - do you think the UK was justified in fighting Germany in ww2?
As for the winners writing history - are you seriously suggesting Hitler has been misrepresented !
Just wanted to comment on the suggestion that the tax we pay has nothing to do with charity in any respect. Some charities services are commissioned by either NHS or Local Authorities, and thus paid for by our taxes.
Well, the poppies have all wilted. I see we're moving onto the subject of whether there is such a thing as a 'just war' now.
Most wars are about self-aggrandisement on the part of one group or another and draw in or hurt people who have no desire to be part of it. Nothing just about that.
Well... I'd not seen this thread until tonight. Some exasperating views held by people.
Johnny Blaze has it almost word perfect for me.
So not wanting our soldiers to go and fight a pointless war in Afghanistan is selfish? I don't want people to go and get killed and maimed in a pointless war. How very silly I am? Calling people who disagree with you " people who get their knickers in a twist" is fatuous.
Engaging the enemy in a battle on their home ground to avoid them concentrating on attacking us on ours doesn't seem pointless to me.
The Afganiastan problem has been going on for centuries. No one has managed to control it apart from the USSR in the years following the Second World War.
How do you suggest it's dealt with? The person who solves it will probably get a Nobel Peace Prize.
To not wear a poppy because you disagree with one war seems a bit pointless.
I think it still constitutes an invasion, and is highly unlikely to reduce attacks aimed at us
It seems more logical not to do something because it's pointless than to do something TimR
Are you suggesting that the UN does nothing because it's pointless trying to help?
That's because you are nice but dim. It's pointless to do something but it can't really be pointless to not-do something. That's just not doing something.
Where did THAT line of argument come from? You seem absolutely determined to miss the point.
I'm out.
You were never in