Red or White poppy

[fowler9]

Oh, no fair! I wanted to be able to trash him this time round!

I do agree that there's a great deal of manipulation from certain members on here; deliberately taking things out of context or denying things because they feel it makes them superior. Give us a break. Does anyone here actually admire you for what you're doing? Do you think it endears you to people?



Indeed this is so. WW2 is the only 'recent' example of a conflict where I didn't think we had any choice. The white poppy is about humanity, not just the UK, preventing war.

WW2 would never have happened without WW1 which was started by rich families and WW2 was started by a nut job after more power as a result of that. The Falklands was a land grab. The Gulf War in the 90's was a land grab, all the borders around that region were drawn up by rich people land grabbing anyway. It all ultimately comes down to rich people wanting even more.

 

[Haydn1971]

WW2 would never have happened without WW1 which was started by rich families and WW2 was started by a nut job after more power as a result of that. The Falklands was a land grab. The Gulf War in the 90's was a land grab, all the borders around that region were drawn up by rich people land grabbing anyway. It all ultimately comes down to rich people wanting even more.

Spot on, it's easy for the victors to paint the benefits of what happened despite the atrocities that occurred on all sides. We often confuse older conflicts as two sided, this is further enhanced with Wikipedia painting "two sides" but as is happening now in Syria and Iraq, there are generally a multitude of groups involved with differing agendas - but ultimately all wars in my opinion are driven by the greed of the wealthy elite and fought by the 99% of us who are brainwashed into thinking it's our moral duty to get involved.

Returning to the atomic bombs in Japan, history tells us that these ended the war in the Pacific, however I'm more aligned with the (recently well documented) theory that the Japanese made a strategic decision to surrender in the face of a Russian invasion from the north. Firstly Japanese forces had been concentrated in the south of the country, second, there were some 40 large cities in Japan, all but four had been significantly destroyed by firebombing, which haven't broken the Japanese will, two cities were beyond range of the B29s in early 1945, the other two being Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Destroying one city with a single bomb did not bring surrender, the second bomb used up the US stockpile at the time. The Japanese are extremely honourable people, the Russians would have taken the extreme view that the highest order would have to pay for war crimes, thus would have probably executed the royal elite. The US were likely to have been seen as the softer option, thus surrender would have retained the royal elite.

It has been further speculated that the US were aware of potential surrender by the Japanese due to the Russian factor, but went on to test the atomic weapons on live targets - as they continued to do in tests though the next 20 years.

 

[SS4]

WW2 would never have happened without WW1 which was started by rich families and WW2 was started by a nut job after more power as a result of that. The Falklands was a land grab. The Gulf War in the 90's was a land grab, all the borders around that region were drawn up by rich people land grabbing anyway. It all ultimately comes down to rich people wanting even more.

Indeed. All the colonial wars and empire building certainly didn't benefit those living in the slums which I feel is something oft forgotten when the British Empire is mentioned. That is not to say subjects had it worse of course but comparatively few reaped the benefits. The workers of Britain had to fight (often literally) to get such basic premises as a safe working environment and fair working hours.

It has been further speculated that the US were aware of potential surrender by the Japanese due to the Russian factor, but went on to test the atomic weapons on live targets - as they continued to do in tests though the next 20 years.

The USA had broken the Japanese code so they knew about overtures to the USSR and that they were willing to surrender as long as the emperor could remain head of state. I would hazard a guess that the bombing of Hiroshima was to try and shock Japan into surrender before the USSR could undergo a land grab in Asia and also to demonstrate to the USSR of the catastrophe they could unleash on Soviet cities for the upcoming cold war.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

. One sentence stood out 'For more than a hundred years not a single year has passed where Britain's armed forces have not been engaged in military operations somewhere in the world'. That's not something I now feel proud about.

disregarding QRA for a monent , how many of those years were where the Operations in Question were Op Banner and Op Tosca ? or where the military operations were the intediction of drug smuggling in the carribean

it;s one of th ose statements that the guardianistas love as it appears to make out that we are at constant active war fighting , much as the same handwringing idiots fail to distinguish between ' boy entry' ( Army Foundation College etc) and Welbeck for 16 year olds , welbeck or phase 1 and ph2 training 17 year olds vs being in the operational forces all to score points in their handwriningi stakes aobut how we have 'child soldiers'

 

[AlterEgo]

disregarding QRA for a monent , how many of those years were where the Operations in Question were Op Banner and Op Tosca ? or where the military operations were the intediction of drug smuggling in the carribean

it;s one of th ose statements that the guardianistas love as it appears to make out that we are at constant active war fighting , much as the same handwringing idiots fail to distinguish between ' boy entry' ( Army Foundation College etc) and Welbeck for 16 year olds , welbeck or phase 1 and ph2 training 17 year olds vs being in the operational forces all to score points in their handwriningi stakes aobut how we have 'child soldiers'

Op Banner had it occurred anywhere else (particularly in a third world country) would have been termed a civil war. The reason that it is not referred to as a war by the British is to avoid the possibility of war crimes being brought against the protagonists. Op Banner was a war, a low intensity one, but a war nonetheless.

None of this has anything to do with wearing a poppy. It's a shame the thread has been derailed.

 

[backontrack]

WW2 would never have happened without WW1 which was started by rich families and WW2 was started by a nut job after more power as a result of that. The Falklands was a land grab. The Gulf War in the 90's was a land grab, all the borders around that region were drawn up by rich people land grabbing anyway. It all ultimately comes down to rich people wanting even more.

True.

 

[Phil.]

However the Allies would have done a lot more damage to the German war machine if they'd targeted the edge of the city where there were workshops and industry. Instead they went for the city centre which was crammed full of people. Obviously the Germans had not yet surrendered but if Dresden was such an important rail centre why had it not been targeted before?

Because it wasn't full of German soldiers that had been withdrawn back from the Russian front to protect the homeland then. If you're going to speculate at least do some swatting up on history.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and a red poppy isn't?

No it isn't. It's red to remember the amount of blood spilt and it's a poppy to symbolise the poppies that grew out of the disturbed earth of the battle field where the flower of a a generation died.

 

[Harbornite]

WW2 would never have happened without WW1 which was started by rich families and WW2 was started by a nut job after more power as a result of that. The Falklands was a land grab. The Gulf War in the 90's was a land grab, all the borders around that region were drawn up by rich people land grabbing anyway. It all ultimately comes down to rich people wanting even more.

I think we an agree that The Falklands and the 1990-91 Gulf War were both justified because they were responses to unjustified aggression.

You have a point though regarding the rich splitting up land. Sykes-Picot has helped to create the mess that is the middle East.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Op Banner had it occurred anywhere else (particularly in a third world country) would have been termed a civil war. The reason that it is not referred to as a war by the British is to avoid the possibility of war crimes being brought against the protagonists. Op Banner was a war, a low intensity one, but a war nonetheless.

None of this has anything to do with wearing a poppy. It's a shame the thread has been derailed.

I strongly suggest you do a little bit of learning about what consistutes a war ...

unless of course you are one of the Fenian idiots who believes PIRA had some kind of legitimacy as an 'Army' ?

 

[AlterEgo]

I strongly suggest you do a little bit of learning about what consistutes a war ...

unless of course you are one of the Fenian idiots who believes PIRA had some kind of legitimacy as an 'Army' ?

War: state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.

It does not require that conventional armies partake in the conflict. Interesting you only bring up the PIRA as if they were the only other belligerents. It shows your ignorance.

For the record, the PIRA were a bunch of unprintables who ruined my family's lives as much as the army did.

 

[fowler9]

I think we an agree that The Falklands and the 1990-91 Gulf War were both justified because they were responses to unjustified aggression.

You have a point though regarding the rich splitting up land. Sykes-Picot has helped to create the mess that is the middle East.

Yeah mate, totally agree about the Falklands and the Gulf.

 

[AM9]

No it isn't. It's red to remember the amount of blood spilt and it's a poppy to symbolise the poppies that grew out of the disturbed earth of the battle field where the flower of a a generation died.

That's the reason for a red poppy being the symbol of remembrance, but the act of remembrance of the glorious dead, (as in armed forces only), which is specifically and exclusively using the red poppy, is very much a political event. To me it get's more political each year as recent wars have less relevance to the protection of home countries and more to do with maintaining politicians' influence over various parts of the globe.

 

[Lankyline]

Let's get a few things straight here, WW1 was kickstarted by the assignation of the Archduke Ferdinand and escalated into war because of the various political alliances that were in force at the time, it wasn't started by a bunch of rich families.
Our country adopted the poppy as a symbol of remembrance for the umpteen thousands of our armed forces who lost their lives in ww1, it was not a political gesture but adopted by the whole nation and despite claims it has been politicised over the years it still remains the traditional way to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country and the freedoms we enjoy today including the right to free speech, which excercised without fear or consequences on this forum ( apart from liable or defamation of course!)
We can do this without fear of being carted away in the night or worse, unlike some other countries both now and in the past, e.g. Germany (ww2), Russia, North Korea, Iraq,

 

[fowler9]

Let's get a few things straight here, WW1 was kickstarted by the assignation of the Archduke Ferdinand and escalated into war because of the various political alliances that were in force at the time, it wasn't started by a bunch of rich families.
Our country adopted the poppy as a symbol of remembrance for the umpteen thousands of our armed forces who lost their lives in ww1, it was not a political gesture but adopted by the whole nation and despite claims it has been politicised over the years it still remains the traditional way to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country and the freedoms we enjoy today including the right to free speech, which excercised without fear or consequences on this forum ( apart from liable or defamation of course!)
We can do this without fear of being carted away in the night or worse, unlike some other countries both now and in the past, e.g. Germany (ww2), Russia, North Korea, Iraq,

Yes WW1 was kickstarted by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand which came about because of political alliances and conflicts between a few rich families or perhaps dynasties would be a better word. I think saying that politics either now or in the early 1900's had nothing to do with rich families could possibly be naive.

Further to this I have no problem with the red poppy and I will be wearing one.

 

[Trog]

I think saying that politics either now or in the early 1900's had nothing to do with rich families could possibly be naïve.

As would believing that it was mostly down to some sort of illuminati of rich families.

 

[Phil.]

Spot on, it's easy for the victors to paint the benefits of what happened despite the atrocities that occurred on all sides. We often confuse older conflicts as two sided, this is further enhanced with Wikipedia painting "two sides" but as is happening now in Syria and Iraq, there are generally a multitude of groups involved with differing agendas - but ultimately all wars in my opinion are driven by the greed of the wealthy elite and fought by the 99% of us who are brainwashed into thinking it's our moral duty to get involved.

Returning to the atomic bombs in Japan, history tells us that these ended the war in the Pacific, however I'm more aligned with the (recently well documented) theory that the Japanese made a strategic decision to surrender in the face of a Russian invasion from the north. Firstly Japanese forces had been concentrated in the south of the country, second, there were some 40 large cities in Japan, all but four had been significantly destroyed by firebombing, which haven't broken the Japanese will, two cities were beyond range of the B29s in early 1945, the other two being Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Destroying one city with a single bomb did not bring surrender, the second bomb used up the US stockpile at the time. The Japanese are extremely honourable people, the Russians would have taken the extreme view that the highest order would have to pay for war crimes, thus would have probably executed the royal elite. The US were likely to have been seen as the softer option, thus surrender would have retained the royal elite.

It has been further speculated that the US were aware of potential surrender by the Japanese due to the Russian factor, but went on to test the atomic weapons on live targets - as they continued to do in tests though the next 20 years.

You write the sort of half baked truths that is the sort of dangerous rubbish that appears in the Guardian. I wouldn't describe a total of two bombs as a "stockpile". Were your "honourable Japanese" the same honourable ones that built the Burma - Siam railway using POWs as slave labour? The same honourable people who refused to sign the 1929 Geneva agreement on POWs? The same honourable ones that used to practice their head removing skills with a sword on POWs? As for surrendering because of a planned Russian invasion the Japanese had no such plans for surrender. The initial attack on Japanese territory was in Manchuria on the day that the first atomic bomb was dropped. Stalin wasn't told about a planned atomic bombing but even if he had he probably would have still invaded as he'd publically stated that he didn't have much faith in this new fangled device.The day after the second bomb was dropped the Japanese Emperor directed that a surrender was to be made. Incidentally, don't lose sight of the fact that the Japanese fleet had sailed for Pearl Harbor two days before a declaration of war had been made and when it was it was just after midnight, eight hours before the attack on the harbour - on a Sunday when the Japanese knew that most people would be off duty and off base. So, to paraphrase a playground remark, "They started it".

 

[TheKnightWho]

You write the sort of half baked truths that is the sort of dangerous rubbish that appears in the Guardian. I wouldn't describe a total of two bombs as a "stockpile". Were your "honourable Japanese" the same honourable ones that built the Burma - Siam railway using POWs as slave labour? The same honourable people who refused to sign the 1929 Geneva agreement on POWs? The same honourable ones that used to practice their head removing skills with a sword on POWs? As for surrendering because of a planned Russian invasion the Japanese had no such plans for surrender. The initial attack on Japanese territory was in Manchuria on the day that the first atomic bomb was dropped. Stalin wasn't told about a planned atomic bombing but even if he had he probably would have still invaded as he'd publically stated that he didn't have much faith in this new fangled device.The day after the second bomb was dropped the Japanese Emperor directed that a surrender was to be made. Incidentally, don't lose sight of the fact that the Japanese fleet had sailed for Pearl Harbor two days before a declaration of war had been made and when it was it was just after midnight, eight hours before the attack on the harbour - on a Sunday when the Japanese knew that most people would be off duty and off base. So, to paraphrase a playground remark, "They started it".

You've completely misinterpreted what was meant by the word "honourable" and then gone off on an irrelevant rant.

What a surprise. :roll:

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Whilst I do remember the dead of all wars, especially civilians and conscripts, I refuse to wear a poppy of any colour- I will donate to poppy sellers and refuse the poppy itself. I could go into a long-winded explanation of why I feel this way, but I think some of the rash assumptions made by several posters on this thread already paints that picture better than I could.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I agree. It was total war. You can't make nice little rules for it.

However we do make nice little rules for it, and continue to make nice little rules for it.

The mass killing of 8000 civilian people at Srebrenica is- rightly- considered a despicable war crime.

The mass killing of 45,000 civilian people at Hamburg is just "total warfare".

Hmm. I'm not buying it.

 

[Phil.]

You've completely misinterpreted what was meant by the word "honourable" and then gone off on an irrelevant rant.

What a surprise. :roll:

So the Japanese treatment of POWs and other wartime atrocities have no relevance? You simply want to depict the allies as the nasty people who dropped bombs on axis powers. There's nothing honourable about treating people as the Japanese did.

 

[Harbornite]

You've completely misinterpreted what was meant by the word "honourable" and then gone off on an irrelevant rant.

What a surprise. :roll:

So what was the correct interpretation of "honourable", for the benefit of those who have misunderstood?

 

[Tetchytyke]

There's nothing honourable about treating people as the Japanese did.

The Japanese treated their POWs despicably in WWII. We, to our credit, treated our POWs properly, at least in WWII (just don't mention the Second Boer War).

I am unsure how their treatment of POWs justifies nuking two cities and killing 246,000 civilians...

 

[NSEFAN]

The Japanese treated their POWs despicably in WWII. We, to our credit, treated our POWs properly, at least in WWII (just don't mention the Second Boer War).

I am unsure how their treatment of POWs justifies nuking two cities and killing 246,000 civilians...

This is what others have been getting at. WW2 was total war; nobody and nothing was sacred, and all parties were involved in doing terrible things to innocent people. It's because of such a terrible war that we have the modern concept of war crimes.

All we can do is look back and remember how awfully we behaved during those years, and to try and stop ourselves ever sinking that low ever again.

 

[Harbornite]

So the Japanese treatment of POWs and other wartime atrocities have no relevance? You simply want to depict the allies as the nasty people who dropped bombs on axis powers. There's nothing honourable about treating people as the Japanese did.

Indeed. You know they are bad when the Nazis think they went too far (the rape of Nanking).

 

[Haydn1971]

So the Japanese treatment of POWs and other wartime atrocities have no relevance? You simply want to depict the allies as the nasty people who dropped bombs on axis powers. There's nothing honourable about treating people as the Japanese did.

I'll avoid the blatant "you bombs" dropped into the post upthread - firstly, yes you have misinterpreted my use of "honourable" in that the Japanese were and still are very traditional values and without a doubt, they committed huge atrocities against their enemies both during and before the Second World War.

There has been plenty of discussion over the years about the use of atomic weapons, it's clear that history paints the use as a means of saving 100s of thousands of lives on both sides in a long invasion of attrition on the Japanese islands, but there is much more to this, not least the US wanting to show how powerful they were against the Russians.

 

[fowler9]

As would believing that it was mostly down to some sort of illuminati of rich families.

Thanks for throwing the Illuminati in there. I'm not some conspiracy nut job. As recently as the early 1900's politics was the ruling families. Don't forget that just a hundred years ago women couldn't even vote in the UK. That is just an almost minor example compared to how the world was run.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However we do make nice little rules for it, and continue to make nice little rules for it.

The mass killing of 8000 civilian people at Srebrenica is- rightly- considered a despicable war crime.

The mass killing of 45,000 civilian people at Hamburg is just "total warfare".

Hmm. I'm not buying it.

Sorry mate, what I said came out totally wrong. Once you start on something like the Second World War it is very hard to fight it within certain guidelines and win it and come up smelling of roses. I don't think civilians should be carpet bombed in to submission.

 

[tony_mac]

This is what others have been getting at. WW2 was total war; nobody and nothing was sacred, and all parties were involved in doing terrible things to innocent people. It's because of such a terrible war that we have the modern concept of war crimes.

That's not entirely accurate - there were war crimes treaties predating WW2 (and WW1). For example, the Geneva protocol restricting the use of chemical weapons was mostly adhered to.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So the Japanese treatment of POWs and other wartime atrocities have no relevance? You simply want to depict the allies as the nasty people who dropped bombs on axis powers. There's nothing honourable about treating people as the Japanese did.

The word honourable was referring to their attitude towards their monarchy. If you were arguing in good faith and not point-scoring you would recognise this.

It'a very obvious you want to paint everyone who disagrees with you as self-hating. Frankly, I find that insultingly ignorant.

 

[DarloRich]

The word honourable was referring to their attitude towards their monarchy. If you were arguing in good faith and not point-scoring you would recognise this.

It'a very obvious you want to paint everyone who disagrees with you as self-hating. Frankly, I find that insultingly ignorant.

It must have been people other than the honorable Japanese that carried out myriad atrocities across the pacific. Here are just some of the edited highlights:

• Bataan death march
  
• Burma Railway
  
• The Rape of Nanking
  
• Banka Island Massacre - Shooting Australian nurses in the back after making them wade into the sea
  
• Unit 731 - using biological and chemical weapons as experiments on mainly Chinese, Russia and and Asian prisoners
  
• The forcible conscription of sex slaves from mainly Korea, China and the Philippines
  
• Ritual execution of prisoners of war of all nations
  
• Sook Ching Massacre - The Kempeitai & Army rounded up locals & perceived hostile elements and murdered them in vast numbers
  
• I-8 - submariners beating torpedoed survivours to death with tools then lashing those that survived to the deck of the submarine and diving.
  
• The Massacre Of Manila - civilians murdered in hideous numbers
  
• Palawan Massacre - POW's buried alive
  
• Alexandra Hospital Massacre - the murder of defenseless injured people and hospital staff

These are hideous crimes carried out by savages following their perverted bushido code. It is sickening, not honourable.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It must have been people other than the honorable Japanese that carried out myriad atrocities across the pacific. Here are just some of the edited highlights:

• Bataan death march
  
• Burma Railway
  
• The Rape of Nanking
  
• Banka Island Massacre - Shooting Australian nurses in the back after making them wade into the sea
  
• Unit 731 - using biological and chemical weapons as experiments on mainly Chinese, Russia and and Asian prisoners
  
• The forcible conscription of sex slaves from mainly Korea, China and the Philippines
  
• Ritual execution of prisoners of war
  
• Sook Ching Massacre - The Kempeitai & Army rounded up locals & perceived hostile elements and murdered them in vast numbers
  
• I-8 - submariners beating torpedoed survivours to death with tools then lashing those that survived to the deck of the submarine and diving.
  
• The Massacre Of Manila - civilians murdered in hideous numbers
  
• Palawan Massacre - POW's buried alive
  
• Alexandra Hospital Massacre - the murder of defenseless injured people and hospital staff

These are hideous crimes carried out by savages following their perverted bushido code. It is sickening, not honourable.

Yet again, you completely miss the point. No-one is saying that the atrocities were honourable.

What was relevant to the point being made was a sense of honour and deference towards their royal family. Please stop insulting me by claiming I must be ignorant of atrocities which I have spent a great deal of time looking into. I have personally visited Unit 731, for one. Kneejerk reactions and assumptions that we must be stupid are not helping this thread.

Your reaction is about as useful as me bringing up the Holocaust in reaction to someone saying that Hitler was kind to his dog as though they were somehow saying Hitler was always kind. Neither insightful nor relevant.