REMEMBERANCE SUNDAY
curmudgeon
WHAT DOE'S IT MEAN TO YOU ?
SURELY YOUR PROUD
SHOUT IT OUT LOUD.
In remembrance to all who have gone before us.
In honor of all those now serving.
Thank you for your sacrifice.
Si Nicholls
news:U-Sdndu8quM...@bresnan.com...
> RED WHITE AND BLUE
> WHAT DOE'S IT MEAN TO YOU ?
>
> SURELY YOUR PROUD
What is my Proud?
> SHOUT IT OUT LOUD.
>
> In remembrance to all who have gone before us.
> In honor of all those now serving.
>
> Thank you for your sacrifice.
Thanuverymush
Love Pedant
Steve Bamford
"Si Nicholls" <s...@sinicholls.com> wrote in message
news:30013cF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "curmudgeon" <britica...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
> news:U-Sdndu8quM...@bresnan.com...
> > RED WHITE AND BLUE
> > WHAT DOE'S IT MEAN TO YOU ?
> >
(Another pedant)
On a more serious note (and getting even more OT) I would have more sympathy
for remembrance day if the message being promoted were that nothing like
this should be allowed to happen again - instead of which our leaders who
play such a prominent part in the proceedings are simultaneously asking more
young men and women to sacrifice their lives for a cause which is at best
highly dubious.
Steve
Paul Burke
>
> On a more serious note (and getting even more OT) I would have more sympathy
> for remembrance day if the message being promoted were that nothing like
> this should be allowed to happen again - instead of which our leaders who
> play such a prominent part in the proceedings are simultaneously asking more
> young men and women to sacrifice their lives for a cause which is at best
> highly dubious.
>
Of course, war doesn't just affect soldiers, however brave they are. I
spent the afternoon of 11/11 driving from Munich, which I haven't done
before, and felt a shock when the route took me through a pleasant
little town called Dachau.
Paul Burke
George Hawes
"curmudgeon" <britica...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> RED WHITE AND BLUE
> WHAT DOE'S IT MEAN TO YOU ?
More often or not these days, misguided individuals
doing evil in the name of "my" country.
G.
--
George Hawes, Sawston, Cambridge
(email responses to my posts are unlikely to arrive - sorry!)
Steve Gullick
"George Hawes" <george...@alt.null> wrote in message
news:dfb4f20e...@chawes.onetel.com...
Totally agree with you on that one George!
Charles Fregeau
Well, at least someone still remembers. . . .
Charles of Kankakee, IL.
Chris Rockcliffe
Last Sunday was originally about remembering the end of WWI. in Europe (the
war to end all wars) and honouring the dead of that war. It has been
extended to cover the dead of subsequent wars.
Lots of people remember. Lots have short memories. Many people don't agree
however with shouting of jingoistic, nationalist, patriot flag-waving crap
as illustrated by the illiterate curmudgeon.
So let's remember. Yes, 3 million British alone died in WWI. Millions more
were seriously maimed. Most died as canon and machine gun fodder because of
orders from incompetent buffoons to go *over the top* to what was almost
certain death. And for what?
So let's remember. Next time, say fuck to aspirations and greed of the
Kings; the Kaisers the Presidents and all other shits and tyrants who start
unnecessary, unjust and illegal wars, tell lies, spread hate and send
thousands of young men to their deaths.
Fuck them ALL. Yeah, let's remember.
CR
Charles Fregeau
"Chris Rockcliffe" <chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BDC5640A.4E103%chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk...
> Charles Fregeau20/11/04 4:01 PM
>
>>
> war to end all wars) and honouring the dead of that war. It has been
> extended to cover the dead of subsequent wars.
>
> Lots of people remember. Lots have short memories. Many people don't
> agree
> however with shouting of jingoistic, nationalist, patriot flag-waving crap
> as illustrated by the illiterate curmudgeon.
>
> So let's remember. Yes, 3 million British alone died in WWI. Millions
> more
> were seriously maimed. Most died as canon and machine gun fodder because
> of
> orders from incompetent buffoons to go *over the top* to what was almost
> certain death. And for what?
>
> So let's remember. Next time, say fuck to aspirations and greed of the
> Kings; the Kaisers the Presidents and all other shits and tyrants who
> start
> unnecessary, unjust and illegal wars, tell lies, spread hate and send
> thousands of young men to their deaths.
>
> Fuck them ALL. Yeah, let's remember.
>
> CR
>
Yes, let's also remember people that start wars such as the Japanese in
1941, Hitler in 1939, Al-Quida (sic) in 2001. Britain has survived.
America has survived, too. Y'all could be speaking German right now
otherwise. The French collaborator Vichys were. God knows what we'd be
speaking in America, but I suspect some Russian dialect. Dos vidanya y'all.
And here's to those who selflessly went 'over the top' so you and I could be
free. We just had Veterans Day here in the US last week, also. Also known
as Armistice Day. For 229 years here in America and since the days of the
Romans in Britain, there have been those who will fight for the right.
Appeasment never works. Remember Neville Chamberlain.
Charles of Kankakee
Terry
"Charles Fregeau" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPKdnStu9a6...@comcast.com...
> And here's to those who selflessly went 'over the top' so you and I could
be
> free. We just had Veterans Day here in the US last week, also. Also
known
> as Armistice Day. For 229 years here in America and since the days of the
> Romans in Britain, there have been those who will fight for the right.
>
> Appeasment never works. Remember Neville Chamberlain.
>
> Charles of Kankakee
>
war, nor to remember the 'glorious' dead.
Having seen a lot of dead people, there's no 'glory' - and the more violent
the death the less dignity.
It's to reflect on the millions who ensured that we have the chance to
prevent others from having to die.
It's to respect those who currently serve their countries, to thank them for
being willing to protect others.
Most importantly, it's to ensure that no politician ever lightly takes them
to war.
But as there has seldom been a single year in the last millenia when a war
has not been fought somewhere on this planet, we're not doing too
well........
Terry
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 09/11/2004
George Hawes
"Charles Fregeau" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Well, at least someone still remembers. . . .
Of course we still remember. The soldier's songs of the first world war
are at the heart of much of the UK folk movement, and feed into the anti-
war sentiment of many of us.
Or, closer to home, my father was sunk three times in the last war, before
I was ever thought of . . . It's certainly only through a fair share of
good fortune on his part that I am here today.
But I don't need the dubious politics and militarism of the Royal British
Legion to remind me. Nor anyone from the US "Late for every war in which
they ever fought ..." - until they could slaughter the lesser beings of
other nations from a safe distance.
George Hawes
"Charles Fregeau" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yes, let's also remember people that start wars such as the Japanese in
> 1941, Hitler in 1939, Al-Quida (sic) in 2001.
Hitler's actions were possible only because of the failure of the other
word powers to ensure a just peace after 1919. The destruction of the
twin towers was an inevitable consequence of the exploitative and injust
US policies overseas and expecially in the middle east. And has nothing
to do with any sort of war; "the war against terrorism" is a US fiction
to allow it to continue to pursue those policies more agressively than
in the past.
> Britain has survived. America has survived, too.
Yup. And the domestic appeasers like yourself allow the govenments of those
countries to move them ever more closely into line with exactly the sort
of evils which we associate with the Third Reich.
> Appeasment never works. Remember Neville Chamberlain.
So stop applyling the same logic to the evils being done by the US and UK.
bogus address
which you can't spell
> is not to provide a platform to embrace war, nor to remember the
> 'glorious' dead. [...]
> It's to reflect on the millions who ensured that we have the
> chance to prevent others from having to die.
Whish *is* claiming these people were all "glorious". Because many of
them died for no such reason: fighting in the Falklands to get Thatcher
re-elected, fighting in Greece to reinstall a Nazi-collaborator regime,
gunning down people fighting for the independence of Kenya, falling
drunk off lorries in West Germany while guarding nuclear weapon stores
intended to reduce the country to a radioactive desert in the interests
of anti-communism, crashing in aeroplanes while dropping mustard gas on
Kurdish civilians in the 1920s on behalf of BP.
> It's to respect those who currently serve their countries, to
> thank them for being willing to protect others.
The British soldiers currently on a spree of theft and mass murder in
Iraq are protecting nothing except the interests of Anglo-American
transnational corporations and are owed no such respect. I hope the
fuckers all die.
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.
Charles Fregeau
someone that did not wish America well, and there have been those who have
stood in the gap so there could be an America. Likewise in Britain.
Winston Churchill, for instance, wished that he had been listened to in the
'30's. We would have been able to stop that little paperhanger with almost
no cost in lives and treasure. Instead you had to fight for 6 years at
enormous cost to turn the tide. America got off lightly by comparison. We
didn't have to live with daily/nightly raids from Herman Goering's Flying
Circus, or the doodlebug, or that nasty little V-2 that you couldn't hear
until something just went BOOM. Or the danger of finding the odd unexploded
bomb after the war. . . .I don't see how you put up with it. We didn't put
up with it in Vietnam. We wimped out. We knew as early as 1955 that we
couldn't have won a war in Vietnam, but we got involved anyway. That was a
shame.
Few remember that after WW2, for a few years, that certain elements of
German society declared open season on the American and British forces.
Charles of Kankakee
Charles of Kankakee
Steve Gullick
"George Hawes" <george...@alt.null> wrote in message
Gosh, George, I find myself in full agreement once again! This is becoming a
habit.
Charles Fregeau
"George Hawes" <george...@alt.null> wrote in message
news:886b5011...@chawes.onetel.com...
We failed to satisfactorily end the first World War, so we got the second.
The Arabs hate us because we support Israel. They basically want to wipe
the US and Israel off the map. I think we should have taken that little
goof out of Iraq in 1991, none of the rest of this would have happened to
anywhere near like the same degree. He robbed the UN in the "Oil for Food"
fraud for nearly 12 years. I've personally known people the Arabs have
wanted to kill for 22 years now. I have no love for their religion of
blood. They are but a small part of the Arabian population who have
hijacked Islam for their purposes. I guess they are paying us back for the
Crusades, where we basically hijacked Christianity for the purposes of
'recapturing' their lands.
What goes around comes around.
Charles
Charles Fregeau
"George Hawes" <george...@alt.null> wrote in message
Yes, I think we should have been in WW1 a lot earlier. We might have had
some reason to demand a slightly less vengeful peace, and might have
mitigated the causes of WW2. We should have been involved in WW2 from 1939.
We paid dearly for not being there. The Cold War is one side effect of us
not being there soon enough, and not only did we pay, but the people of
Europe paid for 50 years in much greater degree.
You have to fight wars Chicago style. The enemy has to know that you are
willing to go toe-to-toe with him. Only then will he back down. If they
send one of yours to the hospital, you have to send one of theirs to the
morgue. Most enemies are usually so morally stupid that they will only
cease and desist molesting the peace of the world when you use them for
target practice. But there is always someone like a Hitler that wants what
they want and will spill any amount of blood and treasure to achieve it, be
it theirs or their enemies'. Britain was devastated after WW2, but so was
most of Europe. It was somewhat of a Pyhrric victory.
And what's sad is that Mr. Churchill, sitting on the back benches, saw the
coming storm and warned all who would listen. Few did. Had we not been so
bitter over here (America) about WW1, we might have been able to stand
nationally with Britain against the d----d paperhanger. I don't know that
it would have stopped the headlong rush into war, but it might have changed
it a bit.
Hitler does have one thing in common with Al Quada: An utter contempt for
Western Democracy.
Charles
Charles
Jon Freeman
> The British soldiers currently on a spree of theft and mass murder in
> Iraq are protecting nothing except the interests of Anglo-American
> transnational corporations and are owed no such respect. I hope the
> fuckers all die.
I can't agree with that. Much as I detest war, I do believe that we do need
armed forces to defend ourselves and can grugingly accept war as a last
resort. Although, doubtless there are some rogues, overall I do have respect
for those who are willing to risk their lives for our countries.
What I can't tolerate are those politcains who will go to war on lies, on
vested interests, etc. IMO they are fucking about with the soldiers' (who
are supposed to follow orders) lives as well as being responsible for murder
and inflicting other horrors on others. At times I do hope there are special
seats in hell reserved for the likes of Bush and Blair.
Terry
"bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:12...@purr.demon.co.uk...
> Whish *is* claiming these people were all "glorious". Because many of
> them died for no such reason: fighting in the Falklands to get Thatcher
> re-elected, fighting in Greece to reinstall a Nazi-collaborator regime,
> gunning down people fighting for the independence of Kenya, falling
> drunk off lorries in West Germany while guarding nuclear weapon stores
> intended to reduce the country to a radioactive desert in the interests
> of anti-communism, crashing in aeroplanes while dropping mustard gas on
> Kurdish civilians in the 1920s on behalf of BP.
MANY is not ALL.
None chose to die to get Thatcher re-elected, they were ordered to go
If you think that a serving soldier can choose which orders to obey you're
an idiot.
> > It's to respect those who currently serve their countries, to
> > thank them for being willing to protect others.
>
> The British soldiers currently on a spree of theft and mass murder in
> Iraq are protecting nothing except the interests of Anglo-American
> transnational corporations and are owed no such respect. I hope the
> fuckers all die.
Wonderful Sentiments, Jack. Hope you can convince the families. If that is
genuinely how you feel, were you celebrating the deaths of the Black Watch
lads on REMEMBRANCE Sunday?
Or are you simply thinking all wars are wrong (which they are) but can't
differentiate between the P.B.I's who fight and the fat cats who profit by
war?
I don't have reason to believe you're malicious so I'll apply 'Hanlon's
razor' to your remarks.
Chris Morriss
<n5...@comcast.net> writes
>
>The Arabs hate us because we support Israel.
I don't support Israel. They are a bunch of whining neo-fascists who
think the rest of the world should still fall head-over-heels to support
them because of what the jews suffered in WW2.
Why on earth the British should support Israel when you look at what the
jewish terrorists did to the British peace-keepers in the 1940s still
amazes me.
--
Chris Morriss
Chris Morriss
<george...@alt.null> writes
>But I don't need the dubious politics and militarism of the Royal British
>Legion to remind me. Nor anyone from the US "Late for every war in which
>they ever fought ..." - until they could slaughter the lesser beings of
>other nations from a safe distance.
>
>G.
Late for every previous war, but they're making sure they get in early
for all future ones.
--
Chris Morriss
Terry
"Chris Morriss" <cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AUFHXWC7...@oroboros.demon.co.uk...
For me to agree with George is rare - but he is right on the button with his
sentiments.
Bugger the politicians, militarists, profiteers and multi-national
'investors'
Remember the addage 'All that is neccesary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing'.
Why did 'Fools and horses' spring to mind when George mentioned his father,
I wonder? ;^)
Terry
Dominic Cronin
What's really nasty is the way the US and it's allies, including
Britain, have parted company with the long-standing convention that
countries are sovereign, in that they are entitled to determine their
form of government within their own borders. It's now becoming
commonplace for invasions to be "justified" on the grounds that those
in power weren't democratically elected.
The reason that international politics has been based on the notion of
sovereignty is that it works. Countries have to acknowledge the right
of their neighbours (in a very small world) to have secure borders.
The fact that we don't recognise the political system in someone
else'e country is no reason to throw world peace to the dogs. As soon
as we cease to recognise borders, we're asking to get bitten in the
arse big time.
OK - so when we invade Iran, it will be because they aren't real
democrats. King Saud is probably safe, as his family are probably rich
enough to cause trouble for their enemies even without a country as a
base. Still, it's no democracy.
When it all comes down, you can find a reason to discredit the quality
of democracy anywhere if you're trying to justify a war. Look at
Britain - it's actually ruled by the queen. She's commander in chief
of the armed forces, and all members of parliament must swear
allegience before being allowed to take their seats. (Remember the
Sinn Fein MPs?) So there you have it. Britain is a military
dictatorship - maybe that's why Tony Blair is so keen to stay pally
with the US!
My other pet hate lately is the substitution of the word "terrorist"
for "enemy". You can respect an enemy. You can even make friends with
an enemy and forgive each other. An enemy is a human being.
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
Chris Ryall
>I don't support Israel. They are a bunch of whining neo-fascists who
>think the rest of the world should still fall head-over-heels to
>support them because of what the jews suffered in WW2.
Sad isn't it, after the events of the Holocaust, that Israel is the only
state presently practising apartheid, one of few remaining with a racist
constitution, one of the very few presently expropriating land for its
population growth (as was Hitler's excuse for invading Slav lands!)
There is indeed a deep note of irony in all this.
I do wish this festering sore on the World body politic could be sorted
out or healed. That is to say the whole Middle East thing. I see a rare
opportunity with Arafat's demise. He was the routine excuse for Israel's
failure to negotiate. No such excuse now. But Blair, Chirac and others
haven't the clout as they don't subsidise the Zionist minority (!) in
Palestine in the way USA does.
It seems to me that President George W Bush just isn't the man for the
hour. After he derogated from the Kyoto Accord, I suspected that when
they circumcised him, they'd thrown the wrong bit away.
--
Chris Ryall (who took his kids round Auschwitz-Birkenau this summer)
Roddy Macdonald
message news:40r1q0l33ogdgjqqm...@4ax.com...
> OK - so when we invade Iran, it will be because they aren't real
> democrats. King Saud is probably safe, as his family are probably rich
> enough to cause trouble for their enemies even without a country as a
> base. Still, it's no democracy.
>
I suspect you'll find that King Fahd (Saud's reign ended in 1964) is
anything but safe in his 'Magic Kingdom'. I suspect that the chances of an
invasion of Iran are negligible: They have nothing worth the cost of
invading them for.
It is well known in Western circles that the Al Saud family's Kleptocracy
days are numbered.
I suspect that a major 'plus' in the invasion of Iraq was the
pre-positioning of a Western expeditionary force in Iraq to use to invade
Saudi when (not if) that country tumbles down the fundamentalist toilet.
--
Roddy Macdonald
Chris Ryall
>It's now becoming commonplace for invasions to be "justified" on the
>grounds that those in power weren't democratically elected.
The invasion was 'justified' on the basis of WMD's. Now that has been
shown to be a load of rubbish (sorry, false intelligence) our leaders
tell us it was no bad thing anyway, as Saddam was a sadistic murdering
bastard.
Having treated Iranian mustard gas casualties from that earlier war I
personally have little problem with this proposition - but was it worth
the war? I'd never heard anyone mention 'not democratically elected'.
Especially not G W Bush!
--
Chris Ryall Wirral UK
Jacey Bedford
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> writes
>The British soldiers currently on a spree of theft and mass murder in
>Iraq are protecting nothing except the interests of Anglo-American
>transnational corporations and are owed no such respect. I hope the
>fuckers all die.
>
:-(
But the kids in uniform are not the ones who dictate policy.
True, anyone joining the army ought to be aware of the ultimate deeds
they might have to perform or the ultimate sacrifice they might have to
make and there are career soldiers who obviously into it with eyes wide
open...
But there are also kids who are recruits for economic and employment
reasons. Or kids who joined up because it seemed like a good idea at the
time. Or kids who had nowhere else to go.
I don't support the war, far from it, but if I could wave a magic wand,
my fervent wish would be that no-one else would die - on any side of the
conflict.
Re all the rest of the talk about the war... George and Terry are
talking a lot of sense.
(Unlike George, whose father survived being sunk three times, I'm only
here because my mum's fiancee didn't come back from a bombing run over
Germany, however my dad survived driving a tank through the Western
Desert.)
Our village has just erected an outdoor war memorial where no war
memorial has ever been and I was one of the ones opposing it. I reckon
if no-one was moved to erect one in 1918 or 1945, erecting one now just
because someone has access to grant money is a bit pointless.
What we do have - and it's an amazing piece of village history - is a
huge framed board containing the photographs of all the soldiers,
sailors and airmen from the village who fought in WW1. Amazingly all but
five of them came home again. Anyone coming to one of our Birdsedge Live
gigs in the Village Hall can see it on display. Last year we managed to
get some close up digital photos and I'm restoring them via photoshop to
return them to their former clarity - or as close as I can get, anyway.
Some are badly faded and marked so it's a long slow job, but I'm almost
halfway through.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
bogus address
>> Whish *is* claiming these people were all "glorious". Because many of
>> them died for no such reason: fighting in the Falklands to get Thatcher
>> re-elected, fighting in Greece to reinstall a Nazi-collaborator regime,
>> gunning down people fighting for the independence of Kenya, falling
>> drunk off lorries in West Germany while guarding nuclear weapon stores
>> intended to reduce the country to a radioactive desert in the interests
>> of anti-communism, crashing in aeroplanes while dropping mustard gas on
>> Kurdish civilians in the 1920s on behalf of BP.
> MANY is not ALL.
No, but YOU were advocating we glorify them all without exception. You
cut your own comment that I was replying to: it was this:
>>> is not to provide a platform to embrace war, nor to remember the
>>> 'glorious' dead. [...]
>>> It's to reflect on the millions who ensured that we have the
>>> chance to prevent others from having to die.
No hint there that ANY of those millions were murdering scum killed
in self-defence by people whose lives, liberty and property were
considered expendable by the British state and who were justifiably
resisting it by armed force.
> None chose to die to get Thatcher re-elected, they were ordered to
> go If you think that a serving soldier can choose which orders to
> obey you're an idiot.
If you think wearing a uniform excuses you from considering the morality
of the orders you're given you're an apologist for war criminals.
You seem to be under the deluded impression that soldiers are workers
in uniform with no choice about the job they're doing. They were once,
but nobody under pensionable age could ever have met one like that.
They are now a hereditary class of hired killers. They ALL had the
choice of not joining the military in the first place. They joined up
for money and fully aware of how despicable some of the work they'd be
asked to do might be.
>>> It's to respect those who currently serve their countries, to
>>> thank them for being willing to protect others.
>> The British soldiers currently on a spree of theft and mass murder in
>> Iraq are protecting nothing except the interests of Anglo-American
>> transnational corporations and are owed no such respect. I hope the
>> fuckers all die.
> Wonderful Sentiments, Jack. Hope you can convince the families.
Who gives a fuck? Military families have usually been murdering goons
for generations and are beyond moral persuasion. The latest will just
get his picture on the mantelpiece beside the one of Great-Grandpa at
the time he helped out with the Amritsar Massacre and the one of Dad in
his Para uniform after Bloody Sunday.
In some communities in the UK, people who join the Army get totally
ostracized. Who knows that some of the families of these dead thugs
might not feel the same way? If so, you're going to have a long wait
before the British media tells you about their feelings.
> If that is genuinely how you feel, were you celebrating the deaths of
> the Black Watch lads on REMEMBRANCE Sunday?
I pretty much forgot Remembrance Sunday was happening. I was delighted
the insurgents had managed to get a few of the bastards when it happened
a few days before.
Chris Ryall
>In some communities in the UK, people who join the Army get totally
>ostracize
Interesting! Where?
Molly Mockford
in <89ugY$1INZoBFwLb@[127.0.0.1]>:
>bogus address wrote on "REMEMBERANCE SUNDAY"
>>In some communities in the UK, people who join the Army get totally
>>ostracize
>
> Interesting! Where?
Chatham?
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Ian White
>What's really nasty is the way the US and it's allies, including
>Britain,
Let's get this right: the US *government* and its allies, including the
British *government*...
Governments everywhere want us to forget that difference - so let's make
a point of always saying it.
--
Ian White
Abingdon, England
Terry
> cut your own comment that I was replying to: it was this:
>
> >>> is not to provide a platform to embrace war, nor to remember the
> >>> 'glorious' dead. [...]
> >>> It's to reflect on the millions who ensured that we have the
> >>> chance to prevent others from having to die.
The word 'glorious' was in quotes - there is no glory in death.
Why wish for more on either side?
You're as bad as Bush, Blair or Saddam but with less influence, thank god.
Despite the bile in your comments, the rest of your ranting crap I'll
continue to ignore as stupidity.
Chris Ryall
>>>In some communities in the UK, people who join the Army get totally
>>>ostracize
>>
>> Interesting! Where?
>
>Chatham?
Is this 'totally' totally - or 'someone and her circle' totally?
--
Chris Ryall
Terry
"Chris Ryall" <groups2@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:Ftwu8o6xBaoBFw9m@[127.0.0.1]...
Probably 'totally totally' - Chatham being a Naval town.....
I think Molly caught you, Chris! ;^)
Terry
Roddy Macdonald
> for generations and are beyond moral persuasion. The latest will just
> get his picture on the mantelpiece beside the one of Great-Grandpa at
> the time he helped out with the Amritsar Massacre and the one of Dad in
> his Para uniform after Bloody Sunday.
>
>
> I pretty much forgot Remembrance Sunday was happening. I was delighted
> the insurgents had managed to get a few of the bastards when it happened
> a few days before.
Your bilious attitude towards the British military is beyond the psychotic.
I dare say you'd be one of the 'trendy' types who'd be horrified if anyone
wrote off (or rejoiced at the deaths of) other classes of people in the same
terms. However, your attitude is no different to the Good ol' Boys who
applauded lynchings in the deep South or those who rejoiced at the news of
the Admiral Duncan pub bombing in London: Or would you also rejoice if there
were a few less Niggers and Queers to worry about as well?
I had admired your work - how did you manage to stomach transcribing the
work of P/M GS McLennan, a 'murdering goon'?
--
Roddy Macdonald
(Former Army & RAF Officer from a long line of 'murdering goons', though
many of my friends were 1st generation Servicemen and women)
Martin Banks
dom...@ReplaceThisBitWithMySurname.co.uk (Dominic Cronin)
wrote:
(snip)
> OK - so when we invade Iran, it will be because they
> aren't real
> democrats. King Saud is probably safe, as his family are
> probably rich
> enough to cause trouble for their enemies even without a
> country as a
> base. Still, it's no democracy.
Saudi Arabia is a very good example of the fundamental
problem, in my view. Not democratic at all (and very close
to going tits up as a political structure), but a jolly good
chum of the USA, so well looked after. `Democracy is
irrelevant. It is all about how much any government with a
useful geographic or economic resource is willing to kiss
the ass of the US administration (and in this context, the
Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans (if you
remove the Neo-Con influences).
For what it's worth, my 50p bet is on seeing the US roll
into Saudi (notionally to `support' the Saud/Bin Laden
family businesses) as its political systems fall apart.
> My other pet hate lately is the substitution of the word
> "terrorist"
> for "enemy". You can respect an enemy. You can even make
> friends with
> an enemy and forgive each other. An enemy is a human
> being.
>
What surprises me most about this is that so many supposedly
intelligent people are so easy to influence with the image
of the `bogey man'. Just say `terrorist' and millions of
people seem to act like frightened 2 year-olds when Granddad
pops out from behind the door and shouts `boo!!'. I'd just
love it if everyone in the UK would just stand up and shout
`Grow up and get a life, Blunket'.
Martin Banks
nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk (Molly Mockford) wrote:
> At 07:20:40 on Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Chris Ryall
> <groups2@[127.0.0.1]wrote in
> > <89ugY$1INZoBFwLb@[127.0.0.1]>:
>
> >bogus address wrote on "REMEMBERANCE SUNDAY"
> >>In some communities in the UK, people who join the Army
> get totally
> >>ostracize
> >
> > Interesting! Where?
>
> Chatham?
Thinking about it, I have heard in the past that this was
known to happen in places like Aldershot, where the army is
based. `Our boys' are - or certainly have been - much
despised.
Martin Banks
n5...@comcast.net (Charles Fregeau) wrote:
>
> You have to fight wars Chicago style. The enemy has to
> know that you are willing to go toe-to-toe with him.
> Only then will he back down. If they send one of yours
> to the hospital, you have to send one of theirs to the
> morgue. Most enemies are usually so morally stupid that
> they will only cease and desist molesting the peace of
> the world when you use them for target practice. But
> there is always someone like a Hitler that wants what
> they want and will spill any amount of blood and treasure
> to achieve it, be it theirs or their enemies'.
And there never seems to be the possibility of
anyone in the US considering that the current,
corporate-dominated administration might just possibly be
seen in exactly the same light, right now, by most other
peoples of the world.
> Britain
> was devastated after WW2, but so was most of Europe. It
> was somewhat of a Pyhrric victory.
Not in anyway helped by various post WW2 US administrations
demanding full payment of war loans out into the 1960s.
Business is, after all, business.
> Hitler does have one thing in common with Al Quada: An
> utter contempt for Western Democracy.
>
A factor common to most western politicians once they are
in office, in practice.
Martin Banks
Even before the invasion is was being `justified' in any one
of half a dozen reasons, none of which were real. I suspect
the real truth would be a petulant `because we want to'
bogus address
> Your bilious attitude towards the British military is beyond the
> stomach transcribing the work of P/M GS McLennan, a 'murdering goon'?
As I said, there have been periods in the past (back when the press
gang and conscription were the norm) when it was reasonable to see
most British soldiers as workers in uniform.
GS was of such a generation, but I don't see how that excuses his
involvement in strikebreaking in Manchester and Liverpool in 1911.
That was a year of international revolutionary struggle, met with
military repression (mainly of dock workers) everywhere from the
UK to the US, Australia and New Zealand. If the soldiers who put
those strikes down at gunpoint had sided with the workers instead,
there would have been no World War 1. Or its consequences.
bogus address
>> In some communities in the UK, people who join the Army get totally
> Interesting! Where?
Catholic communities in Belfast, Derry or Glasgow; most mining
communities in central Scotland (while the mines were still
open - some have been so shattered by goverenment-inspired social
destruction since Thatcher that few men of serving age are fit
enough for the army anyway).
George Hawes
"Jon Freeman" <j...@folkinfo.org> wrote:
> Although, doubtless there are some rogues, overall I do have respect
> for those who are willing to risk their lives for our countries.
This is interesting if OT. I think you will find there are a whole raft
of reasons why people sign up to the military. With those signing on as
"other ranks" then wanting a job is probably as common a reason as any (and
was probably once the dominant reason); however there is certainly a
significant majority who enlist hoping for the oportunity to shoot up
someone, somewhere.
Certainly I wouldn't go as far as Jack - indeed I find it difficult to
wish anyone dead - but I do find the attitude which counts US/UK lives
as somehow more valuable than Iraqi lives (whether or not the Iraquis are
military/insurgents) utterly abhorent.
Amongst those who enlist as officers there's no doubt an even wider range
of reasons - some of which may even be misplaced nobility!
Regards
George Hawes
Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> But there are also kids who are recruits for economic and employment
> reasons. Or kids who joined up because it seemed like a good idea at the
> time. Or kids who had nowhere else to go.
Indeed, all too often. And it takes far more courage and strength of
character (for want of a more adequate term) to stand up and say
"no" once one has enlisted than it does to simply accept the momentum
of the crowd ... it's one of the things military "discipline" builds on
(combined with not telling conscripts their rights regarding conscientious
objection). IMO those who are enlisted and then decide they can't engage
in a particular action are the REAL modern war heroes.
> What we do have - and it's an amazing piece of village history - is a
> huge framed board containing the photographs of all the soldiers,
> sailors and airmen from the village who fought in WW1. Amazingly all but
> five of them came home again. Anyone coming to one of our Birdsedge Live
> gigs in the Village Hall can see it on display. Last year we managed to
> get some close up digital photos and I'm restoring them via photoshop to
> return them to their former clarity - or as close as I can get, anyway.
> Some are badly faded and marked so it's a long slow job, but I'm almost
> halfway through.
Given that, why on earth should anyone want a "new" memorial? Your effort
seems altogether more commendible and appropriate.
G
George Hawes
"Charles Fregeau" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yes, I think we should have been in WW1 a lot earlier.
Frankly, your article is the biggest load of nonsense I have read in a
long time. Above all it draws some moral distinction between the two sides
in war - which often (e.g. in WW1 and the current Iraq war) simply is not
the case.
Regards
G.
George Hawes
"Steve Gullick" <Steve....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Gosh, George, I find myself in full agreement once again!
> This is becoming a habit.
Somehow I doubt that. One of the great things about uk.m.f. is that you
seldom know with whom you'll agree or disagree on any particular subject!
But I'm glad we're in general agreement on these matters which - IMO,
clearly - are of greater importance than the areas where we disagree
profoundly!
Cheers!
G.
ps Ooops, that looks like a surfeit of exclamations ...
Dick Gaughan
08:22:11 -0600, "Charles Fregeau" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Had we not been so
>bitter over here (America) about WW1, we might have been able to stand
>nationally with Britain against the d----d paperhanger.
You've used that description twice therefore I assume you really
do believe that Hitler was a house decorator. He was actually the
other kind of painter, albeit not a particularly talented one. A
bit like your crude attempts at trolling, come to think of it.
Discussions of American foreign policy past, present or future are
completely off-topic in uk.music.folk unless they have at least a
tenuous relationship to songs, tunes, singers or musicians likely
to be heard in a British folk club. This "discussion" has none,
your comments in particular being merely mindless regurgitations
of cobweb-encrusted, we're the big kid so let's kick some ass
gung-ho cliches osmoted from John Wayne and Rambo movies without
even a pretense at being related to music, folk or otherwise. Or
even to reality.
Now toddle off and play somewhere else where your shit-stirring
nonsense may at least have the slender redeeming merit of being
vaguely related to the group topic.
This whole thread started out as a spectacularly incompetent and
clumsy troll (by a known wrecker in one of its sockpuppet
identities, 'curmudgeon') which had "he-he-he, let's see how many
of them leftie folkies I can catch with this!!!" written in huge
capital letters all over it in a semi-literate adolescent hand
still glistening with the putrescence dribbling off an
acne-infested suppurating countenance. I thought "Our old friend's
still at it, I see, but nobody's going to bite one that obvious."
I was wrong, and it's turned into a food-fest for trolls and, as
always happens when off-topic troll threads on American
imperialism are indulged in here in umf, a huge spat amongst
genuine posters. Which was, of course, the troll's intent.
Clue : if a post starting a new thread reads like it was posted by
a cross between Colonel Blimp and Outraged of Tunbridge Wells,
congratulations, you just found a troll.
http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_trol.html
--
DG
George Hawes
Chris Morriss <cr...@oroboros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Why on earth the British should support Israel when you look at what the
> jewish terrorists did to the British peace-keepers in the 1940s still
> amazes me.
Yes, a timely reminder that the state of Israel is born out of terrorism.
Thanks, Chris.
G.
George Hawes
"Charles Fregeau" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> We failed to satisfactorily end the first World War, so we got the second.
No, we turned away from justice in trying to work out the peace
>
> The Arabs hate us because we support Israel.
No, again they - and most of the rest of the world - hate the injustice
of your position regarding Israel and Palestine.
> They basically want to wipe the US and Israel off the map.
Paranoid claptrap
> I think we should have taken that little goof out of Iraq in 1991,
Oh, on what basis? And remember it's you, even more than us, who sustained
him in power. Also, he's less of a goof than most of your leaders, and
still managed to make a political triumph for himself out of his court
appearance. Saddam is a little evil figure, with very limited power; US
presidents tend to be be pigmys of disproportionate evil and even more
disproportionate power ...
> He robbed the UN in the "Oil for Food" fraud for nearly 12 years.
A remark of limited truth and even less moral significance, given the
death toll of the US-imposed sanctions on Iraq.
> I have no love for their religion of blood.
Now you are talking Judaeism, I presume.
> They are but a small part of the Arabian population who have
> hijacked Islam for their purposes.
Who are? Those who hate the US? Probably at least 80% of the Arab people
hate the US. (That's a guess. But the figure for the rest of the world
won't be much less.) However the vast majority of them do not hold US
citizens personally responsible for the international wrongs of their
Government and so don't support actions against "ordinary" citizens.
Whereas others accept such casualtis as what the euphemistic US purveyors
of newspeak would probably call "colateral damage"
George Hawes
"Charles Fregeau" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Like I said to some friends, there have been 229 years in which there was
> someone that did not wish America well, and there have been those who have
> stood in the gap so there could be an America.
Your ramblings become more absurd with each successive post ...
George Hawes
Dominic Cronin <dom...@ReplaceThisBitWithMySurname.co.uk> wrote:
> What's really nasty is the way the US and it's allies, including
> Britain, have parted company with the long-standing convention that
> countries are sovereign, in that they are entitled to determine their
> form of government within their own borders. It's now becoming
> commonplace for invasions to be "justified" on the grounds that those
> in power weren't democratically elected.
Indeed. It's a most strange morality which allows a nation (and its
poodles) to ignore all international law in order to impose democracy
on (carefully selected) foreign states.
Almost as strange as their practice of a "Christianity" which Christ
would never recognise as having anything to do with his teachings ...
Dominic Cronin
<nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Dominic Cronin" <dom...@ReplaceThisBitWithMySurname.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:40r1q0l33ogdgjqqm...@4ax.com...
>> OK - so when we invade Iran, it will be because they aren't real
>> democrats. King Saud is probably safe, as his family are probably rich
>> enough to cause trouble for their enemies even without a country as a
>> base. Still, it's no democracy.
>>
>
>I suspect you'll find that King Fahd (Saud's reign ended in 1964) is
>anything but safe in his 'Magic Kingdom'. I suspect that the chances of an
>invasion of Iran are negligible: They have nothing worth the cost of
>invading them for.
>
>It is well known in Western circles that the Al Saud family's Kleptocracy
>days are numbered.
>
>I suspect that a major 'plus' in the invasion of Iraq was the
>pre-positioning of a Western expeditionary force in Iraq to use to invade
>Saudi when (not if) that country tumbles down the fundamentalist toilet.
Thanks for correcting these details. My point, however, still stands.
Iraq and Saudi Arabia were simply the most obvious examples that came
to hand. I'm not sure about Iraq having nothing worth the trouble
though.
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
George Hawes
"Roddy Macdonald" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect that a major 'plus' in the invasion of Iraq was the
> pre-positioning of a Western expeditionary force in Iraq to use to invade
> Saudi when (not if) that country tumbles down the fundamentalist toilet.
I thought the "Campaign for the New American Centry" (sorry, I've almost
certainly got the title wrong - but it's one of the "Bush and friends"
clubs) argued that the Saudi oil supplies were vulnerable to internal
unrest, and therefore it would be a strategic move to secure the Iraqi
well heads at the earliest opportunity?
Dominic Cronin
erm... Iran
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
George Hawes
Dick Gaughan <di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Clue : if a post starting a new thread reads like it was posted by
> a cross between Colonel Blimp and Outraged of Tunbridge Wells,
> congratulations, you just found a troll.
Thanks, Dick - although I at least have enjoyed finding common ground
with a number of people with whom I more usually find myself at odds ...
bogus address
>> Had we not been so bitter over here (America) about WW1, we might have
>> been able to stand nationally with Britain against the d----d paperhanger.
> You've used that description twice therefore I assume you really
> do believe that Hitler was a house decorator. He was actually the
> other kind of painter, albeit not a particularly talented one.
Have you actually seen any of Hitler's paintings? I've seen a large
book of them once. He wasn't bad at all, in a derivative-of-Boecklin
sort of way; certainly he could paint rings round Winston Churchill.
He could easily get a job today doing fantasy novel covers.
He had an obsession with massive ruins. Part of the Third Reich's
cultural programme was inspired by this - build structures with a
lot of sheer mass, so that centuries of total neglect would still
leave something making a statement.
Dick Gaughan
bo...@purr.demon.co.uk (bogus address) wrote:
>Have you actually seen any of Hitler's paintings?
Not knowingly. My comment on his abilities was a presumption based
on a crude amalgam of Marxist and Calvinist logics, i.e., that if
he'd been any good at it, he wouldn't have had spare time to waste
invading Russia and plotting world domination.
>He had an obsession with massive ruins. Part of the Third Reich's
>cultural programme was inspired by this - build structures with a
>lot of sheer mass, so that centuries of total neglect would still
>leave something making a statement.
One thing which did disturb me recently was hearing a rumour that
the ruins of Marienkirche in Dresden are being removed and the
church rebuilt. I don't know if that's true, but I truly hope not.
The single bombed and burned out ruin left standing there amongst
the mass of modern architecture was one of the more chilling
monuments I've ever seen and screamed "Lest we forget" louder than
any banner or choir.
--
DG
Chris Ryall
>Probably 'totally totally' - Chatham being a Naval town.....
>
>I think Molly caught you, Chris! ;^)
Touché
Molly Mockford
in <mIG2V5$o2uoBFwav@[127.0.0.1]>:
>Terry wrote on "REMEMBERANCE SUNDAY"
>>Probably 'totally totally' - Chatham being a Naval town.....
>>
>>I think Molly caught you, Chris! ;^)
>
> Touché
A classic moment from the days of Harold Wilson:
Wilson (in full flow): "And why do I stress the importance of the Navy?"
Heckler: "Because you're in Chatham, that's why."
Jacey Bedford
<george...@alt.null> writes
>In message <hoAC0JNX...@artifact.demon.co.uk>
>> What we do have - and it's an amazing piece of village history - is a
>> huge framed board containing the photographs of all the soldiers,
>> sailors and airmen from the village who fought in WW1. Amazingly all but
>> five of them came home again. Anyone coming to one of our Birdsedge Live
>> gigs in the Village Hall can see it on display. Last year we managed to
>> get some close up digital photos and I'm restoring them via photoshop to
>> return them to their former clarity - or as close as I can get, anyway.
>> Some are badly faded and marked so it's a long slow job, but I'm almost
>> halfway through.
>
>Given that, why on earth should anyone want a "new" memorial? Your effort
>seems altogether more commendible and appropriate.
>
remembered that she was without her husband for the best part of six
years and we're all being horrible if we don't acknowledge that as a
fact.
While I'm sure she missed her husband (who eventually came home but died
some years ago) my argument that she's 59 years late paying her respects
to his war service didn't seem to go down very well.
I'm just a bit bemused that the only reason the war memorial idea seems
to have been stirred up is because there's an organisation providing
information on a grant scheme for war memorials.
Surreal or what!
There's got to be a good song in it...
Hmmm... now let's see.... do I know a songwriter?
:-)
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
Terry
"Jacey Bedford" <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:Dbv6IyFq...@artifact.demon.co.uk...
>
> Hmmm... now let's see.... do I know a songwriter?
>
Nah, there's only snigger/snogwriters here.....
:-P
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 09/11/2004
George Hawes
Dick Gaughan <di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> One thing which did disturb me recently was hearing a rumour that
> the ruins of Marienkirche in Dresden are being removed
I thought the Marienkirche was in Berlin, and it was the Frauenkirche
in Dresden. Which has now been restored and re-opened. Or perhaps I
missed something on our visit to Dresden ...
Julian Flood
"Jacey Bedford" wrote
> I'm just a bit bemused that the only reason the war memorial idea seems
> to have been stirred up is because there's an organisation providing
> information on a grant scheme for war memorials.
Somewhere in Derbyshire -- maybe Notts -- there's a roadside memorial The
names are set out neatly, a border engraved around the list of names. At the
bottom, outside the border and with another border carved around them, are
the words '& W Bardney'. Someone obviously forgot him.
Back in the '60s Remembrance Sunday was a major village event, with the
church packed and the Squadron standards going off to various local churches
to be laid on the altar during the service. At war memorials the dead
received the royal salute, the standard lowered to the ground in their
memory. I still find the sight of a standard, the battle honours of many
brave dead men, being laid in the dust an incredibly moving experience. Even
now it's an occasion, with the BRL flag going to church and the old soldiers
wearing their medals.
A few years ago we did The D Day Dodgers in the VH at Christmas and got a
big shout of approval from one old soldier at the back.
There's a book of patriotic things which has been privately published by a
chappie called Courtauld, £6.99, maybe on the web somewhere*, full of
significant dates and patriotic speeches. It is recommended as a trollish
present for leftie friends. I can think of no other market: after all, we
don't need to talk of these things, do we?
JF
* www.pocketbookofpatriotism.com
Dick Gaughan
20:25:18 GMT, George Hawes <george...@alt.null> wrote:
>I thought the Marienkirche was in Berlin, and it was the Frauenkirche
>in Dresden.
Could well be - my memory of it is going back 20-odd years and it
is not in the least unlikely that my one remaining functioning
braincell is scrambling the data.
"Growing old ain't for softies."
--
DG