They gave their tomorrows for our todays
Brian Sunderland
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn*
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them
Bri
--
All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.
--Arthur Schopenhauer
The Todal
"Brian Sunderland" <b...@absinthebri.com> wrote in message
news:aqo32k$bd766$1...@ID-107424.news.dfncis.de...
> They shall grow not old....as we that are left grow old
> Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn*
> At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them
>
> Bri
Up to a point. I don't want to offend anyone, but I do think there is a
dearth of discussion on our motives in holding a Remembrance Day.
They didn't "give" their tomorrows, as much as see their tomorrows torn from
their grasp. Vast numbers of young men of all nations have died,
unwillingly, at the whim of politicians seeking some sort of temporary
strategic advantage. Only in a few cases can we see a clear-cut moral
imperative such as the need to defeat Hitler. Yes, war is probably an
unavoidable evil, but let us not pretend that soldiers make a voluntary
sacrifice or that it should be a glorious example to us all. You could as
well have a remembrance day for those coal miners who have perished in the
course of their work: they gave their tomorrows so that we could have warmth
and light. Some were brave, some were just doing their job, some were
skivers.
This "we will remember them" - what exactly does it mean? You can remember
the old photos, you can remember photos of your grandad as a young man in
his uniform, you can remember the little boats of Dunkirk and people
crowding the underground stations during the Blitz, but that's little more
than self-indulgent nostalgia. You can remember the stories of heroism but
that tends to glamourise war and is self-deluding because most soldiers
don't die in a heroic way, they are blown up by a stray piece of explosive.
You can remember how important it is to avoid future wars and to spare our
sons and grandsons from futile death, but some of us say "don't attack Iraq"
and others say "attack Iraq in order to avoid even worse bloodshed" and
nobody really knows which is right.
So I suppose all we're left with is remembering them in our donations to the
Poppy fund, which is very deserving of support but not particularly more so
than other charities.
I expect somewhere I have failed to see the obvious - can anyone else tell
me what they understand by "we will remember them" and what they think about
during the one minute's silence? Then I can try to do better next year.
Brian Sunderland
Perhaps you should read my post instead of projecting your fantasy onto it.
Monkey Hanger
The poem was "written in honour of the heroic dead of WW1 by Laurence
Binyon" [1]. I think that this might explain why the Todal was projecting
his "fantasy" onto it. I saw nothing in your post to suggest that there was
any other interpretation required. Perhaps you could enlighten us?
[1] http://www.geocities.com/hal9000report/hal58.html
See also http://www.ozbird.com/oz/anzac.htm for the full version which also
includes the unexplained asterisk in your original post.
--
Chris
The Todal
> I don't recall mentioning Remembrance Day and I mentioned no conflict.
>
> Perhaps you should read my post instead of projecting your fantasy onto
it.
>
> Bri
Well, that was unexpected. So you weren't talking about remembrance day or
wars even though that most famous of poems that you quoted is usually
declaimed in the context of remembrance day. It presents us with quite a
challenge to figure out what your post therefore could have been about.
Ironic really. "We will remember them", but I for one don't know what's in
your head. Your shopping list, perhaps?
If you were simply overcome with the urge to quote random poetry at us, may
I commend "Ode to Autumn" by Keats? Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness.
Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun. Conspiring with us how to load and
bless with fruits the vines that round the thatch-eaves run...." Okay, it's
off topic for uk.legal, just as yours was, but I think it's perfect for
when you're sweeping up the leaves on your lawn.
Cynic
<b...@absinthebri.com> wrote:
>I don't recall mentioning Remembrance Day and I mentioned no conflict.
>
>Perhaps you should read my post instead of projecting your fantasy onto it.
You post on the 11th November, without any additional explanation, a
section of a poem dedicated to those who lost their life during a war
and exhorting us to remember them, and now you want us to believe that
you were not referring to Remembrance Day or any conflict.
Do you think we are stupid, gullible or both?
I agree with Todal's post. Perhaps what we should be "remembering"
during the silence is that it is far better to do everything possible
to avoid war because of its consequences than to climb on the
knee-jerk bandwagons of the politicians who are not risking their own
necks in the furtherance of their petty ambitions. I don't think many
people do think about it deeply enough.
--
Cynic
Brian Sunderland
This is uk.legal. Er...
> I don't think many people do think about it deeply enough.
I agree with you. When I remember I think of all those who gave their lives
for what they believed in, from all sides of a conflict. I think especially
of non-combatants. I think of the people losing their lives in their daily
work for me and my community; police officers, fire fighters, lifeboat crew.
I think will we ever learn.
Peter McLelland
"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
news:grdvsusa604vpab1d...@4ax.com...
strong conviction that avoidance of war by appeasement is even worse than
war as it condemns many people to death and abuse of their human rights.
History shows that malevolent dictators are never satisfied with what they
have, and that they will do anything to both their own people, and their
neighbours to remaining power. Taking a strong stand against aggressors and
abusers of human rights early even accepting the risk of war will in the
longer term cause less suffering.
Peter
Cynic
<peter.m...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>> I agree with Todal's post. Perhaps what we should be "remembering"
>> during the silence is that it is far better to do everything possible
>> to avoid war because of its consequences than to climb on the
>> knee-jerk bandwagons of the politicians who are not risking their own
>> necks in the furtherance of their petty ambitions. I don't think many
>> people do think about it deeply enough.
>Whilst I would never try to suggest that war is a good thing, I do have a
>strong conviction that avoidance of war by appeasement is even worse than
>war as it condemns many people to death and abuse of their human rights.
Depends why the war is being fought.
>History shows that malevolent dictators are never satisfied with what they
>have, and that they will do anything to both their own people, and their
>neighbours to remaining power. Taking a strong stand against aggressors and
>abusers of human rights early even accepting the risk of war will in the
>longer term cause less suffering.
The problem is in being able to gather sufficient facts to be able to
decide whether a war is likely to be a "good thing". Every war has at
least two sides. Each side comprises for the most part of quite
ordinary, reasonable people who have been persuaded by their
respective governments that *theirs* is the cause that is right and
just, and the opposing side are the bad guys.
In most of the recent conflicts, as with the proposed war that we are
quite likely to become involved, I am by no means certain who is the
aggressor and who will end up being oppressed.
--
Cynic
Alan Hope
>Bri
>--
>All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
>violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.
>--Arthur Schopenhauer
Is it only coincidence that Brian is using Dark Magus's .sig quote?
--
AH
Peter McLelland
"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:00:34 -0000, "Peter McLelland"
> <peter.m...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
> >> I agree with Todal's post. Perhaps what we should be "remembering"
> >> during the silence is that it is far better to do everything possible
> >> to avoid war because of its consequences than to climb on the
> >> knee-jerk bandwagons of the politicians who are not risking their own
> >> necks in the furtherance of their petty ambitions. I don't think many
> >> people do think about it deeply enough.
>
> >Whilst I would never try to suggest that war is a good thing, I do have a
> >strong conviction that avoidance of war by appeasement is even worse than
> >war as it condemns many people to death and abuse of their human rights.
>
> Depends why the war is being fought.
Of course, but at the same time appeasement in general only results in more
suffering and usually a worse war that might otherwise have happened.
>
> >History shows that malevolent dictators are never satisfied with what
they
> >have, and that they will do anything to both their own people, and their
> >neighbours to remaining power. Taking a strong stand against aggressors
and
> >abusers of human rights early even accepting the risk of war will in the
> >longer term cause less suffering.
>
> The problem is in being able to gather sufficient facts to be able to
> decide whether a war is likely to be a "good thing". Every war has at
> least two sides. Each side comprises for the most part of quite
> ordinary, reasonable people who have been persuaded by their
> respective governments that *theirs* is the cause that is right and
> just, and the opposing side are the bad guys.
A lot depends on whether you feal that the abuse of human rights by others
in other countries is your problem, or just some one elses.
>
> In most of the recent conflicts, as with the proposed war that we are
> quite likely to become involved, I am by no means certain who is the
> aggressor and who will end up being oppressed.
>
Perhaps the death rate before and after may be an indicator.
Peter
Cynic
<peter.m...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>> >Whilst I would never try to suggest that war is a good thing, I do have a
>> >strong conviction that avoidance of war by appeasement is even worse than
>> >war as it condemns many people to death and abuse of their human rights.
>> Depends why the war is being fought.
>Of course, but at the same time appeasement in general only results in more
>suffering and usually a worse war that might otherwise have happened.
The result being reported by the victor - who is hardly likely to
report that the war has made the situation worse.
>> The problem is in being able to gather sufficient facts to be able to
>> decide whether a war is likely to be a "good thing". Every war has at
>> least two sides. Each side comprises for the most part of quite
>> ordinary, reasonable people who have been persuaded by their
>> respective governments that *theirs* is the cause that is right and
>> just, and the opposing side are the bad guys.
>A lot depends on whether you feal that the abuse of human rights by others
>in other countries is your problem, or just some one elses.
No, the problem is being able to gather enough facts to decide whether
there are indeed serious abuses routinely taking place, or whether you
have been hoodwinked into believing that to be the case.
The Serbian situation is a classic. The UK media did a 180 degree
reversal of who were the bad guys and who were the good guys in just 3
years. We ended up going to war against the people who just a few
years previously were reported to have had their rights being grossly
violated by the people we ended up helping.
Unless you have lived for a reasonable length of time in a country,
you are not in a position to understand the culture, the problems or
the appropriateness of the solutions being adopted by that country to
make a decision as to whether your interference is justified, or
whether it will do good or bad.
>> In most of the recent conflicts, as with the proposed war that we are
>> quite likely to become involved, I am by no means certain who is the
>> aggressor and who will end up being oppressed.
>Perhaps the death rate before and after may be an indicator.
Given that you will never find any honest reporting of the "before"
and "after" figures, it will not be possible for you to make use of
such an indicator. Besides, surely you need to also factor in the
death rate *during* a conflict? As an extreme example, killing
everyone in a country would be the most ideal tactic if the death rate
before & after were the criteria used to justify intervention.
I lived in Rhodesia during its war years and change of government, so
it is a case that (I assume) you will have followed at the time only
via media reports in the UK, whilst I was actually living in the
situation.
The opinion given by the UK media, and therefore held by most UK
citizens at the time, was that the white government of Rhodesia was
abusing the rights of the blacks in Rhodesia, and that therefore the
UK had a duty to stop this. It fell short of becoming physically
involved in the war, but the UK assisted to bring down Ian Smith's
government by sanctions and other means. As far as the UK population
in general was concerned, this was a "just cause" to stop racial
discrimination and human rights violations.
The real situation was a lot more complex than the black & white issue
that the UK public was being presented, and I honestly feel that the
Rhodesian government was doing what it could to develop the country in
a way that was as beneficial as possible to *all* its inhabitants -
despite the unequal treatment of the races. I knew full well at the
time that the "solution" the UK were pushing for would make *everyone*
in the country a lot worse off. That has come to pass.
A better solution would have been to push for and assist to achieve a
shorter time-span in developing all sectors of the population rather
than changing the government completely. That would not have been
"appeasing" Ian Smith's government, but would have been pushing for
the best possible type of change.
So when I see the UK media portraying in similar terms what is taking
place in a country that I have never visited, I take everything I hear
with a very large pinch of salt.
--
Cynic
PeteM
<peter.m...@baesystems.com> writes
>Whilst I would never try to suggest that war is a good thing, I do have a
>strong conviction that avoidance of war by appeasement is even worse than
>war as it condemns many people to death and abuse of their human rights.
>History shows that malevolent dictators are never satisfied with what they
>have, and that they will do anything to both their own people, and their
>neighbours to remaining power.
Not true. Franco was a malevolent dictator but caused no foreign wars
AFAIK.
--
PeteM
Peter McLelland
"PeteM" <pete@scrooge&marley.com> wrote in message
news:KjXEDKAcxX09Ew$U...@rockall.gov...
pretty benign. Yes he was a dictator, but he did not maintain his power by
exercising extreme terror.
Peter