Armistice Day (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Aneirin -> Armistice Day (11/9/2008 9:49:35 AM)

As we here in Britain are remembering ninety years since Armistice day, the day that the war ended between Britain and Germany, the first world war, I come to thinking, who in war is the real enemy.

Today I have watched many special programmes on this Remebrance day, programmes about what it was like for the normal man and woman in this war and it was whilst listening to the memoirs of a certain, Vera Brittain, a woman who in the war was a nurse and became an advocate for peace based upon her experiences. I wondered when she mentioned the enemy wounded she had to care for, she could see they were not the big aggressor they had been led to believe. The 'enemy' were just normal people like their enemy, they did'nt want to be there, just like there is in any war.

So I understand normal people don't want war, they don't want to see loved ones, fight , kill and die for what ?

So in war who is the real agressor, can we not recognise what it is and do something about it, do we have to keep fighting wars and killing ?

And can we take a moment out to think of all those who have died fighting and continue to do so, in every part of the world, any nationality, friend or 'foe'.



MadAxeman -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 10:19:36 AM)

Well said.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 10:25:15 AM)

Apart from some things are worth a war.
 
I'm not sure about WWI, I'm sure someone fighting in it probably thought they were fighting for a reason. It's a bit different to now because now we have this professional armed forces situation and they will fight wherever they are sent and for any reason given by the government. Morale can't be so good in that respect especially if you start to question your actions and reasons for being there.



NorthernGent -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 10:25:44 AM)

I'm torn on the issue of war because I am anti-war, and as close to a pacifist as you will come across; yet I can't accept that men are led blindly into war.

Regardless, the 'lost generation' will always be remembered for the utter futility and incomprehensible suffering that was WW1. 



meatcleaver -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 10:55:25 AM)

Governments are the aggressor, they control the information. I'm struggling to think which historian it was that said, if ordinary men knew or understood, what politicians did in their name, most wars wouldn't have been fought. Most wars don't need to be fought or if they do, come at the end of a list of aggressive or provocative policies.

If  WWI wasn't fought and it didn't have to be fought, there would have been no Russian revolution so no USSR, no gulags, no WWII and no holocaust, no cold war which would have meant no Korea or Vietnam. History would have been so different we couldn't imagine it.



Aneirin -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:09:25 AM)

World War one was labelled the war to end all wars, pity it wasn't.



MadAxeman -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:10:02 AM)

Documentary about Wilfred Owen just starting on BBC 4.



colouredin -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:11:18 AM)

Human nature, you see it here everyday. I know whats best, everyone else is wrong and I will ignore all reason to get my point across, the only problem is we elect people into a positon where they have a gun as well as their opinions



Aneirin -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:15:37 AM)

Perhaps Freud was right about his stages of infantile development, those that 'like' war and weapons and such generally fit into the third stage of development, the phallic stage. Odd really when you consider the shape of most offensive projectiles.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:20:52 AM)

Since you just accepted some people are eager to go to war over any issue please now explain how you fight such mentality without a war?



Aneirin -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:23:35 AM)

Recognise the trait in man and take action from there.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:25:07 AM)

What kind of action?



colouredin -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:27:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

What kind of action?


Amazing what Gandhi did with a bit of salt



popeye1250 -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:29:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

Apart from some things are worth a war.
 
I'm not sure about WWI, I'm sure someone fighting in it probably thought they were fighting for a reason. It's a bit different to now because now we have this professional armed forces situation and they will fight wherever they are sent and for any reason given by the government. Morale can't be so good in that respect especially if you start to question your actions and reasons for being there.



Yeah, I could never understand why the U.S. got involved in WW1 save for the sinking of the Lusitania.
Oh, and that "proffessional armed force",...Obama will be calling them "Global Citizens" so they won't need "visas" or "passports".
"We don't have Troops in Iraq, they're........."Global Citizens!"
"Yeah! That's the ticket!"



RCdc -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:37:03 AM)

You cannot have peace without war.
And something I never get about threads about this particular day is why it always comes down to 'why war' and how to stop it happening, instead of remembering those that gave their lives.
That's what we should be talking about, on an armistice thread.
 
the.dark.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 11:40:06 AM)

Passive resistance only goes so far in this day and age sadly, the British were always depicted as heartless in their actions in India and Pakistan in the past but they had to have a heart to be affected by the passive resistance of Gandhi. I don't have any confidence people allowing themselves to be slaughtered would have any effect on their enemies these days
 
What I've noticed is most wars are caused by paranoia over the intentions of others, no one wants to be caught unaware. We all suspect the other side of evil and the only way you can stop wars is by having one side or at least some kind of common understanding and sharing of values. Otherwise we are just ramping up the paranoia on each side until one side feels they must strike first to eliminate the threat the other side poses.



Aneirin -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 12:19:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

You cannot have peace without war.
And something I never get about threads about this particular day is why it always comes down to 'why war' and how to stop it happening, instead of remembering those that gave their lives.
That's what we should be talking about, on an armistice thread.

the.dark.


But those that gave their lives in war, would it not be pleasing to them to know that as we are remembering their brave and selfless actions, we are also speculating on how we may stop the futility of war, so we in years to come are not adding more to the list of those passed ?

Anyone remember the song 'two tribes' by the band ; Franky goes to Hollywood, that banned video depicting an American leader punching it out with a Russian leader in a boxing ring, perhaps that is not such a bad idea.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w

Often it is those that start war, politicians rarely suffer the loss others have to.





LadyEllen -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 12:53:14 PM)

I cant think of a war that hasnt been about the taking of resources by one group from another and the resistance of that second group to such acquisitive aggression. Even the first world war, which ostensibly arose out of the triggering of alliances once Austro-Hungary went after Serbia, was thought initially to be one of these affairs ultimately, where various provinces would be exchanged, so many millions would be paid and the losers would hope for better luck next time as a resolution. A cynic might conclude that this method of settling wars and the potential gains possible for the victors might have been a more ready explanation for the rapid triggering of alliances.

This makes war, even today, the pastime of the powerful who seek greater resources whereby to bolster their wealth and power. Whereas in the past though, the ordinary soldier on the aggressor side could expect a share of the bounty, this is nowadays deemed wrong whilst those who compel them to fight still take the spoils.

The question is how do the powerful compel the ordinary person to become accessory to their acquisitive aggression? Where his home and family are threatened the motivation of the soldier is easy to explain, but any war requires one side to force matters to war and compel its citizenry to the acquisition.

When there is full control of information on the part of the powerful aggressors such that their citizenry know only what is useful to their planned function, this is comparatively easy - the citizens of the aggressor can even be convinced that they are resisting aggression from the side planned to be the victims of aggression. That such control was not present for the Iraq situation is evident in the widespread protest against the whole affair, and as a cynic might think, might explain the untimely deaths of some who had possession of information to the contrary of the official line.

Equally the citizenry may through the manipulation of information combined with a relative lack of education and awareness also be compelled to feel the need to resist by way of aggression - this was evident in the reactions of some over the Iraq situation; people who not knowing the facts chose to believe the propaganda about a country which it was doubtful they could locate on the map whilst simultaneously believing the propaganda about their own countries' good intentions and treating any contravention thereof as akin to treason.

To end war, we might remove the powerful who choose it - however experience tells us that power corrupts and whomever the current powerful might be replaced with, the same situation would develop. Or, we might lay wide open all sources of information as the internet has done (as far as we are aware at least) - but this may only work where ignorance can be eradicated - and that truly is the greatest barrier to preventing war. Sadly it is often only when we come face to face with the enemy that we come to realise that we are not the enemies we were led to believe we were, but by then it is too late.

I shall not repeat the old lie that it is right and fitting to die for one's country, but I shall remember and mourn those induced through fraudulent and corrupt powers to kill and to die and to suffer, and pay respect to them; on all sides.

E



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 12:59:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
I cant think of a war that hasnt been about the taking of resources by one group from another and the resistance of that second group to such acquisitive aggression.


Except the Falkland’s war an island in the backend of nowhere I don't even know if they even have useful sheep to eat.
 
Except all the fighting that goes on in Africa, those people have nothing, they are fighting for ideology. They can collect the charity from the western governments without cutting off peoples limbs but they do it for ideology, hatred and to instil fear.



meatcleaver -> RE: Armistice Day (11/9/2008 1:04:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
I cant think of a war that hasnt been about the taking of resources by one group from another and the resistance of that second group to such acquisitive aggression.


Except the Falkland’s war an island in the backend of nowhere I don't even know if they even have useful sheep to eat.
 
Except all the fighting that goes on in Africa, those people have nothing, they are fighting for ideology. They can collect the charity from the western governments without cutting off peoples limbs but they do it for ideology, hatred and to instil fear.



The falklands was a bout saving face. No one in Britain gave a fuck about them and Thatcher had decided to cut the last boat connection to the islands which sent the message we didn't give a fuck about them. Well, when the Argentinians invaded we did give a fuck because it was a slight to the national ego.

It was Europeans (particularly the Belgian King Leopald) who taught the Africans such brutal acts.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875