The poppy

[Rasputin]

I'd call it honoring those who gave their lives.



I don't think it actually needs that- in practice the Appeal has been almost self-sustaining, as one war and its veterans succeeds the next. It's a popular charity first, even if the element of fetishising the military has grown.



See above.



Both are deserving of sympathy/ charity, it's not a zero sum game. In any case, that it's a charity obviously gives you a choice whether to contribute. If you're unsympathetic or even hostile, fair enough. Ignore the Appeal.



Sorry to hear that. What happened next?



This is a bit silly- obviously it is a charity, and a popular one as detailed above. It's clearly not mainly about WW1 any more, given that all the veterans have died. And twhatever you think of the British or German Empires' motives in 1914, there will be crippled veterans, widows and orphans in 2014.



I'd avoid XF if I were you, probably help your blood pressure.

Look GR I could argue about this with you all day but the basics of this is that im guessing we come from very different contexts which deeply influences our perspectives on such things as the British Military and what is British Nationalism etc.
I wont convince you of my perspective and im sure as hell you wont be able to convince me that the Poppy is just a charity for injured vets and the like.

[peadar1987]

Massive civilian death tolls are a direct result of military inervention, this is what happens in wars, its what always happened in wars.
As for your comment on Al Qaeda, funny how your grasp of history and political affairs starts on Spetember the 11th.
Ever hear of the Shah in Iran? Ever hear of the House of Saud? Ever here of the Mujahdeen? Ever here of Saddam Hussein? The Nakba?
Who funded equipped and trained these tyrants who brutalised people in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Suadi Arabia, Palestine etc?
Ding ding ding, wrong answer not Al Qaeda, American Imperialism thats who.
Al Qaeda is but a reaction, a reactionary reaction as such.
Al Qaeda would not exist if America did not create a context in which it was able to breath.
America reaps what it sows.

Did you even read my first post? I opposed the invasion of Iraq. And I mention people like Mossadeq in the Obama thread. However, it's not the rich oil magnates and weapons manufacturers in America who are going to suffer if the troops pull out tomorrow. It's the millions of people who are going to be killed when the countries go back to the warlords. The troops shouldn't have gone in in the first place, and once they were in, they definitely shouldn't have killed civilians, but millions of people will almost certainly die unless they stay to hold the country together until domestic security forces are capable of doing it themselves. Otherwise all that's going to happen is another Darfur.

[Lim till i die]

I know a woman who had dealings with the Royal British Legion and they are fantastic people, would put an awful lot of our own holy catholic irish organisations to shame.

I wish the world were really as black and white as it is for a lot of the people on this thread, twould make life life a lot easier!!

[Rasputin]

Did you even read my first post? I opposed the invasion of Iraq. And I mention people like Mossadeq in the Obama thread. However, it's not the rich oil magnates and weapons manufacturers in America who are going to suffer if the troops pull out tomorrow. It's the millions of people who are going to be killed when the countries go back to the warlords. The troops shouldn't have gone in in the first place, and once they were in, they definitely shouldn't have killed civilians, but millions of people will almost certainly die unless they stay to hold the country together until domestic security forces are capable of doing it themselves. Otherwise all that's going to happen is another Darfur.

Ohh I see so your line is the classic, 'we made a mistake going in but the troops must stay for the good of the people' ****e.
Look the troops protect nobody or help nobody in Iraq, the respective militas defend their own communities, the likes of the Mahdi army in the Shi'ite communities in Iraq. The likes of those from 'the awakening' that defend Sunni communities and well Mosul is as good as independant at this stage. The iraqis are not some barbarian whordes who will eat each other because western crusaders who are civilising them will leave. The only thing American troops protect in Iraq is american financial interests, even if they had the will to protect the people if they were unarmed and not protected by their own, the yanks simply dont have the means to defend Iraqi communities.
As for Afghanistan, it was the yanks that funded, trained and equipped the Mujahideen.
These are the same Mujahideen who now serve in the Afghani army and Police, the same Army and Police that is despised by the Afghani peasants for their practices in Bacha Bazai. Make no mistake about it, troops are only their to protect their nations financial and strategic interests, there is absolutely no altruisim about their service no matter what ****e we are fed in the west.

[Mr A]

So the US spent absolutely vast amounts of money to protect its "financial interests"? That does not sound very convincing to me.

Nor does blaming absolutely everything on the west and nothing on anyone in the middle east (presumably bar Israel). As was said above, it's not nearly as black and white as some of the people on this thread are making out.

And weren't the Mujahideen on the go before the Americans started funding them?

[peadar1987]

Ohh I see so your line is the classic, 'we made a mistake going in but the troops must stay for the good of the people' ****e.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was only allowed to hold opinions that I was the first to think of.

Look the troops protect nobody or help nobody in Iraq, the respective militas defend their own communities, the likes of the Mahdi army in the Shi'ite communities in Iraq. The likes of those from 'the awakening' that defend Sunni communities and well Mosul is as good as independant at this stage. The iraqis are not some barbarian whordes who will eat each other because western crusaders who are civilising them will leave. The only thing American troops protect in Iraq is american financial interests, even if they had the will to protect the people if they were unarmed and not protected by their own, the yanks simply dont have the means to defend Iraqi communities.

So you think that the various heavily armed militias with many years of bitter feuding, and future competition for resources are just going to sit back and protect their own communities? Come on, it would be a bloodbath as soon as the peacekeeping force left the country. I think the Americans should pull out as soon as possible, but not before the Iraqi defence forces are capable of holding the country together.

As for Afghanistan, it was the yanks that funded, trained and equipped the Mujahideen.
These are the same Mujahideen who now serve in the Afghani army and Police, the same Army and Police that is despised by the Afghani peasants for their practices in Bacha Bazai. Make no mistake about it, troops are only their to protect their nations financial and strategic interests, there is absolutely no altruisim about their service no matter what ****e we are fed in the west.

I never said there was any altruism, but no matter how bad the motives were, millions will die if the troops pull out before the countries are ready. I utterly condemn the actions of some British and American troops in Iraq, but then again, I utterly condemn the heavy-handedness the Gardaí show on occasion. Doesn't mean I think they should be disbanded.

[bennocelt]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/articles/...can-elite.html

peadar still waiting for your response to American death squads?

[peadar1987]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/articles/...can-elite.html

peadar still waiting for your response to American death squads?

Sorry pal, I must have missed that.

Those responsible are guilty of war crimes just as much as Saddam Hussein and Slobadan Milosevic. They should be brought to justice with the full force of international law. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening.

However, illegal death squads are not a necessary part of the occupation of Iraq, and on a purely mathematical level, I doubt they kill as many people as full-blown civil war would.

[ArdeeBhoy]

So you think that the various heavily armed militias with many years of bitter feuding, and future competition for resources are just going to sit back and protect their own communities? Come on, it would be a bloodbath as soon as the peacekeeping force left the country. I think the Americans should pull out as soon as possible, but not before the Iraqi defence forces are capable of holding the country together.

As opposed to the bloodbath precipitated by the invasion of the US and numerous other places where they were never wanted or needed. Still, if you want to see 000's die needlessly call for the US....

[peadar1987]

As opposed to the bloodbath precipitated by the invasion of the US and numerous other places where they were never wanted or needed. Still, if you want to see 000's die needlessly call for the US....

Which I opposed. However, calling for something that will cause the needless deaths of tens of thousands more just on principle for something that, although reprihensible, happened in the past is not the way to go.

[Rasputin]

So the US spent absolutely vast amounts of money to protect its "financial interests"? That does not sound very convincing to me.

Let me break this down for you.
The American government spent absolutely vast amounts of TAX PAYERS money securing private financial interests in the Middle East.
If you dont believe me look at who the winners were in the likes of the Iraq war, check the share price of Haliburton pre-Iraq war and post-Iraq war.
Its the oldest story in the book, dont tell me your one of those people who believe that the Crusades were fought for Jesus Christ and Christianity?
Wars like with most things essentially boil down to basic economics.

Nor does blaming absolutely everything on the west and nothing on anyone in the middle east (presumably bar Israel). As was said above, it's not nearly as black and white as some of the people on this thread are making out.

I didnt blame absolutely EVERYTHING on the west.
But I blame a very very large proportion of what has happened in the Middle East on the west.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalim in the Middle East can essentially be traced to the West subverting Socialists and Communists in the Middle East by funding and equipping Islamic Fundamentalists who despsied the "godless communists".
Examples such as Hamas which was initially funded by Israel to subvert the Left Wing PLO, the Mujhadieen which was funded to subvert the Saur Revolution.
Just stating that the West is not to blame for everything is neither here nor there when it is factually documented they are responsible for a very very large part of the current wave of Islamic Fundamentalism and the like which now plagues the Middle East.
Read your history.

And weren't the Mujahideen on the go before the Americans started funding them?

Yes of course they were, a bunch of Islamic Fundamentalists rallying behind the Mullahs of Afghanistan who were essentially the feudal lords of Afghanistan.
They didnt much like what happened in the aftermath of the Saur Revolution with the Government under going one of the biggest land distribution schemes in the East trying to lift Afghani peasants from serfdom.
But with the CIA which openly state they funded them and the reactionarys in Pakistan and Suadi Arabia they helped make the Mujahideen fester in Afghanistan and helped turn it from one of the most progressive Arab countrys in the world to being thrown back to the dark ages.
So of course the Yanks didnt create the idea of a Mujahideen but they helped make it multiply and grow to size of the problem it is today.

[Rasputin]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was only allowed to hold opinions that I was the first to think of.

I never stated that.

So you think that the various heavily armed militias with many years of bitter feuding, and future competition for resources are just going to sit back and protect their own communities? Come on, it would be a bloodbath as soon as the peacekeeping force left the country. I think the Americans should pull out as soon as possible, but not before the Iraqi defence forces are capable of holding the country together.

Your so delusional its laughable.
You do realise who comprises the Iraqi Police and Army?
Ill give you a little clue, its called the Mahdi Army only in uniform. Its to such an extent that Sunni's wont even join the Police or Army.
Now for your point that apparently we need to keep the country togethor.
Why do we? It is an artificial country formed by the Brits in the last century with no form of Nationalism.
Its not even togethor as it is with the Kurds to the North as good as independant but we dont hear about that do we?
Guess why? Because Mosul is of no strategic or economic interest to the west, the naievty on display is staggering.

I never said there was any altruism, but no matter how bad the motives were, millions will die if the troops pull out before the countries are ready.

Ok that is just bordering on absolute stupidity.
The Yanks dont protect these communities as it is, as I stated before the Militias are the ones who protect the communities.
The yanks not only dont have the will but dont even have the means to protect Iraqi civilians if they wanted.
And as I stated before it is the Mahdi army that comprise a massive proportion of the Police and Army so that also demolishs your point.

I utterly condemn the actions of some British and American troops in Iraq, but then again, I utterly condemn the heavy-handedness the Gardaí show on occasion. Doesn't mean I think they should be disbanded.

Terrible comparison to make.
I never once called on the Brit and Yank armys to be disbanded.
I merely asked them to return home and stop fighting for Corporations economic interests in foreign lands.
The Afghani and Iraqi's are more than capable of stabilising their own countrys without foreign crusaders.
It verges on pure western chauvanism to think that we know how to stabilise their own lands better than themselves, and from an Irishman I would have expected more tbh.

[peadar1987]

I never stated that.

Your so delusional its laughable.
You do realise who comprises the Iraqi Police and Army?
Ill give you a little clue, its called the Mahdi Army only in uniform. Its to such an extent that Sunni's wont even join the Police or Army.
Now for your point that apparently we need to keep the country togethor.
Why do we? It is an artificial country formed by the Brits in the last century with no form of Nationalism.
Its not even togethor as it is with the Kurds to the North as good as independant but we dont hear about that do we?
Guess why? Because Mosul is of no strategic or economic interest to the west, the naievty on display is staggering.


Ok that is just bordering on absolute stupidity.
The Yanks dont protect these communities as it is, as I stated before the Militias are the ones who protect the communities.
The yanks not only dont have the will but dont even have the means to protect Iraqi civilians if they wanted.
And as I stated before it is the Mahdi army that comprise a massive proportion of the Police and Army so that also demolishs your point.

Terrible comparison to make.
I never once called on the Brit and Yank armys to be disbanded.
I merely asked them to return home and stop fighting for Corporations economic interests in foreign lands.
The Afghani and Iraqi's are more than capable of stabilising their own countrys without foreign crusaders.
It verges on pure western chauvanism to think that we know how to stabilise their own lands better than themselves, and from an Irishman I would have expected more tbh.

If you can't debate civilly, there's no point talking to you. You call me stupid, delusional, and question my national pride, so I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

[Gather round]

Look GR I could argue about this with you all day but the basics of this is that im guessing we come from very different contexts which deeply influences our perspectives on such things as the British Military and what is British Nationalism etc. I wont convince you of my perspective and im sure as hell you wont be able to convince me that the Poppy is just a charity for injured vets and the like

Rasputin- just a thought here, but maybe if your perspective doesn't convince others it might be partly down to your argument, not just our bias?

Re-read the thread and you'll see that I explicitly criticised the British Military (both its current wars and the way it uses the Poppy Appeal and similar to exaggerate support for them). It should be clear that I'm not an uncritical supporter.

I suggested that the Poppy Appeal's popularity as a charity was self-evident, quoting its sales and income. You chose to ignore this, presumably as it doesn't suit your perspective of what British Nationalism is or should be.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except that being in London (the capital of Britain) in the last fortnight have seen barely 100 punters wearing poppies out of thousands. And when mentioned this subject to people, they have looked at me with a mixture of bewilderment or disinterest.

And only seen two different monetary collections for this on my travels, so that aspect of British 'nationalism' is not as obvious as some wish to project.

And would largely agree with what Rasputin says above, though the question of general civility is not especially one worth dwelling on. Certain people however have to look at the nos. with or without US intervention.
Almost without exception, the former is higher.

[culloty82]

Given that today is the actual anniversary, it's probably the right time to get back on topic, rather than get diverted by the merits or otherwise of the "war on terror". Perhaps if this had been the main symbol from day one, opinions wouldn't have become so heated.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Aye, but not your fault. But you do have to look at its diluted relevance to now.
As in the last 65 years being much diminished to the original carnage of the World Wars which I don't think too many would dispute.

[Rasputin]

If you can't debate civilly, there's no point talking to you. You call me stupid, delusional, and question my national pride, so I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

If the shoe fits...
And yes of course thats the reason your "unsubscribing from this thread".

[peadar1987]

If the shoe fits...
And yes of course thats the reason your "unsubscribing from this thread".

I'll let you believe what you want to believe, but this reactionary and offensive post has pretty much proved my point.

[Rasputin]

Rasputin- just a thought here, but maybe if your perspective doesn't convince others it might be partly down to your argument, not just our bias?

Look I used to mosey around Political forums and what not and even with a flawless grasp of dialectical materialism and perfect eloquence people never changed their minds, people debate on political forums because they believe in their own political perspective not because they are looking to be educated so essentially you have the same people re-churning the same old arguements that eventually end where they started, people re-enforcing their own political perspective.

Re-read the thread and you'll see that I explicitly criticised the British Military (both its current wars and the way it uses the Poppy Appeal and similar to exaggerate support for them). It should be clear that I'm not an uncritical supporter.

Ive read your arguement and it is deeply flawed.
Critical or uncritical supporter of the Poppy it is irrelevant it is the symbol it has become that is up for debate.
It is evident it is far far more than just a charity it is essentially a drum to beat in order to fire up good old fashioned British Jingoism of "support our boys" which essentially white washs any criticism of their imperial adventures.
You even concede in that point that it has become more than just a charity, was that not what this debate was essentially about?

I suggested that the Poppy Appeal's popularity as a charity was self-evident, quoting its sales and income.

Completely irrelevant point.
The arguement I put forward is the Poppy is far more than a charity it has effectively become a symbol of good old fashioned British Jingoism.
So quoting sales figures and its income is irrelevant since I would state that a very large proportion of those sales and income come from ignorants buying into the British Nationalism that they trumpet and not from some altruistic notion of supporting wounded vets.
High sales figures does not automatically correlate that it is a charity, that point is fairly irrlevant to the debate as a whole.

You chose to ignore this, presumably as it doesn't suit your perspective of what British Nationalism is or should be.

Not at all, dealt with it there.
Fairly irrelevant point that it is.
Also as an aside I never once argued about what British Nationalism is or should be, I merely stated what the Poppy has become in the wider social context of Britain, it is no longer just a charity as far as im concerned.