| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 07:31:18
Pupils 'to take allegiance oath' |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| thedelboy |
Posted - 17/03/2008 : 09:00:54
having served in the British Army I know from personal experience the rules ie following orders,"A serving soldier can refuse to obey an order if 1- the order is deemed illegal,2-if you believe the order that has been given has been given erroneously ." I have seen bodies whilst with "MFO" in 82 and as far as being cannon fodder no politicain wants thier soldiers sailors or Airmen to be killed no senior officer would send men deliberately to thier deaths(the term "cannon fodder" was believed to be first used by Napoleon regarding the English)foot soldiers were known as "Cannon fodder" as they were always at the front of any fighting |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 16/03/2008 : 15:44:21
Well I have been in the firing line, as an almost 18 year old just out of basic training. It ain't pretty and it ain't fun and far from glamorous it is terrifyingly real and urgent and the stench of fear and blood and sweat, the cacophony of bullets and guns and tanks and crying and screaming ... none of those sounds, smells or sights ever leave you. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 16/03/2008 : 14:40:17
quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy Sheep
When the Falklands kicked off, I was in college doing a B.Ed. and an evening barmaid job in our local British Legion Club to make ends meet. The boss there was an ex-Navy chap, nice bloke...
What I remember most, in nightmarish detail, was how his wife `dined out` on the situation! She truly revelled in the possibility that he might get called up again, and she`d be left to run the place...telling every customer who`d gone there for a quiet pint or a game of Bingo how IMPORTANT she might be...and loving every minute of it.
It was hateful, the gleam in her eyes as she enjoyed the prospect, and enjoyed making sure everyone knew about it. I knew 2 of their kids from a teaching practice. A nice `normal` family, till the mother turned into this awful war-seeking harpie!
I think the majority of these "gung ho" individuals are probably people whose knowledge of what war is all about is based entirely upon their cinema experiences, Fluffy.
Thankfully, I've never been "in the firing line", but there are several occasions when what the reality must have been has (I think) been spelled out for me ....
(1) It was in Berlin, l951. Attending a large fireworks display in the centre of the city (Alexanderplatz) -- when quite unexpectedly a young woman near me burst into hysterics and couldn't be calmed. Her associated/relatives explained she had been in the cellars of the capital during 'the last days', April/May 1945. She was not the only one, living on a razor edge at that time.
(2) Then there was Freda. I don't remember her last name, but she was a workmate in one of my first jobs in the UK. I can't remember how the conversation got under way, but she was all worked up as she related how, as a young child of six or seven, she'd remembered walking in the street near her home the night after Coventry had experienced 'the raid'. The bodies, or rather 'pieces of bodies' scattered in the street ... and the HEAD of somebody, in the middle of the road. She mentioned how, years later, often she still dreamed of that HEAD.
(3) The first time I went to Auschwitz, in 1955. They hadn't turned it into the 'tourist site' it has since become ... and the aspect of that first visit I best remember is the distress, the tears .. again the hysterics .... of my fellow, Jewish visitors. Perhaps there are similar scenes a half century later? I don't know; but nowadays the camp's been transformed; the 'reception centre' has been turned into a 'souvenir shop', the 'waioting areas' are a car park and the coach loads arrive from Krakow, largely full of American tourists with their cine-cameras.
By sanitising history, those 'in power' transform war and warfare into something exciting.
It all looks different when it's John Wayne or Clint Eastwood winning the war. Hence your anecdote ....... |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 16/03/2008 : 11:38:57
One of the primary issues as far as the UK specific position regarding international politics is concerned is that, in my view, it still has not grasped the fact that the days that it was a ruling 'empire' are well and truly over.
Any pro-active act of aggression is a step too far in my view; pre-emptive as they may claim them to be and regardless of who takes this initial step. War should only ever be fought on purely defensive grounds and if the whole world accepted that as axiomatic, we would soon see the end of war as a means of human expression.
Soldiers do have to follow orders however the fact that they follow orders does not preclude them from being a part of the electorate. As for soldiers not being allowed to express a political opinion ... of course they are, as individuals they have the same rights to personal opinions as anyone else and that includes political opinion. Like our police force they, as soldiers, serve without fear or favour but that is only while in uniform and on duty.
We have learnt a lot as to what we can and cannot expect from serving soldiers since WWII and I think we would not expect soldiers to follow all orders regardless - it was a defence that was tried and failed in Nuremberg don't forget.
Though I accept that Saddam was not all benevolent benefactor and there were large groups of people that suffered disproportionately under his regime it was neither our place not America's - or any of the other allies involved - to topple him. We could have and mayhaps should have supported the dissidents in their fight against Saddam but we need not have taken it upon ourselves to oust the man.
Having been on demonstrations against the war with Iraq is neither here not there really. I myself was on a few marches but I don't think it gives me any moral high-ground over others who did not for reasons best known to themselves. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 16/03/2008 : 11:33:02
I was an engineer or cannon fodder in the RN but just because I served in the forces does not mean I condon war. They generally, over time appear to be a waste of life and resource.
My parents were also cannon fosdder in WW2.
We are all puppets of politicians at some time or other, whether you think you are above it or not.
The US and UK governments have always supplied their chosen sides.
I believe in strong deterents. It is not much good defending yourself with a book when the other chap has a gun or missile he will use.
|
| Anubis |
Posted - 16/03/2008 : 09:46:00
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
I must admit to feeling a degree of revulsion, reading how Anubis uses the term 'cannon fodder'. Past experience with Anubis' posts would suggest that he is very much aware of the etymology of the term and that he, for reasons best known to himself, has deliberately elected to use this highly pejorative term.
Further I fail to see why he draws a distinction between the members of the armed forces and the electorate as I believe that enlisting does not automatically preclude you from being part of the electorate.
And lastly, either all history is mythology or, on the basis that it tends to be written by the victors, discernment needs to be practised when reading all history.
If we three or four posters were chatting around a coffee urn, we'd probably find our ideas are not so far apart. Miriam probably encapsulates what others are saying -- just a few brief comments from me:
History: I think Charlie Marx summed it up pretty well when he said, "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force."
Hence, it is not surprising that if we look at the hundred or so 'wars' that have taken place since the Second World War, all the combatants will claim (and their populations believe!) that they are fighting to 'defend freedom' for 'their' people. Nobody has ever gone to war claiming to be fighting for oppression! -- and that's something our friend Dave should speculate upon. [in the case of Britain, as a nation, probably involved in more wars than any other modern nation -- almost always fought far from home, always to defend freedom, always the other guys fault!]
Soldiers not precluded from electorate: By definition, soldiers exist to obey orders and must not express political views, certainly not in wartime. It was a lesson I learned the hard way, early in life. As a teenager, I aspired to a military career; during the 39/45 war my Dad (an ex farmer) had enlisted, served well and emerged as a Staff Corps officer. I guess I saw him as a sort of 'role model'. Aged 16 years, I'd done well academically, turned down a generous grant for university and entered Australia's military college -- your equivalent is Sandhurst, although the Aussie academy is modelled on West Point. Meanwhile, the war in Korea erupted, and we began getting regular lectures on the origins and conduct of the war. One didn't have to be very bright to quickly see this was a situation "set up" by the US (I remember us all being stunned by film of John Foster Dulles (US Defense Secretary) touring the bases on the 39th parallel less than a week before the South Koreans launched their attack .....) At this time, I had never thought about politics, never knowingly met a "communist", but felt very very uncomfortable about what was happening in South East Asia. I'd been in training for two years and had passed all subjects (so far) with high grades -- but did express my views vis-a-vis Korea more forcefully than most (Of course, I was not the only cadet who believed the South Koreans (and the US) were the 'aggressors' ... Australia's support for the US was largely based on a genuine gratitude for the fact the USA had 'saved us' from Japanese invasion just a few years previously.
Anyway, the College acted promptly. I was called to the Commandant and sent packing. No specific 'reason' for the discharge, in writing, just a verbal "too interested in philosophical matters to be a serving officer". In retrospect, I obviously wasn't suitable to be an army officer, but at the time I was devastated. It is my belief the majority of the British people opposed the Iraq invasion five years ago -- but I ask you, Miriam, if a squaddie in Iraq said that out loud today, what do you imagine would happen to him so far as the MoD is concerned? [Incidentally, during the Second World War the electoral process was suspended -- if it hadn't been, Churchill would have been out much sooner!]
Dave talked of Saddam, the murdering tyrant. Of course he was a murdering tyrant, Dave, nobody disputes it! In fact I think today is the anniversary of one of his chemical attacks on the Kurds(!?) -- attacks carried out using gas and chemicals given him by the USA and the UK, at a time when the later US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was his guest of honour in Baghdad, providing Saddam, not only with the 'weapons of mass destruction', but passing to him the US intelligence maps showing the Iranian positions, to enable Saddam to drop his (American) chemicals on them as well!
At the time, I was one of those involved in demonstrations against Saddam (whilst Iraq's foreign minister was in London) -- and of course, one of the more prominent MPs, opposing our arming of Saddam, was the now much maligned George Galloway. Interested to read Dave's attacks on the dead Saddam -- I wonder what Dave was doing when Saddam was alive and receiving all this military hardware from the UK!?!? |
| Daveb |
Posted - 16/03/2008 : 09:30:49
There may not have been any cannon fodder if Churchill & others continued with some of their early beliefs?
http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Anthropology/21A-216JSpring-2005/C76DBEB9-DA0A-468F-A7E0-A5C353FD5ED3/0/3_28_05_216j_rev.pdf
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Eugenics-Cursed-Concentration-Camps.htm |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 15/03/2008 : 23:19:22
I must admit to feeling a degree of revulsion, reading how Anubis uses the term 'cannon fodder'. Past experience with Anubis' posts would suggest that he is very much aware of the etymology of the term and that he, for reasons best known to himself, has deliberately elected to use this highly pejorative term.
Further I fail to see why he draws a distinction between the members of the armed forces and the electorate as I believe that enlisting does not automatically preclude you from being part of the electorate.
And lastly, either all history is mythology or, on the basis that it tends to be written by the victors, discernment needs to be practised when reading all history. |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 15/03/2008 : 22:47:01
When the Falklands kicked off, I was in college doing a B.Ed. and an evening barmaid job in our local British Legion Club to make ends meet. The boss there was an ex-Navy chap, nice bloke...
What I remember most, in nightmarish detail, was how his wife `dined out` on the situation! She truly revelled in the possibility that he might get called up again, and she`d be left to run the place...telling every customer who`d gone there for a quiet pint or a game of Bingo how IMPORTANT she might be...and loving every minute of it.
It was hateful, the gleam in her eyes as she enjoyed the prospect, and enjoyed making sure everyone knew about it. I knew 2 of their kids from a teaching practice. A nice `normal` family, till the mother turned into this awful war-seeking harpie! |
| Daveb |
Posted - 15/03/2008 : 15:37:33
I do not agree with the the war or liberation of Iraq from a murdering dictator, whatever you wish to call it.
I am also fully aware that Churchill was voted out of office.
This "cannon fodder" you refer to are people who died protecting your freedom of speech. If that is all the gratitude you can give them, then perhaps they should not have bothered.
|
| Anubis |
Posted - 15/03/2008 : 09:02:56
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Just as well the "cannon fodder" did not turn their guns on Churchill otherwise you may not be free to pass such derogatory comments.
It's not the simple black & white issue of YEARS of events you'd like to make it, Dave ..... BUT in a few words, MONTHS BEFORE THE SECOND WORLD WAR HAD EVEN ENDED, THE BRITISH PEOPLE WENT TO THE POLLS AND THREW CHURCHILL AND HIS CRONIES OUT OF OFFICE WITH THE GREATEST LANDSLIDE OF VOTES IN THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY.
Neither the 'cannon fodder' nor the electorate were given the facts and the opportunity to vote on them (re Iraq) ... and, if you saw the lead article of yesterday's Independent, you'll see the government's re-writing of the Iraq war underway ....
Read some history ... not the later mythologies. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 15/03/2008 : 07:48:40
Just as well the "cannon fodder" did not turn their guns on Churchill otherwise you may not be free to pass such derogatory comments. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 14/03/2008 : 22:03:19
quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy Sheep
Patriotism runs high at times of conflict -but itsn`t it also a case of the reverse sometimes being true?
Indeed, Fluffy, indeed! ............ In the case of war, it happens on those occasions when the "cannon fodder" realize their MAIN enemy is those who despatched them to the killing fields -- NOT those they have been sent to massacre. How much better life would be in the middle east today, if those despatched to defend the interests of the oil barons, had turned their guns on Bush and Blair instead .....
"Patriotism -- the last refuge of the scoundrel" (Oscar Wilde)! |
| Fluffy Sheep |
Posted - 14/03/2008 : 19:15:42
Patriotism runs high at times of conflict -but itsn`t it also a case of the reverse sometimes being true? |
| Daveb |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 20:19:27
ok. I should have read this thread before posting the other one! |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 09:59:35
Absurd? Maybe ... though it is well known that patriotism burns brightly at times of conflict. I would however point out that the recital stated that you honour the (then) king yet you promise to uphold the laws of the British Empire. Somewhat at odds with the proposed swearing of allegiance to the Queen. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 09:53:12
I am not 'making a point', just offering some info that may be of vague interest ??!!??
I grew up on a small farm in the Adelaide Hills, come 1939 the war broke out, Dad enlisted and was off to Tobruk, El Alamein etc etc and Mum and her (then) two kids moved into the city. From 1940 -1946 I was enrolled in a largish (?300 pupils?) primary school four miles south of the city centre.
Here's the relevant bit. Every day of the school year, the school assembled in the play ground for the flag-raising ceremony. The Aussie flag slowly ascended the pole and the assembled scholars recited in unison:
"I love my country, the British Empire,
I honour her king, King George the Sixth
I salute her flag, the Union Jack
I promise faithfully to obey her laws."
Each line was accompanied by a physical gesture; hand on heart, semi-raised right hand (rather like a Stalin salute), a military salute, an extended right arm [but not rigid, like a Nazi (German) greeting]. On reflection, what an absurd little ceremony.
I don't know whether the procedure originated from the then current world-conflict (I have very vivid memories of every evening around the wireless listening to the news; everybody felt VERY 'involved' in the London blitz. The Adelaide Advertiser carried regular listings of names and addresses of people who'd been bombed out and once a month we packed a food parcel and sent to a randomly chosen name. We talked about it at school and I remember comparing what we'd sent. I remember the one occasion we got back a letter saying thanks -- but I'm sure many parcels ended up at the bottom of the ocean.
A year later, Jap subs entered Sydney harbour (and were promptly sunk!) and there were about 300 air raids on Darwin and our concerns moved closer to home. Certainly, the next event of general national jubilation (and relief!) was the arrival of American GIs in the eastern states ......
That was the world in which we "raised the flag" each school day .....
Just for the record, just out of interest. I repeat, I'm not trying to 'make a point'!
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 09:37:34
The whole idea of swearing allegiance to the queen sort of takes us back to the pre Magna Carta days really. The Rule of Law and Parliament are supreme and not the monarchy! |
| nightowl |
Posted - 11/03/2008 : 09:35:37
What a load of cobblers! if anyone should take an oath of allegiance to the people it should be politicians on honesty, transparency and telling the truth...
Makes you sick  |
|
|
