Party Political Broadcast

[La_Dolce_Vita]

UKIP offers a 'respectable' face for these sort of views.

 

Well I suppose it has improved since Kilroy resigned!

 

You think? Hehe. There is something good about having anobvious pratt being the head of a political party: puts people off voting. Whatever happened to him? I remember him setting-up Veritas or something like that. He was nuts.

[Sebrof]

In any case, it makes little difference.

Yes it does. We won.

 

I am only referring to the understanding of these men being considered heroes in consideration of the reasons they were led into war and the fact that so many were conscripted. And this has nothing to do with whether they won or not unless you define heroes in a different way and (probably) see WW2 (and other wars) in a different light to I do.

 

 

They put up with terrible things, and when it was over, they just came back (most of them) and quietly got on with rebuilding a shattered country.

 

Whether conscripts or volunteers, they all risked their lives, and many gave their lives. As a result, one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen was destroyed. If Britain and its allies had not prevailed, you and I and most other people on this forum would either never have existed, or be leading very different, and much worse, lives.

 

S

[Declan]

You think? Hehe. There is something good about having anobvious pratt being the head of a political party: puts people off voting.

 

Tell that to The Torys.

[The Spellchecker]

In any case, it makes little difference.

Yes it does. We won.

 

I am only referring to the understanding of these men being considered heroes in consideration of the reasons they were led into war and the fact that so many were conscripted. And this has nothing to do with whether they won or not unless you define heroes in a different way and (probably) see WW2 (and other wars) in a different light to I do.

 

 

They put up with terrible things, and when it was over, they just came back (most of them) and quietly got on with rebuilding a shattered country.

 

Whether conscripts or volunteers, they all risked their lives, and many gave their lives. As a result, one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen was destroyed. If Britain and its allies had not prevailed, you and I and most other people on this forum would either never have existed, or be leading very different, and much worse, lives.

 

S

How is this so, Sebrof? You have provided an opinion. Please back your opinion up with evidence. You note that if Britain and it's allies had not prevailed then two options apply, "non existence" or "leading a very different and much worse life".

I do exist and I am happy with my life, so please evidence how this is?

[Sebrof]

In any case, it makes little difference.

Yes it does. We won.

 

I am only referring to the understanding of these men being considered heroes in consideration of the reasons they were led into war and the fact that so many were conscripted. And this has nothing to do with whether they won or not unless you define heroes in a different way and (probably) see WW2 (and other wars) in a different light to I do.

 

 

They put up with terrible things, and when it was over, they just came back (most of them) and quietly got on with rebuilding a shattered country.

 

Whether conscripts or volunteers, they all risked their lives, and many gave their lives. As a result, one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen was destroyed. If Britain and its allies had not prevailed, you and I and most other people on this forum would either never have existed, or be leading very different, and much worse, lives.

 

S

How is this so, Sebrof? You have provided an opinion. Please back you're opinion up with evidence. You note that if Britain and it's allies had not prevailed then two options apply, "non existence" and "leading a very different and much worse life".

I do exist and I am happy with my life, so please evidence how this is?

 

You're opinion? What does that mean?

 

You appear to be as dim as you are illiterate. The options, had Britain lost, would have been either non-existence (you would not have been born), or a worse life (as a slave in a Nazi system). What don't you understand?

 

By the way, "evidence" is a noun, not a verb. "Please provide evidence for this" is what you should have written.

 

Spell-checker indeed! Harrumph.

 

S

[The Spellchecker]

In any case, it makes little difference.

Yes it does. We won.

 

I am only referring to the understanding of these men being considered heroes in consideration of the reasons they were led into war and the fact that so many were conscripted. And this has nothing to do with whether they won or not unless you define heroes in a different way and (probably) see WW2 (and other wars) in a different light to I do.

 

 

They put up with terrible things, and when it was over, they just came back (most of them) and quietly got on with rebuilding a shattered country.

 

Whether conscripts or volunteers, they all risked their lives, and many gave their lives. As a result, one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen was destroyed. If Britain and its allies had not prevailed, you and I and most other people on this forum would either never have existed, or be leading very different, and much worse, lives.

 

S

How is this so, Sebrof? You have provided an opinion. Please back you're opinion up with evidence. You note that if Britain and it's allies had not prevailed then two options apply, "non existence" and "leading a very different and much worse life".

I do exist and I am happy with my life, so please evidence how this is?

 

You're opinion? What does that mean?

 

You appear to be as dim as you are illiterate. The options, had Britain lost, would have been either non-existence (you would not have been born), or a worse life (as a slave in a Nazi system). What don't you understand?

 

By the way, "evidence" is a noun, not a verb. "Please provide evidence for this" is what you should have written.

 

Spell-checker indeed! Harrumph.

 

S

Nouns and verbs aside Sebrof, please provide evidence.

[Sebrof]

Nouns and verbs aside Sebrof, please provide evidence.

 

By definition, you cannot provide evidence for something that hasn't happened.

 

S

[The Spellchecker]

Nouns and verbs aside Sebrof, please provide evidence.

 

By definition, you cannot provide evidence for something that hasn't happened.

 

S

There are War Heroes. There are Heroes, then wayyyyyyyyyyyyy down the line, you find Sebrof, a real hero!!!!!!!!!!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

They put up with terrible things, and when it was over, they just came back (most of them) and quietly got on with rebuilding a shattered country.

 

Whether conscripts or volunteers, they all risked their lives, and many gave their lives. As a result, one of the most evil regimes the world has ever seen was destroyed. If Britain and its allies had not prevailed, you and I and most other people on this forum would either never have existed, or be leading very different, and much worse, lives.

 

Quite right, I absolutely agree. Yes, the allied soldiers, airmen and seaman did defeat that regime, but that is not what I am getting at. I am talking about how they are understood as heroes. Britain never entered the war for any noble reasons. And the term hero evokes sentiments such as nobility, courage, and a worthy cause. For me, it glosses over the value of their lives, though it is not as offensive as someone referring to WW1 soldiers as heroes.

[Bananaman]

I am only referring to the understanding of these men being considered heroes in consideration of the reasons they were led into war and the fact that so many were conscripted. And this has nothing to do with whether they won or not unless you define heroes in a different way and (probably) see WW2 (and other wars) in a different light to I do.

 

 

Silly me, there was me thinking your more than offensive rants were there to bait people into having a pop. I don't think I've ever wished internet based violence on any one or anything. Until now.

 

 

I hope some one recognises you. Sadly all of my World War 2 generation family have long gone. But I would love to see a widow, sister or a brother of an airman, soldier or seaman lost listen to you say those vile horrible words. I want you to look them in the eye and say it bloke. You are really a horrible horrible little man.

 

 

Beyond cat puke you fella!

[jimbms]

I am only referring to the understanding of these men being considered heroes in consideration of the reasons they were led into war and the fact that so many were conscripted. And this has nothing to do with whether they won or not unless you define heroes in a different way and (probably) see WW2 (and other wars) in a different light to I do.

 

 

Silly me, there was me thinking your more than offensive rants were there to bait people into having a pop. I don't think I've ever wished internet based violence on any one or anything. Until now.

 

 

I hope some one recognises you. Sadly all of my World War 2 generation family have long gone. But I would love to see a widow, sister or a brother of an airman, soldier or seaman lost listen to you say those vile horrible words. I want you to look them in the eye and say it bloke. You are really a horrible horrible little man.

 

 

Beyond cat puke you fella!

Agreed, Remember LDV it was the sacrifce and courage of these men that allow you to spout the shit you do now with freedom. Had they not, you with your sexuality and views would have been in camp and disposed of years ago

[VinnieK]

Britain never entered the war for any noble reasons. And the term hero evokes sentiments such as nobility, courage, and a worthy cause. For me, it glosses over the value of their lives, though it is not as offensive as someone referring to WW1 soldiers as heroes.

 

This is a deeply flawed analysis, and it's a bit disingenuous to claim that others are glossing over the value of men's lives when that's precisely what your portrayal does. Firstly, you're confusing the reasons a government pursues an entire war with the reasons an individual on the battlefield might perform one or a number of acts. Secondly, you're neglecting the simple fact that even if a man is conscripted his actions are not entirely determined by his situation. He still retains a considerable element of individual choice, such as the choice to sacrifice his life or at least put it in jeopardy in order to save his comrades and friends - not the only possible example of heroism on the battlefield, but perhaps the most obvious and hence the biggest hole in your argument.

 

I don't mean offence LDV, but, given that you make so much of being disgusted by the idea of conformity, I'm surprised to find you adopting such orthodox radical clichés (and so many of them) as you have been recently. We're starting to verge towards the boil in the bag subversion of the 80's would-be agitator. Do you honestly believe this stuff? And is such blind and rigid conformism acceptable so long as it's confined to the political and social fringe? Or, as others have suggested, are you just having a bit of fun at our expense?

[Chinahand]

This is probably just trolling, but I do not think it is impossible to argue that most German soldiers were just as heroic as most British ones.

 

You can do the Mitchell and Webb thing and show that their underlying philosophy had a far nastier edge, but most people weren't particularly taken up in that sort of thing - they just got on with their lives, got a letter in the post demanding they went and got given a gun, they were then shouted at a lot and then found themselves in a situation where people were killing and being killed.

 

Some people react to that sort of situation in ways we describe as heroic. They save people on "their side" and bravely kill people on the "other side".

 

That does take incredible courage, and some can do it, but many many people just cower and try to get through it putting themselve in the least amount of danger possible.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that "our" values were far more universal than the "other side's" - the trouble is that in a battle those values aren't to the fore - its kill or be killed.

 

No doubt we were right to fight Naziism, but the right to describe your soldiers as heroic seems a priviledge of the victors with little to do with the morals of the fight.

 

Dragging this thing back to the topic - the values of the allies were universal justice, human rights, freedom of thought, religion and speech against those who saw their race as priviledged, who denied rights to others and burnt books contrary to their thought, religion and speech.

 

Where does the BNP stand on this - they scream about their right to say what they want, while wanting to deny rights and freedoms to others - that is an abuse of our values.

[P.K.]

Yes, the allied soldiers, airmen and seaman did defeat that regime, but that is not what I am getting at. I am talking about how they are understood as heroes. Britain never entered the war for any noble reasons. And the term hero evokes sentiments such as nobility, courage, and a worthy cause. For me, it glosses over the value of their lives, though it is not as offensive as someone referring to WW1 soldiers as heroes.

You are absolutely right of course. Even more so these days the reasons you go to war seem to rely more and more on fuzzy logic. However that does not stop those in the shit sometimes behaving incredibly - although usually bought about by overwhelming circumstances. Here is an excellent example.

 

Recently in another thread I mentioned the completely pointless attack in the Falklands against the Argentinian position at Goose Green ordered by Maggie for her own political agenda. Of course the commander, Julian Thompson, knew it was completely pointless - but the nods didn't. Thompson issued Maggie's orders and they got on with it. Two VC's were awarded. Why Colonel H Jones received one is quite beyond my understanding. He ended up in the shit with the nods when he should have been directing his men, not leading them. He issued orders that they were to advance in extended line against a dug-in position - First World War stuff and completely stupid, what WAS he thinking of??? They came under fire and several of his men were killed instantly. Jones then immediately ran off to the right side, presumably to try and outflank the position they were attacking. The company commander couldn't believe it and was aghast that Jones was instantly changing his own plans with no discussion or whatever so he ordered what remained of his men to "stop and drop". So the assault led by Jones was a complete failure.

 

In the meantime Jones, completely wrongly thinking he had outflanked them (on his own!!!!), turned to run at the enemy position. As he hadn't actually outflanked them there was an enemy position on his right that promptly shot him in the back. The Argentinian who killed him, one Corporal Olmos, later stated that what Jones was doing was "loco". For this Jones was awarded a VC, probably politically motivated. This is the commander who had put all his men at risk for himself because once you hear "Sunray is down" the first thing you think is that you are really in the shit. Personally I think the situation overwhelmed Jones and he completely lost it.

[bluemonday]

Mystery of the BNP's general election war chest

The British National Party is facing an inquiry into its funding after its leader, Nick Griffin, paid a £5,000 political donation into his personal bank account without declaring it.

Clicky

 

Tsk tsk naughty little nazi