Celt Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 freedom of choice Freedom of Choice as to whether they join up or not. There was no concription last time i looked. Then I think you are being incredibly naive in understanding what AFD means I can take it and allow it to mean anything i want. As have you. That is Freedom of Choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 Freedom of Choice as to whether they join up or not. There was no concription last time i looked. I was replying to your point about why people choose to join and the public attitude to their service. People (including prospective employees of the Armed Forces) are led to believe they do their job for the good of the people and even the world. It isn't the truth. But because people are motivated to think that it is true, I shouldn't offer them a pat on the back for their work. I can take it and allow it to mean anything i want. As have you. That is Freedom of Choice. You can pretend it is non-smoking day or your birthday is you like. You don't even have to recognise this day but can give thought to just those who were killed everyday day of your life. But I am talking about the effects of the propaganda that come from adopting this day and the reasons behind its adoption. And I am also pointing out the desire of the government to make the people believe that they SHOULD celebrate the forces and what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 LDV, your boring me in your polite way. I will be attending and I will be remembering those that have paid the ultimate price and those that have suffered injury. You are correct that they should not just be remembered on this single day, I personally remember them every time I open the paper, read the news online, watch the TV etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 LDV, your boring me in your polite way. I'm boring myself explaining the seemingly obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 LDV, your boring me in your polite way. I'm boring myself explaining the seemingly obvious. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Support-our...s-on.5474488.jp Sorry to bring this up again, but I just love all the comments coming out of government about Amred Forces Day. What interests me is this: "When asked how important recognising the work of the Armed Forces was to the Isle of Man, Brigadier Butler said: 'It's very important indeed. This island has a wonderful record of service in both the World Wars. It volunteered its men for conscription after the Second World War. " So what? So what, if the government of the Island decided that its men should continue service in the forces in aid of Britain. I don't give a jot what the image of the Isle of Man in terms of its perceived patriotic duty. Most of the comments in the article are nothing but patriotic bunkum. It is such a shame that those who serve and have served have to associate themselves with all this tripe in order to remember their dead comrades and remember all those who died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 LDV - do you think it was wrong to respond to German military agression in WWI and WWII? Please note I'm not trying to debate who started it, whether Germany was the only agressor etc, just simply what should the politicians of the country done when a zepplin flies up the country dropping bombs, or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I don't give a jot what the image of the Isle of Man in terms of its perceived patriotic duty. You are in a very tiny minority; probably of about... errrmmm..... one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 LDV - do you think it was wrong to respond to German military agression in WWI and WWII? Please note I'm not trying to debate who started it, whether Germany was the only agressor etc, just simply what should the politicians of the country done when a zepplin flies up the country dropping bombs, or whatever. Responding to aggression was justified in WW2, certainly. Because any greater oppression should be resisted. I can discuss WW1 further but zeppelins didn't start flying over Britain until after hostilies started. And Britain only became involved due to a decision on a treaty that Britain didn't HAVE to abide by (which is not to say I think it should or shouldn't have been). Britain was motivated more by any resulting change in a balance of power in Germany's favour and the possible loss of Belgium control over the Scheldt. It wasn't just a response to aggression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 I don't give a jot what the image of the Isle of Man in terms of its perceived patriotic duty. You are in a very tiny minority; probably of about... errrmmm..... one? Maybe a small minority, but then people don't see the patriotic element in the media and in government propaganda or they agree with it. But if you think I only hold this opinion...then you're a twit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 LDV - do you think it was wrong to respond to German military agression in WWI and WWII? Please note I'm not trying to debate who started it, whether Germany was the only agressor etc, just simply what should the politicians of the country done when a zepplin flies up the country dropping bombs, or whatever. Responding to aggression was justified in WW2, certainly. Because any greater oppression should be resisted. I can discuss WW1 further but zeppelins didn't start flying over Britain until after hostilies started. And Britain only became involved due to a decision on a treaty that Britain didn't HAVE to abide by (which is not to say I think it should or shouldn't have been). Britain was motivated more by any resulting change in a balance of power in Germany's favour and the possible loss of Belgium control over the Scheldt. It wasn't just a response to aggression. I'm unclear - for whatever reason a war has started - a zepplin is flying over the country - a plane is shooting - what do you do? And who should the government call on to respond to the agression? Do you agree or disagree that a state needs a functioning armed forces to call on and that such a force needs discipline etc to function properly? Doing that sort of thing takes quite a commitment - people have to be willing to go and risk dying. Are you really saying that commitment is valueless, or misguided? Sure aspire for a better system - I've already made clear in this thread that saying you support a country having an armed forces and to celebrate that commitment doesn't need you to say "my country, right or wrong" or accept the bad deeds that have occurred. You seem to be insisting it does and I don't understand that at all. And please don't go all John-Lennon-imagining-no-countries on me. This is the real world - armies are a sad but necessary fact of this world. Aspire to ensure they are only used for good and defensively etc - but surely IF that was the case, you'd agree, in the world that currently exists, having an army is a good idea, and joining one is a commitment beyond most normal jobs? Or do you disagree? Do you really think that in all circumstances and situation the armed forces are just tools of oppressive government and only the brainwashed join them and support them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'm unclear - for whatever reason a war has started - a zepplin is flying over the country - a plane is shooting - what do you do? Fight back And who should the government call on to respond to the agression? Do you agree or disagree that a state needs a functioning armed forces to call on and that such a force needs discipline etc to function properly? But I don't see why you ask these questions. I understand why war takes place and is taking place in a world full of nation states whose foreign policies is led primarily by the demands of business and the interests of elite groups within their societies. I don't condone such a system. An attack wouldn't just happen for no reason. Doing that sort of thing takes quite a commitment - people have to be willing to go and risk dying. Are you really saying that commitment is valueless, or misguided I can see why think it has value and is not misguided. But I hope you can understand the perspective that such a commitment's value cannot be applauded when it is associated with the reasons for that commitment. Sure aspire for a better system - I've already made clear in this thread that saying you support a country having an armed forces and to celebrate that commitment doesn't need you to say "my country, right or wrong" or accept the bad deeds that have occurred. Actually, this Armed Forces Day sets out that you should or rather that we already believe that anyway. Even from the most 'conventional' or liberal perspective, Britain's foreign policy over the past 200 years has been morally amibiguous. From my way of seeing things it has mainly been pretty shitty. It isn't about little instances of unjust wars or occasional instances of horrific acts such as torture. Aspire to ensure they are only used for good and defensively etc - but surely IF that was the case, you'd agree, in the world that currently exists, having an army is a good idea, and joining one is a commitment beyond most normal jobs? Well...I don't see how you can talk to me about living in LalaLand about a better world when you aspire to the use of an armed force for good and one used defensively. History shows that use of Britain's use of the armed forces has rarely been used for anything other than the good of select group in the country, though sometimes being indirectly of benefit to the British people. And in terms of defence, it would be a very loose use of the word to make out that British foreign policy has been about defence of the British people. Or do you disagree? Do you really think that in all circumstances and situation the armed forces are just tools of oppressive government and only the brainwashed join them and support them? I think nationalism and patriotism which people are subjected to from a young age and which are not often criticised affect how we view the armed forces and what they do and also influence those who join. And then you have an understanding of government, foreign policy, and liberalism which again people are indoctrinated with that lead to a particular thinking on these matters. In any case, your perspective is far more intellectual and your idea of support for the armed forces looks to different reasons than those given in the propaganda of this Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 History shows that use of Britain's use of the armed forces has rarely been used for anything other than the good of select group in the country, though sometimes being indirectly of benefit to the British people. Have you ever wondered why the British Isles (especially the United Kingdom) has become one of the richest nations on this planet? Rich to the point that you and I benefit from it? We're a nation of traders (Napoleon was kind of correct) and shopkeepers. We trade and trade needs security. The UAE is a very rich country, do they have the same benefits that we enjoy in the UK? I think not. The United States too. Yes I'm being very vague but the British Army brought about security in the World. You, me and our ancestors prospered. We're a nation of traders and to trade succesfully you need stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 History shows that use of Britain's use of the armed forces has rarely been used for anything other than the good of select group in the country, though sometimes being indirectly of benefit to the British people. Have you ever wondered why the British Isles (especially the United Kingdom) has become one of the richest nations on this planet? Rich to the point that you and I benefit from it? We're a nation of traders (Napoleon was kind of correct) and shopkeepers. We trade and trade needs security. The UAE is a very rich country, do they have the same benefits that we enjoy in the UK? I think not. The United States too. Yes I'm being very vague but the British Army brought about security in the World. You, me and our ancestors prospered. We're a nation of traders and to trade succesfully you need stability. I think you need to more specific. What is this security and how was it achieved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think you need to more specific. What is this security and how was it achieved? Now you are being silly Lala. You know full well what security means. Now stop it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.