Re~Stirred Forum

Well a post that might have only limited interest and would only cover today.

Armed Forces Day, sounds like something that a dictatorship might have, I would prefer a title that might be a bit more politicaly acceptable to a larger and more diverse audience.

It could have been incorporated in to something like 'Nation Day' when we could celebrate our pride and achievements as a nation and it's component parts, such as Wales, Scotland, England, so Wales would have its Nation Day at the same time as England and Scotland and celebrate the national individulaity as well as the national similarity. We could celebrate our service personnel, armed forces and civilian uniformed services on that day and it would be a Bank Holiday, I doubt if anyone would complain about an additional bank holiday.

We have remembrance day in November for those that have been killed in the service of their country and I would not want to see Armed Forces Day become a second remembrance day, which is what is happening in relation to how some are celebrating the day. It should be about those that are alive and serving and those that have served not those that have died.

How many of you took part in the day? It is only four years old, will it survive or will it decline and fade away?

I agree about the title, however to me "Remembrance Day" is about remembering the "fallen" but also the living, "The Poppy" (monies given) is donated to help service personnel, who may need assistance, for several different reasons, one being to help with costs due to being injured. That day shouldn't be encroached upon.
As to another title meaning similar, How about "Tributes Day" em thinking about that we may get a whole lotta" Elvis" coming on. Trickey? but I would hate to see today simply fade out, it would look somehow disrespectful to our "Armed Forces".

How about "Killers for hire" day to reflect the innocent lives lost by those at the hands of the armed forces?

!

Purile and pathetic - you are a disgrace !!!

If you'd been around in 1938, would you have said the same of the armed forces then? What would you have said in 1941?

Isn't that what St George's, St Patrick's, St Andrew's and St David's days are [potentially] for?

That's a disgraceful post. You come across like a stoned sixth former who thinks it clever to be provocatively offensive.

In answer to the more reasoned original post I think the idea of the day will have legs whilst operations are ongoing. Whatever people think about the merits of our overseas 'adventures', and notwithstanding folk who have attitudes like Jamie, most people have a respect for people who would knowingly and repeatedly put themselves in mortal danger on our behalf. You may not agree with this or that current cause, but one day it will be a cause you do agree with, and they are the folk who will be first up to dodge the bullets for you.

However, when we've not got operations ongoing I think some of that reflection diminishes and wonder if there would be the enthusiasm for such events there is at the moment.

I expect Armed Forces Day will fade away for a variety of reasons, some of which have been mentioned already.

Look at the numbers who attend Remembrance Day services today. Maybe 3k at B'ham and in Solihull maybe six hundred. After WW1 contemporary photos show massive public attendance, although I've not seen photos from the 1930's. Note recent attendance is acknowledged as having gone up; commentators cite active operations abroad, publicity and the national curriculum covering WW1.

Two factors will be significant in fading away: the small size of the armed forces, so fewer people will have a personal, current connection and the decline of in person participation in public affairs, with the increasing use of electronic media.

Also the fact that tens of thousands have rather spent today standing at the side of the road watching a bloody torch being carried past them.
We are a superficially funny nation sometimes.

Talking of superficial....there were plenty of British innocents killed by armed forces in WW2, and plenty of armed forces sacrificed so that your parents could live so that people like you could be born.
Love them or hate them, they've been necessary for the life you live today, so please try and add some intelligence to your argument.

Oh dear, some of you have difficulty accepting that the armed forces are nothing more than paid killers for the authorities sent to do the work that those in power won't. Attempting to link the forces today with those forced to take part in WW2 is the true disgrace.

The numbers of innocents across Iran and Afghanistan needlessly gunned down by "heroes" has run into hundreds of thousands, even millions yet they are applauded by the moronic brain dead of this country as if they were somehow defending our freedoms, how?

Since when did "heroes" carry automatic fire-arms? Heroes save lives not take them and a soldier is conditioned to take a life as effectively as they can.

Seriously, you applaud paid killers without any form of constructive criticism of the work they do, instead the great unwashed are fed the idea that they are someone defending our rights (really?) or doing anything more than creating power constructs abroad as has always been the case.

My grandparents were soldiers, neither wanted to be, they were forced into and one of them spent 3 years in a concentration camp, he never once considered himself a hero, he was always knowledgeable of the fact that he was being used by those in authority in Britain to do their dirty work and protect 'their' freedoms.

Jamie,

At least your latest post has an argument, quite unlike your needlessly provocative initial post.

Taking one point:

Part of your general argument rests on the UK's participation in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. We have fought in other places where the armed forces made sacrifices that were for causes that had wide, genuine public support, notably the Falklands, Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

In both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the public have always been able to separate out the politicians from the armed forces. We respect their professionalism and the sacrifices made, even if we are unsure or opposed to them being there. There is ample evidence of public criticism in both wars, often led by the families of those killed or injured, for example the deaths from using the unsuitable Snatch Land Rovers.

Yes I applaud them. The Armed Forces, which today are volunteers, do a job I don't want to do. In fact even with all my knowledge, from reading and talking to them, I find it hard to imagine what they do.

Today you can make an argument that as a nation, especially it's politicians, we have treated them shabbily.

So yesterday I ignored all the politicians statements and preferred the words of Jason Beharry @ the National Memorial Arboretum:

I struggle with lots of 'Days' and especially with new 'Days'

However, many a time I have stopped off in the Hall of Memory in centenary square. It's perfect as a place for memory and reflecting on the past - as effective as many churches, I think - and that past may be something or nothing to do with war.

I love the building.

My first post was deliberately provocative to cut through the sentimental treacle often thrown at the 'armed' forces, never forget they are hired armed personal. Other threads have referred to them as "brave" without a hint of irony or attempt to justify their bravado. Charities blandly refer to them as "heroes", again without the need to justify the term. Instead anyone attempting to remind the public that the armed forces do a job, to kill others for those in power, are treated to similar displays of ad-hominem as we've seen here.

Whilst they may do a job that I don't (I'm not fond of shooting people really), I do a job that they can't. The army is full of young males with very poor levels of education thrust into violent conflict for reasons they rarely understand.

Even on a voluntary basis the armed forces are nothing more than slaves sent out to fight political wars whilst those who start them hide in safety whilst throwing platitudes out towards the 'brave', let the politicians be the cannon fodder.

Soldiers are a necessity of war and no more need praising than those they fight against, they are all part of the same mechanism of violent oppression and power.

Most people in the armed services today have not killed anyone. The "authorities" that instruct the armed forces are elected by British voters, presumably including yourself.Presumably you mean Iraq. No sensible person would claim that the British armed forces have killed "millions". Most estimates in Iraq range between 100,000-150,000, including insurgents, Iraqi security forces and civilians. Most deaths in Iraq resulted from violence amongst Iraqi groups.

I suggest that the heroism is in laying aside your personal opinions and serving loyally, knowing that your services may not always be utilised properly and despite the personal costs this may incur. The armed forces are there to protect you and your lifestyle if and when such a need should arise.

Few people would claim that the Iraq war was about securing our freedoms. However, it's not inconceivable that in the short to medium term very real threats to our freedoms [perhaps from China or Russia] may arise. That is when you will be glad we have armed forces.I didn't directly link the today's armed forces to those who fought in World War Two, but to those who served in 1938. Perhaps had you been around then you would have made the same comments about the armed forces being an oppressive imperial force [and this would be far truer then than now]. Of course the majority of those who fought in the Second World War were conscripted, but do you think a purely conscripted army would have had been able to train itself and create an effective military in the space of a few months or even a year? A pre-existing military infrastructure was essential, just as regular, professional servicemen were essential to effectively expanding the armed forces.

Many millions perished in that war, sustained significant injuries or had the most terrible experiences. I'm sure many went to war extremely reluctantly or even against their will. But what was the alternative? To stay neutral and watch continental Europe subjugated by fascism? To wait until the fascists invaded Britain and unleashed oppression and genocide? I suppose it was easier for those on the Eastern front. They knew that if they didn't attempt - even in extremely poorly equipped and completely mismanaged conditions - to stop the fascists, they would only face total annihilation within a period of years anyway.

Oh I voted, not for war though, that decision was taken without any consultation with the country. It was done on a pure lie fed to the authority by those with other interests in the region.



Casualties in Iraq:
Iraqi troops killed 30,000
Iraqi troops seriously injured 90,000
Iraqi civilians killed 864,531
Iraqi civilians seriously injured 1,556,156

Casualties in Afghanistan:
Afghan troops killed 8,587
Afghan troops seriously injured 25,761
Afghan civilians killed 8,813
Afghan civilians seriously injured 15,863

At least 919,967 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates.




Conjecture based twaddle designed to play to fear of invisible enemies. Cold war hysteria at its worst.



Different eras and VERY different forms of conflict. The opposition to fascism only truly occurred when there was the risk that Hitler would move on from Poland to the UK, fascism it appears was ok until it threatened 'our' freedoms, it was acceptable when being imposed on the Austrians. Had there been a stronger collected opposition to the anschluss then the situation in Europe could have been a lot different. Hitler was strangely quite popular amongst the upper-classes in the UK, many of whom were rather sympathetic to his beliefs.

Given that I explicitly named two states, I am hardly proposing "invisible" enemies, even if a military threat from them at this point is conjecture. Nonetheless, Russia's immediate neighbours do feel a very real military threat from an expansionist, nationalistic regime. A 'hot' war took place as recently as 2008 in South Ossetia between Russia and Georgia. Even if there is currently no direct threat to ourselves, given that many of these nations [Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland] are our allies in NATO, the EU or both, it does seem to me that we have a responsibility to maintain a capacity to help these very small - but peaceful, democratic - nations.

More generally, if you believe that seemingly democratic nations such as Britain or the US can be manipulated by "authorities" in to wars, then why do you doubt that one-party, militaristic, autocratic regimes are unlikely to ever threaten other nations?I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make? Perhaps war could have been avoided, but I don't think appeasement was quite as straightforward as you suggest. The reason why there was relatively little military action after war was declared in 1939 probably had much to do with the technological limitations of the time that made direct intervention to aid Poland difficult.

Nonetheless, you seem to concede that this was a war where the armed forces really did fight for Britain's freedom... is it so difficult to believe that at some point in the future this may again be necessary?

Jamie Carter, you do in fact put forward a view that many people have in relation to the military.

We would all prefer to have a world where armed forces are not needed.

The views in parts of Northern Ireland in relation to the British Army could not be published here, nor the views of many in Israel pre British Army withdrawal.

Service personnel are ultimately of no use in a war situation unless they can kill effeciently and cost effectively.

The development of modern technology and the use of Drones allows remote killing but it is costly.

After the withdraw of troops from Afghanistan in 2014 and the cessation of deaths of service personnel, Armed Forces Day will become more remote in citizens eyes.

I have to cleave towards the saying, "My Country, right or wrong", I know it is an easy cop out and shows a lack of moral fibre in questioning what the armed forces are fighting for, but I rely on our elected representatives to do the right thing when committing our service personnel.

War should never be glorified, but if we make the young aware of the reality of conflict, would any of them freely join the services and if they did not in sufficient numbers we might have to introduce conscription.

I wish I had such 'faith'. I believe they (politicians) put their own popularity and needs ahead of the young they send to die (Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan).

There are many issues in which I have to have faith in others, even though I know that they often get things wrong, the surgeon that makes one too many mistakes, the police officer that is dishonest or racist, the priest that is a pedophile.

And often we take the position of collective, selective deafness as when we are at war. One of our best Conservative icons Winston Spencer Churchill was not above making fatal mistakes but at least he made them, rather than having a collective of decision makers that would take too long and never reach a consensus of action.

Armed Forces Day is over for another 12 months and for many families that celebrated it this year, it will have a greater significance next year as it is inevitable we will lose service personnel over the next 12 months and my thoughts are with those families, who are yet to get that earth shattering news, that a loved one has died in the service of their country. I feel the same for those of the other uniformed services, fire, ambulance and police etc, that may lose their life.

Plus the British Governments ' right, you've had your march past the Cenotaph now go back to being treated like crap'. As for Jamies ' killers for hire' comment..Does he think he could have made that remark if there was a swastika flying over Big Ben? I doubt it.

Staffordshire Regiment to be disbanded , job losses of 600. Also a long tradition ended

Strictly speaking the Staffordshire Regiment, as a name, ceased to be in 2007 when they were amalgamated in to the Mercian regiment. From Hammond's statement it seems that all those serving in battalions and units that will be disbanded will not necessarily themselves be made redundant. Redundancies will be made across the army, so I guess those in units that will be disbanded but not being made redundant will have an option of transferring to another unit?