rememberance day

[topcat99]

I know its not 'trendy ' or 'cool'

but its remembance Sunday soon, and club alliannces aside, lets pause to remember those lost.

My best mate Gary Nick.. 2005 in Iraq.. God bless mate.

 

[Essex Wolf]

Well said topcat99 and fully agree with you.:top:

 

[PREM.L.L]

Whoever thinks it's not trendy or cool need a good shoeing!

Very important and costs nothing.

 

[topcat99]

Gary was a great bloke, when his coffin went down the aisle, the tune was ' always look on the bright side of life'

The congrenation didnt know if to laugh or cry. Gary would have loved that.

 

[rincewind]

Hear, hear.
Hopefully everyone will be able to spare 2 minutes.

 

[Ogerp]

Hear, hear.
Hopefully everyone will be able to spare 2 minutes.

They will always be remembered.

But I prefer the 11th hour of the 11th month.

 

[The Professional]

They will always be remembered.

But I prefer the 11th hour of the 11th month.

And me (...of the eleventh day)- I work in a bank and Friday was a moving day when all staff and customers observed 2 minutes silence.

 

[Netherton Wolf]

And me (...of the eleventh day)- I work in a bank and Friday was a moving day when all staff and customers observed 2 minutes silence.

Us 2, we put the radio on just beforehand, unplugged all the phones, and when I came home from work all our family of 5 had done the same, hubby and eldest son on the building site. middle son was at the gym and daughter at college, I actually think its being observed more in recent times.

We will all be in Dudley tomorrow morning watching the parade and then joining in the service at Coronation gardens.

 

[Essex Wolf]

Just thought I'd bump this up.

Hope people have had their minutes silence to remember those lost.

 

[Linwolf]

Attended the service at Stourbridge memorial today. Very well attended and a moving experience.

 

[Arcadius]

Well said Topcat. My father was from Warsaw and he left home at 15, when the Germans invaded, and joined the Polish Underground. He lived in the sewers for 2 years fighting the Germans. He lost family and friends during the war but survived despite being shot and taken prisoner of war. He is no longer with us but today I remember what he went through and all those that died fighting for freedom.

 

[derbyrameater]

Harry Patch is on Freeview tonight at 11-10 if you`vwe not seen this I highly recommend it.

 

[MonkeySpanner]

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

 

[Deleted member 3604]

Harry Patch is on Freeview tonight at 11-10 if you`vwe not seen this I highly recommend it.

I wonder what those that lined up to enter probable death in no-mans land during WW1 and those about to hit the beaches on Normandy WW2 (in fact any who fought the two world wars) would think if they were told what the world would be like in 2012. Was it worth it?

 

[Edgmond Wolf]

Always makes me feel humble when you see how many names there are on the memorial

We shall remember them

 

[bigbluewolf]

I refereed three under 8s matches today and the lads in the three teams were absolutely brilliant when we observed the minute silence before the matches.

 

[spittlep]

A beg to differ it may not be "trendy" but it's "extremely COOL"

 

[Henry's Tackle]

Harry Patch is on Freeview tonight at 11-10 if you`vwe not seen this I highly recommend it.

radiohead recorded this song last year to raise money for the legion [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vztj_TnUQyY"]Radiohead - Harry Patch (In Memory of) - YouTube[/nomedia]

The lyrics are comments made by Harry Patch in an interview with Radio 4's Today programme a few years back. Very poignant, particularly "Give your leaders each a gun and let them fight it out themselves".

 

[Pengwern]

I wonder what those that lined up to enter probable death in no-mans land during WW1 and those about to hit the beaches on Normandy WW2 (in fact any who fought the two world wars) would think if they were told what the world would be like in 2012. Was it worth it?

Quite - according to the usual 11/11 rhetoric they have died to give us freedom. If so, then why have various politicians and police subsequently restricted it?

What I don't like about 11/11 is that the supposed solidarity with those who died in all wars always overlaps with and is typically engulfed by a morbid, narrow patriotism and militarism. On BBC tonight we had the usual 19th century imperialist hymns,like "wider still and wider" and the commentator then turning to "the need for Bomber Command to fly all those dangerous missions...".

What?

Most of these missions were of little or no military significance - they were ordered by Churchill and his cabinet to terrify German society into surrendering, which fits most definitions of terrorism.

Bomber Command has nothing whatsoever to do with why we have a cenotaph - a peoples' campaign to get the government to acknowledge that too many people had died for insufficient good reason in the First World War.

In the ensuing years, the state has managed, by skilful, incremental stage management, to drag the event and its meaning towards a militarist agenda which ensures that there will be many future wars to look forward to dying in, rather than what was supposed to be a wear to end wars.

 

[MonkeySpanner]

Quite - according to the usual 11/11 rhetoric they have died to give us freedom. If so, then why have various politicians and police subsequently restricted it?

What I don't like about 11/11 is that the supposed solidarity with those who died in all wars always overlaps with and is typically engulfed by a morbid, narrow patriotism and militarism. On BBC tonight we had the usual 19th century imperialist hymns,like "wider still and wider" and the commentator then turning to "the need for Bomber Command to fly all those dangerous missions...".

What?

Most of these missions were of little or no military significance - they were ordered by Churchill and his cabinet to terrify German society into surrendering, which fits most definitions of terrorism.

Bomber Command has nothing whatsoever to do with why we have a cenotaph - a peoples' campaign to get the government to acknowledge that too many people had died for insufficient good reason in the First World War.

In the ensuing years, the state has managed, by skilful, incremental stage management, to drag the event and its meaning towards a militarist agenda which ensures that there will be many future wars to look forward to dying in, rather than what was supposed to be a wear to end wars.

Hind sight is great isn't?

Your freedoms to write, speak and do pretty much what you want to do today were born by those who fought and in many cases died for your freedom.

As for the strategy of bombing city's and civillianse into surrender probably cut the war in Europe by at least a year, thus saving thousands of lives on all sides. I don't think you can condone it as terrorism when more than one government was in agreement with the practice of bombing German cities. Actually you might want to ask the folk of Coventry if they were in favor of a little payback.

The militarist agenda as you put it is presently stopping some Muslim terrorist from slitting your throat.

Sleep tight and sweet dreams. .

 

[Ivegotawolvesscarf]

hind sight is great isn't?

Your freedoms to write, speak and do pretty much what you want to do today were born by those who fought and in many cases died for your freedom.

As for the strategy of bombing city's and civillianse into surrender probably cut the war in europe by at least a year, thus saving thousands of lives on all sides. I don't think you can condone it as terrorism when more than one government was in agreement with the practice of bombing german cities. Actually you might want to ask the folk of coventry if they were in favor of a little payback.

The militarist agenda as you put it is presently stopping some muslim terrorist from slitting your throat.

Sleep tight and sweet dreams. .

lol

 

[Japan Wulf]

I wonder what those that lined up to enter probable death in no-mans land during WW1 and those about to hit the beaches on Normandy WW2 (in fact any who fought the two world wars) would think if they were told what the world would be like in 2012. Was it worth it?

It's an interesting philosophical question and I wouldn't be surprised if veterans from either of the world wars expressed disappointment with the world in which they are living. But to a great extent, that's not the point. I can't speak for the veterans of the Great War but as my parents point out, folk who endured WW2 mostly did so to preserve their way of life as it was in 1939. That's all that was on their minds. And they did. They did preserve our way of life and guarantee most of the freedoms that you enjoy today. Now some people might feel that they don't enjoy quite as much freedom as they might prefer, but they'd be enjoying a bloody sight less if we were living in the Third Reich.

Seems to me that if a veteran suggests that it might not have been worth it, us folk born in the post war years nod our heads and say that it's all so true. It just occurs to me that we should really feel embarrassed. It's our fault. The present generation took the chance that they gave us and created what we have now. For better or worse....

 

[Japan Wulf]

and the commentator then turning to "the need for Bomber Command to fly all those dangerous missions...".

What?
Most of these missions were of little or no military significance - they were ordered by Churchill and his cabinet to terrify German society into surrendering, which fits most definitions of terrorism.

You want to back that up?
The raids during the last few months of the war - and in particular the Dresden raid - probably fit your description. But that's as far as I'd go. Years before the war Churchill himself stated that a prolonged bomber campaign would more likely steel a population then destroy it's moral. Ironically, Churchill began to distance himself from Bomber Command towards the end of the war - perhaps one of the reasons that the veterans of the bombing campaign never received a medal.
Those last few months of the war have, rightly or wrongly, tarnished the image of Bomber Command, who, for the majority of the war DID attack militarily significant targets. At the beginning of the war they flew aircraft of dubious quality equipped with antiquated navigational aids. They were lucky to find a city let alone a particular target. But they flew. By war's end they became thoroughly adept at their jobs but still lost 50,000 aircrew in the process.

WW2 was a nasty bloody business. It was total war. My mom spent the last few years of the was making fuse caps for AA shells. Did that make her a legitimate target for German bombers? How about in present day UK if we came across some terrorist making a bomb in order to blow up a 747? Would the bomb maker be a legitimate target? You can sit in your comfy armchair pontificating about what's right and what's wrong but just remember that you weren't one of the lads that was flying a Lancaster back from Peenemunde on two engines, a shot up radio, a dead navigator and no bloody moon to guide you.

 

[rincewind]

The bombing campaign tied up 70% of the Luftwaffe who would otherwise have been on the front line. As for Dresden the advancing Russians asked for it to be attacked and incidentally it is a myth that there were no military targets in the city.
It's easy for us to sit here in 2011, with our pinpoint laser guided bombs and 70 years on from the bombing of British cities and critisice decisions taken.
Most people would have supported the bombing during the war and, whatever might be said about accuracy, it did have an effect on German industry.
As for militarising this is a country making soldiers redundant and the remembrance day services are about the fallen not attacking whatever country you think we are going to invade.
And in the end bomber command suffers the highest casualty rates of any British force of WW 2. Those young men did what they did as part of a war effort and were service men following orders.
Of course we could have not fought the Nazis!

 

[WasStefan]

Top, top post.

You want to back that up?
The raids during the last few months of the war - and in particular the Dresden raid - probably fit your description. But that's as far as I'd go. Years before the war Churchill himself stated that a prolonged bomber campaign would more likely steel a population then destroy it's moral. Ironically, Churchill began to distance himself from Bomber Command towards the end of the war - perhaps one of the reasons that the veterans of the bombing campaign never received a medal.
Those last few months of the war have, rightly or wrongly, tarnished the image of Bomber Command, who, for the majority of the war DID attack militarily significant targets. At the beginning of the war they flew aircraft of dubious quality equipped with antiquated navigational aids. They were lucky to find a city let alone a particular target. But they flew. By war's end they became thoroughly adept at their jobs but still lost 50,000 aircrew in the process.

WW2 was a nasty bloody business. It was total war. My mom spent the last few years of the was making fuse caps for AA shells. Did that make her a legitimate target for German bombers? How about in present day UK if we came across some terrorist making a bomb in order to blow up a 747? Would the bomb maker be a legitimate target? You can sit in your comfy armchair pontificating about what's right and what's wrong but just remember that you weren't one of the lads that was flying a Lancaster back from Peenemunde on two engines, a shot up radio, a dead navigator and no bloody moon to guide you.

 

[Deleted member 3604]

It's an interesting philosophical question and I wouldn't be surprised if veterans from either of the world wars expressed disappointment with the world in which they are living. But to a great extent, that's not the point. I can't speak for the veterans of the Great War but as my parents point out, folk who endured WW2 mostly did so to preserve their way of life as it was in 1939. That's all that was on their minds. And they did. They did preserve our way of life and guarantee most of the freedoms that you enjoy today. Now some people might feel that they don't enjoy quite as much freedom as they might prefer, but they'd be enjoying a bloody sight less if we were living in the Third Reich.

I think in any conflict you have to pinpoint the aggressor and their motive. We weren't the aggressor in WW2, rightfully defeating Hitler's ideals, and who knows what part our colonial past aggressions played in us getting embroiled in WW1 - it's difficult to to tell. Either way you could conclude that for any civilised society war is not the answer unless you defend.

Our current wars are fueled totally by the need to dominate the middle east with a strong economic motive. The West is acting as the aggressor and there is a strong Muslim backlash, some of it extreme, which wouldn't I believe be happening had it not been for the aggressive Foreign Policy - we fought back against Hitler who had similar intent. There were no WMD's found in Iraq and I believe the 9-11 charade was an inside job to allow the West to legitimately attack anybody they wished, without recourse and it has worked perfectly. It is their alibi.

Seems to me that if a veteran suggests that it might not have been worth it, us folk born in the post war years nod our heads and say that it's all so true. It just occurs to me that we should really feel embarrassed. It's our fault. The present generation took the chance that they gave us and created what we have now. For better or worse....

Again it all depends on the motive. The erosion of our 'freedoms' is a whole new topic. We have, for all intents and purposes a one party state and a series of laws in the USA (ie Patriot Act) although presented as Anti-Terrorist are anything but. It's all very subtle.

 

[Deleted member 3604]

You want to back that up?
The raids during the last few months of the war - and in particular the Dresden raid - probably fit your description. But that's as far as I'd go.

Apparently 'we' were the first to hit civilian targets (accidentally or not) and the Germans retaliated. I would be at pains to say they were all as bad as each other, no finger pointing from me, and the use of incendiaries which were designed to start firestorms on civilian populations is wrong, even in retaliation. If anything even more incentive not to wage war again.

 

[Pengwern]

Monkey SPanner wrote "I don't think you can condone it as terrorism when more than one government was in agreement with the practice of bombing German cities".

So, by the same logic, if the Taliban had pre-agreed 9/11 with Al Qaida, then it shouldn't be called terrorism, because two organisations were in agreement! What are you on?

Rincewind argues "As for Dresden the advancing Russians asked for it to be attacked and incidentally it is a myth that there were no military targets in the city".

In fact, at the end of 1944, the Russians began to hasten their westward advance and it was then decided jointly that the Allies would launch a combined attack on an eastern German city in order to hasten the rate of collapse. The air attack part of this was left to Britain and the main officials involved were Air Commodore Sydney Bufton, Deputy Chief of Air Staff Sir Norman Bottomley and Sir Charles Portal, with governmental direction from Churchill. ‘Bomber’ Harris didn’t have much involvement with the planning of the actual raid, as this was done by Bufton, Bottomley and Portal. Originally, the raid was to include Berlin, Chemnitz, and Leipzig but Dresden was ultimately chosen.

Rincewind also argued "whatever might be said about accuracy, it did have an effect on German industry".

In fact, it was well known that large numbers of civilian refugees were passing through Dresden at that time so a major factor was to cause confusion and demoralisation among civilians, rather than structural damage. However, most damage was ultimately done in the city centre rather than the outlying suburban areas. As war historian Donald Miller said, ‘the economic disruption would have been far greater had Bomber Command targeted the suburban areas where most of Dresden’s manufacturing might was located’.

Overall, Dresden resulted in far more damage and destruction being caused than throughout the whole of the Baedeker Raids so it is extremely doubtful that the Allied response could ever be truly justified on grounds of reasonable proportionality.

The Associated Press called Dresden 'Terror Bombing' at the time.

Why?

Over the night of 13/14 February 1945, two waves of Lancasters attacked the city. The first wave released its bombs between 22:14 and 22:22, bombing a fan shaped area 1¼ miles long and 1¾ miles wide. The second attack took place between 01:21 and 01:45. By then the utility systems and early-warning methods were rendered useless. Dresden’s air raid precautions were woefully under equipped to deal with any sort of airborne assault, because Goering never conceived that it would be seen as a military target.

The houses had modifications so in the event of a raid, the cellar walls could be demolished. Thus, as one house became consumed by fire or smoke, the inhabitants could move along into the next cellar. However, they found that as they moved from one burning cellar, they moved directly into another so were trapped between the flames. A few anti aircraft guns had been placed around the city but had been removed several days prior to the first attack on the night of 13th February. No proper shelters had been built and the only defence measures were buckets of sand.

The damage was therefore catastrophic and, given the long lead-up to the raid, it is inconceivable that the state of Dresden's preparedness was unknown to British intelligence.

The effect on the ground was horrific. People huddling in cellars and bomb shelters were starved of oxygen or sucked into the fire by the ferocious winds. By early the next morning, the city centre was engulfed in a firestorm with temperatures reaching over 1500°C. According to an RAF assessment, widespread destruction was caused.

For the next two days after the firestorm, the USAAF carried out further raids to heighten panic and confusion.

Churchill tried afterwards to distance himself from Dresden and it is only now - with cuddly Cameron in charge, that Bomber Command is being resurrected in a smelly piece of revisionist history.

 

[HICKO]

I am proud for those who died in war, they deserve recognition.
What I find risible though is the perpetual attempts by some posters to hijack threads to spout their extreme views.
For goodness sake Mol Mix OT Forum has about 4 viewers at any given time and most of them want to talk about music, computer games or curry shops!!Hardly Speakers Corner!
Do you really think you are doing anything other than fuelling your own egos by typing out these ubiquitous essays, your persistence only reinforces my opinion you are wrong, the only people you attract are the same predictable "to the barricades crew"
Of course you few could always meet up after a game or arrange a "meeting" to discuss your ideals, in any event a tribute to our war dead is no place for them. As DRE would say IMV of course.

 

[rincewind]

Pengwern a good reasoned response on a subject I also am interested in (history in general and WW 2 in particular, though not particularly the bombing war).
Firstly I must agree with the facts in your answer but take issue with some of the conclusions. Area bombing was notoriously inaccurate at this time so ity centres were chosen as targets on the basis that maximised the chances of actually hitting the bloody place. There was next to no chance of hitting a specific suburb of the city let alone a facory. Also there was always a big element of terror bombing from all nations in the war.
It was thought that civilian morale could crack under the onslaught.
According to recently released papers Russian deputy Chief of staff Antonov & airmarshall Khudyakov pressed for bombing of Berlin, Leipzig & Dresden at Yalta in Feb 45. This was to aid the Russian advance on Berlin. Approx 20,000 died, certainly terrible but by the standards of the Eastern front hardly unknown civilian casualties. As for industry apart from it's important rail links it contained oPtics, electronics and comms factories. Dresden was inadequately defended even though the Germans considered it a target themselves.
The main argument against such a raid is surely it's necessity at this point in the war.
However as I say it's easy for us to moralise now. I suspect most people not on the German side at the time, had little sympathy. Clearly there would be outrage now but we are a 'softer' people now and much more sympathetic to our fellow man. That's not a criticism just an observation.
Oh and apologies for the length of reply. I do find these things interesting.

 

[rincewind]

I am proud for those who died in war, they deserve recognition.
What I find risible though is the perpetual attempts by some posters to hijack threads to spout their extreme views.
For goodness sake Mol Mix OT Forum has about 4 viewers at any given time and most of them want to talk about music, computer games or curry shops!!Hardly Speakers Corner!
Do you really think you are doing anything other than fuelling your own egos by typing out these ubiquitous essays, your persistence only reinforces my opinion you are wrong, the only people you attract are the same predictable "to the barricades crew"
Of course you few could always meet up after a game or arrange a "meeting" to discuss your ideals, in any event a tribute to our war dead is no place for them. As DRE would say IMV of course.

Hicko it's something I'm interested in. Your not fine. I don't want to discuss music or computer games but I'm not about to deride those who do. I justdont read the thread. I rarely post on here like most others so I'm a bit mystified with your complaint.

 

[derbyrameater]

I am proud for those who died in war, they deserve recognition.

Is that all wars?
If you are talking about WW1, I agree with you but it was an war between Imperial powers wanting to hold onto their colonial resources and power base and sacrificed a generations to do so, and that has to be repeated otherwise will be forgotten.
Remembrance Day should not just be the preserve of the likes of BAE.

What I find risible though is the perpetual attempts by some posters to hijack threads to spout their extreme views.

All I wrote on this thread was a recommendation to watch Harry Patch, perhaps some might find watching the last survivor of WW1 calling the annual ceremony what it has become, then I make no apology.

For goodness sake Mol Mix OT Forum has about 4 viewers at any given time and most of them want to talk about music, computer games or curry shops!!Hardly Speakers Corner!

I`m not usually interested in those so rarely comment on them.
Is talking about the reasons for something to be frowned upon, this just highlights my reasons against it, it has been hi-jacked and low betide anyone who doesn`t fall in line.

Do you really think you are doing anything other than fuelling your own egos by typing out these ubiquitous essays, your persistence only reinforces my opinion you are wrong, the only people you attract are the same predictable "to the barricades crew"
Of course you few could always meet up after a game or arrange a "meeting" to discuss your ideals, in any event a tribute to our war dead is no place for them. As DRE would say IMV of course.

It has become more than a tribute, that is the point. IMO

 

[HICKO]

Hicko it's something I'm interested in. Your not fine. I don't want to discuss music or computer games but I'm not about to deride those who do. I justdont read the thread. I rarely post on here like most others so I'm a bit mystified with your complaint.

The point I was trying to make was that often threads move away from the topic of the title.
I think the Remembrance thread should be that as proposed by the thread starter and not a vehicle for political point making.
I'm not deriding the "curry boyos" etc; on the contrary if you look at most of my threads/posts you will see I have a very wide range of interests and would be last to deride others.
For what it is worth I rareley read the whole of some of the posts by certain members as I find them predictable and boring, but I would prefer they didn't stain a genuine thread with the same old arguments.
These posters should post threads specifically for their points. Then us others wouldn't have to trawl through their meanderings on existing ones.
Hope this clears things up.

 

[Pengwern]

Thanks, Rince. I do think, however, that the lack of anti-aircraft power around Dresden meant that the Bombers could fly lower and the fact that so many bombs fell into a zone of this size means they could have targeted economic targets in the Dresden suburbs or else in another city's suburbs.

Goering did not think it was a target; Goebbels raged at him afterwards for this and the damage which ensued, so I don't agree that the Germans thought it could be a target, especially the centre, which was a cultural icon.

On your point about necessity at that stage of the war, the raid did nothing to help the Russian advance and, let's be fair, the British and Americans did not want the Russians to get to Berlin before themselves, anyway, so trying now to share blame with the Russians is not an accurate assessment of what happened or why.

We might be softer now, but I actually think we are more controlled - the 2003 US 'Shock and Awe' attack on Baghdad was on a similar scale and the media successfully sold it to us as just something which had to be done. Since the Falklands and the invasion of Grenada, the media have been vetted by the US military and forced into seeing only what they are shown, so we the public don't get the chance to see another Dresden, Hiroshima or Mai Lai.

They turn it on and off as it suits them - Baghdad was just 'necessary', yet Benghazi was going to be an 800,000 strong genocide, according to Cameron and Sarkozy, so they just had to go in, for 'humanitarian' reasons.

Yeah! Sure! My brain is dead so I'm going to believe it and, anyway, I don;t have any access to alternative facts, now that the Qatar government has put its own man in charge of Al Jazeera.

 

[HICKO]

It has become more than a tribute, that is the point. IMO

I stick to my points.
Read post one, the clue is there.

 

[rincewind]

Pengwern most of the modern interventions are very media controlled, that I agree with. Access to oil? Never surely.
Dresden will be debated by people with better qualifications than us (or me anyway) for a long time. Interesting to hear your view though. Would note that the Russians did push for those 3 cities though. The bomb loads used were anti personell though.
Hicko apologies for long winded replies, I really intended to defend those who died in bomber command when discussing armistice day but got side tracked into a historical discussion.

 

[derbyrameater]

The point I was trying to make was that often threads move away from the topic of the title.
I think the Remembrance thread should be that as proposed by the thread starter and not a vehicle for political point making.
I'm not deriding the "curry boyos" etc; on the contrary if you look at most of my threads/posts you will see I have a very wide range of interests and would be last to deride others.
For what it is worth I rareley read the whole of some of the posts by certain members as I find them predictable and boring, but I would prefer they didn't stain a genuine thread with the same old arguments.
These posters should post threads specifically for their points. Then us others wouldn't have to trawl through their meanderings on existing ones.
Hope this clears things up.

The thread is entitled Remembrance Day and I have only referred to it within this thread or answered other comments.
Remembrance Day was about remembering the People who were involved but it has become about remembering War by the politicians so don`t be surprised if people talk about all the issues which surround war

 

[HICKO]

Pengwern most of the modern interventions are very media controlled, that I agree with. Access to oil? Never surely.
Dresden will be debated by people with better qualifications than us (or me anyway) for a long time. Interesting to hear your view though. Would note that the Russians did push for those 3 cities though. The bomb loads used were anti personell though.
Hicko apologies for long winded replies, I really intended to defend those who died in bomber command when discussing armistice day but got side tracked into a historical discussion.

No probs, I think you are on the side of the thread's context..

 

[Deleted member 3604]

What I find risible though is the perpetual attempts by some posters to hijack threads to spout their extreme views. .

I remember and I don't forget their sacrifice which is why I made my initial point on this thread. I don't think anybody is denigrating the memory of those who have fallen and If not wanting further loss of life is an extreme view then I'm happily an extremist.

 

[singaporewolves]

I think for those of us who have never been in battle it's an impossible task to describe the loss of a friend or comrade. I honour the struggle and sacrifice. Anyone who has stood on the beaches of France, Pegasus Bridge, Changi Prison or on the Kwai can feel the suffering that we maybe able to $$$$ it up today! Gla all