Political Ramblings of an Idiot

[Montreal Wanderer]

i have been accused before of being disrespectful to the people who fought and died in world wars to save britain, but my point is they didnt fight to save a piece of land in between John O'Groats and Land's End, but these ideals of freedom and equality.

You're probably well wide of the mark there. If you asked most of those said soldiers, very few would probably answer freedon or equality, most would say they'd fought for their country.

I think the point he was making that the country is not simply a piece of land, but rather that the country meant more things to them which might include freedom and equality. Of course some may have fought simply because they were conscripted.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Point is, nationalist doesn't have to mean racist/xenophobic, although I accept that may not be strictly true with the BNP.

It doesn't have to, fatshaft, but all too frequently it does. Hopefully it will die out in time along with other things that divide humanity.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Point is, nationalist doesn't have to mean racist/xenophobic, although I accept that may not be strictly true with the BNP.

It doesn't have to, fatshaft, but all too frequently it does. Hopefully it will die out in time along with other things that divide humanity.

Like football? Gerroff this board!

[TANGODANCER]

I think the point he was making that the country is not simply a piece of land, but rather that the country meant more things to them which might include freedom and equality. Of course some may have fought simply because they were conscripted.

In a world war where your contry is involved (as opposed to sending troops to another country to sort its problems out and where it's their job as soldiers), I think you'll find they fought for their homeland knowing that if they lost they'd lose everything. A lot of people did. Even concientious objection has it's limits for most where home and family are at risk. My father and brother were both regular army, one from choice and one from necessity. There is a vast difference.

[Lord Kangana]

I think the point he was making that the country is not simply a piece of land, but rather that the country meant more things to them which might include freedom and equality. Of course some may have fought simply because they were conscripted.

In a world war where your contry is involved (as opposed to sending troops to another country to sort its problems out and where it's their job as soldiers), I think you'll find they fought for their homeland knowing that if they lost they'd lose everything. A lot of people did. Even concientious objection has it's limits for most where home and family are at risk. My father and brother were both regular army, one from choice and one from necessity. There is a vast difference.

Interesting one this Tango. A hell of a lot of the older generations of my family have been in the army (none now though). I know my grandad always said he signed up at the start of WWII at 18 because he thought it was all a "big adventure". I found that quite an astonishing answer, considering his own Father (My great Grandad) had a leg, part of an arm and 3 fingers blown off at Gallipoli, so he would have seen the consequences of 'action' on a daily basis. But by his early twenties he genuinly had seen the world (much more of than I have, even in these times of unlimited travel), so maybe for a working class lad from Radcliffe it was the only way out?

[Prufrock]

some were frankly ridiculous, for instance the BNP who had a girl born and bred in Dublin quoted as supporting them, saying she beleived that Britain should be preserved for the indigenous people of Britain. that's right, the BRITISH national party.

I'm not really sure what your point is there pru? I presume you're saying that someone from Ireland should disagree with their policy because they aren't British?

I'm a Scots nationalist, and always have been from my ealry teens, my best mate was English and hated all the nationalist stuff, his father (english obviously) was however a highly active member and councillor for the SNP. You can imagine the hours of fun I had with that!

Point is, nationalist doesn't have to mean racist/xenophobic, although I accept that may not be strictly true with the BNP.

my point wasn't that she couldn't/shouldn't agree with their policies, but that it seems to be desperation of the highest order on the part of the BNP, to have to bring in support from outside to back up their points, especially seeing as according to their immigration policy, were they to get in power she would be 'voluntarily' repatriated. this surely then would stop her as a student in Britain voting for them since she is strictly speaking an 'immigrant'. just because she is white seems to alter people's views on this.

[Prufrock]

i have been accused before of being disrespectful to the people who fought and died in world wars to save britain, but my point is they didnt fight to save a piece of land in between John O'Groats and Land's End, but these ideals of freedom and equality.

You're probably well wide of the mark there. If you asked most of those said soldiers, very few would probably answer freedon or equality, most would say they'd fought for their country.

I think the point he was making that the country is not simply a piece of land, but rather that the country meant more things to them which might include freedom and equality. Of course some may have fought simply because they were conscripted.

i think i need to put into context when this accusation was made. it was when i was arguing that we shouldnt have gone into iraq and i was said to not be showing enough respect to the people fighting to defend our country and so was disrespecting ther soldiers of the past. my point was that this wasnt a war of defence, whilst i am as anti war as possible, i accept that if somebody else tries to invade us, then obviously we have to defend oursleves.

regarding what i thought they fought for, whilst obviously some men fought for Queen and Country, by fighting for queen and country they were fighting for the ideals they represent, which i would argue as freedom and equality. they werent strictly speaking fighting to protect Britain as a landmass, but to protect the lives and ways of life of the people in it. i think there is a difference. for instance the reason we entered the war was because the Nazis invaded Poland, not Britain, we were fighting to stop a facist regime spreading, a regime that if left unchecked would be a threat to the ways of life of people living inside Britain.

whilst Hitler obviously intended to invade Britain during the war, hence battle of Britain etc. his original thought was that we would become allies along with Italy and that he would be able to expand Germany eastwards to gain living space for his mentalist idea of a german 'superman' to live in. when it became clear we werent for helping then we became an enemy. i beleive what the soldiers fought for was their own freedom, that of their famillies and their friends and of the British people as a whole through a sense of community, that community was defined by the borders of Britain, but they were not an important reason for fighting in themselves.

[TANGODANCER]

regarding what i thought they fought for, whilst obviously some men fought for Queen and Country, by fighting for queen and country they were fighting for the ideals they represent, which i would argue as freedom and equality. they werent strictly speaking fighting to protect Britain as a landmass, but to protect the lives and ways of life of the people in it. i think there is a difference. for instance the reason we entered the war was because the Nazis invaded Poland, not Britain, we were fighting to stop a facist regime spreading, a regime that if left unchecked would be a threat to the ways of life of people living inside Britain.

whilst Hitler obviously intended to invade Britain during the war, hence battle of Britain etc. his original thought was that we would become allies along with Italy and that he would be able to expand Germany eastwards to gain living space for his mentalist idea of a german 'superman' to live in. when it became clear we werent for helping then we became an enemy. i beleive what the soldiers fought for was their own freedom, that of their famillies and their friends and of the British people as a whole through a sense of community, that community was defined by the borders of Britain, but they were not an important reason for fighting in themselves.

Have to disagree there Prufrock. Britain is our heartland and our home. People can get very patriotic (yes, I know, "last refuge of the scoundrel and all that..") but you have to have roots and hearth in the land of your birth. Traditional, old-fashioned, have it as you will; our country, despite it's shortcomings and foolish empiring of the past (all trumpeted by the monarchs and politicians, and also the church, rather than the citizens) and its comparitively small acreage, is still one of the foremost on the planet for humanity and education and also one of the most fiercely defended in history. .

With respect for your age, you cannot make new statements about proven history and expect them to be accepted willy-nilly. King/Queen and Country probably means more to the inhabitants than it does to the perpetrators of the expression. A lot of people have died for those beliefs and their homeland.

[fatshaft]

pru, you're new here, you're obviously an intelligent lad, who has some deep convictions on some subjects, so rather than put you off this forum, as I think you'll create some interesting topics, I will just refrain from replying to your last post, which is so far wrong it makes me

[Prufrock]

regarding what i thought they fought for, whilst obviously some men fought for Queen and Country, by fighting for queen and country they were fighting for the ideals they represent, which i would argue as freedom and equality. they werent strictly speaking fighting to protect Britain as a landmass, but to protect the lives and ways of life of the people in it. i think there is a difference. for instance the reason we entered the war was because the Nazis invaded Poland, not Britain, we were fighting to stop a facist regime spreading, a regime that if left unchecked would be a threat to the ways of life of people living inside Britain.

whilst Hitler obviously intended to invade Britain during the war, hence battle of Britain etc. his original thought was that we would become allies along with Italy and that he would be able to expand Germany eastwards to gain living space for his mentalist idea of a german 'superman' to live in. when it became clear we werent for helping then we became an enemy. i beleive what the soldiers fought for was their own freedom, that of their famillies and their friends and of the British people as a whole through a sense of community, that community was defined by the borders of Britain, but they were not an important reason for fighting in themselves.

Have to disagree there Prufrock. Britain is our heartland and our home. People can get very patriotic (yes, I know, "last refuge of the scoundrel and all that..") but you have to have roots and hearth in the land of your birth. Traditional, old-fashioned, have it as you will; our country, despite it's shortcomings and foolish empiring of the past (all trumpeted by the monarchs and politicians, and also the church, rather than the citizens) and its comparitively small acreage, is still one of the foremost on the planet for humanity and education and also one of the most fiercely defended in history. .

With respect for your age, you cannot make new statements about proven history and expect them to be accepted willy-nilly. King/Queen and Country probably means more to the inhabitants than it does to the perpetrators of the expression. A lot of people have died for those beliefs and their homeland.

whilst i don't consider myself patriotic, i don't think it is something to be discouraged. i think in my ramblings i took myself somewhat of my point which was what those people fought for was the history of Britain, and those values, rather than the physical landmass. i think the best way to describe what i mean is if britain geographically were where France is, but with the same history, the same values and ideals would be held dear. the debate came up from my idea of a utopia with no land boundaries but with a sense of collected altruism etc.. since country boundaries are just a human invention that divides us. thats not to say diversity is a bad thing i definately would never suggest that, but that diversity on a merely geographical scale is

[TANGODANCER]

Again Prufrock, territorial possession, ie land-mass, has been what it's all about since the murky 900 and something when Athelstan (open to some debate) became the first ruler of the Kingdom of England (united). We are English/British because we live in and occupy Great Britain. The same pride applies world-over. The race is only a race because of where it lives. I think you may not realize the fierce national pride that makes us what we are. Without the territory we would be nomadic wanderers. We aren't, we are British citizens on our own little cabbage patch. It can never be any different without us losing our identity. Whatever ideals we defend, after family, hearth and home are the most important things in our exisatence.

"Some corner of a foreign field that is forever England" and all that.

[WhiteArmy]

i have been accused before of being disrespectful to the people who fought and died in world wars to save britain, but my point is they didnt fight to save a piece of land in between John O'Groats and Land's End, but these ideals of freedom and equality.

You're probably well wide of the mark there. If you asked most of those said soldiers, very few would probably answer freedon or equality, most would say they'd fought for their country.

Spot on Fatshaft, i have lots of old soldiers as friends (my pride at being known as their friend knows no boundaries), and each and every one of them will tell you the same thing - they fought for Britain as it was then, and their Scots, Welsh and Irish brothers were just that - brothers.

No divisions. It took me a while growing up to realise what a debt i owe to these brave men and women. Hope the young 'uns realise a lot quicker than i did.

[TANGODANCER]

Oh, to be in England
Now that April's there,

And whoever wakes in England
Sees, some morning, unaware,

That the lowest boughs and the brushwood sheaf
Round the elm-tree bole are in tiny leaf,

While the chaffinch sings on the orchard bough
In England - now!


And after April, when May follows,
And the whitethroat builds, and all the swallows

Hark! where my blossomed pear-tree in the hedge
Leans to the field and scatters on the clover

Blossoms and dewdrops - at the bent spray's edge
That's the wise thrush; he sings each song twice over,

Lest you should think he never could recapture
The first fine careless rapture!


And though the fields look rough with hoary dew,
All will be gay when noontide wakes anew

The buttercups, the little children's dower, -
Far brighter than this gaudy melon-flower!




Robert Browning (1812-1889)

--------------------------------- ----------------------------

[Worthy4England]

Yer a month late TD

[TANGODANCER]

Yer a month late TD

And after April, when May follows,
And the whitethroat builds, and all the swallows

Near enough squire.

[Lord Kangana]

In response to Tango, on of the most heartrending pieces I've ever read:

I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.

In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.


You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.

There are two sides to every story....

[Montreal Wanderer]

Point is, nationalist doesn't have to mean racist/xenophobic, although I accept that may not be strictly true with the BNP.

It doesn't have to, fatshaft, but all too frequently it does. Hopefully it will die out in time along with other things that divide humanity.

Like football? Gerroff this board!

No, footie brings the world together (every four years anyway). We may support different teams but we all love the game.

[Bruce Rioja]

I am a Libertarian and a communist

In Cuba, who earn the most, Brain Surgeons or Taxi Drivers?

[TANGODANCER]

In response to Tango, on of the most heartrending pieces I've ever read:

I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.

In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.


You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.

There are two sides to every story....

Oh, I never anywhere glorified war Monty (read the words to "Green Fields of France" if you want its futility), simply said the ideals and equality are not the first thoughts of a nation at war. Home territory is. I would have thought Ireland would be a classic example of that. Then again, you could ask a Macdonian. Better still, put a fence up a metre into your neighbour's garden and see how much equality and ideals you get quoted at you. Our young friend Prufrock has admirable ideals himself, he just hasn't read his history too well. All respect to Aldous Huxley, but Browning has it for me.

[Montreal Wanderer]

i have been accused before of being disrespectful to the people who fought and died in world wars to save britain, but my point is they didnt fight to save a piece of land in between John O'Groats and Land's End, but these ideals of freedom and equality.

You're probably well wide of the mark there. If you asked most of those said soldiers, very few would probably answer freedon or equality, most would say they'd fought for their country.

Spot on Fatshaft, i have lots of old soldiers as friends (my pride at being known as their friend knows no boundaries), and each and every one of them will tell you the same thing - they fought for Britain as it was then, and their Scots, Welsh and Irish brothers were just that - brothers.

No divisions. It took me a while growing up to realise what a debt i owe to these brave men and women. Hope the young 'uns realise a lot quicker than i did.

I still feel things are somewhat misinterpreted. Yes, they would say they fought for their country but their country represents far more than a piece of land. It is culture, ideals, family, friends - a whole way of life which they would defend as well as just territory. My father, who was exempted from military service because of the work he was involved in, volunteered anyway in September 1939 because it was what one did. The only piece of land threatened at the time was probably Poland, but his country went to war so he did too. However, he would probably have performed more useful work for the country if he hadn't.