Political Ramblings of an Idiot

[warthog]

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....

Indeed. Ask Wilfred Owen.

[Lord Kangana]

Indeed, as balance:

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

[TANGODANCER]

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.

Thou art a dogged adversary Monty, but....

Of the four highlighted words I doubt if but the last two were in most minds when they were stuck in trenches or under fire in any country in the world. Culture and ideals simply wouldn't come into the equation. All they really wanted was to get home. My father was in the Dunkirk evacuation and getting home was his only thought I can tell you. I could go on forever about aquisition of territory and the power that goes with it, but that's political and the baronial view. The common soldier just wants his homeland.

[WhiteArmy]

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.

Thou art a dogged adversary Monty, but....

Of the four highlighted words I doubt if but the last two were in most minds when they were stuck in trenches or under fire in any country in the world. Culture and ideals simply wouldn't come into the equation. All they really wanted was to get home. My father was in the Dunkirk evacuation and getting home was his only thought I can tell you. I could go on forever about aquisition of territory and the power that goes with it, but that's political and the baronial view. The common soldier just wants his homeland.

[TANGODANCER]

Indeed, as balance:

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

A staggeringly sobering piece LK, but where, in quoting Browning, did I glorify war? Twas England, the heartland, and a poem of peace and beauty that I posted, not an advert for joining up. The point of the thread was to prove that an Englishman's ( or any other man's for that matter) home is his castle and that ideals and world equality, admirable sentiments in theory, are not the prime motivators of a soldier at war. The opening words of "Exodus" (the song) state: "This land is mine, God gave this land to me". May seem a selfish sentiment but it's how most people feel about their heritage. You might also read the words on a French coin, again a fine sentiment but you try and relate it to their views on immigration.

[Lord Kangana]

Sorry Tango, just responding to Warthog.

The original post was about the consequences of 'fighting for ones country'. I can't remember the original quote, but I remember reading somewhere something along the lines of "Old men send young men to their deaths for the sake of ideals". I have to admit, I sometimes feel overwhelmed with my own indecision in these matters...when is it right to fight? When is it right to stand idly by? I also believe in the maxim "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I suppose I'm with that famous war-leader Churchill "To Jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war"

[TANGODANCER]

Sorry Tango, just responding to Warthog.

The original post was about the consequences of 'fighting for ones country'. I can't remember the original quote, but I remember reading somewhere something along the lines of "Old men send young men to their deaths for the sake of ideals". I have to admit, I sometimes feel overwhelmed with my own indecision in these matters...when is it right to fight? When is it right to stand idly by? I also believe in the maxim "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

I suppose I'm with that famous war-leader Churchill "To Jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war"

Nay bother LK, and the highlighted quote I would far rather read as "Rich and greedy men and monarchs send young men to their deaths for the sake of power and personal gain." That's been the story of life since time immemorial. The Belgians wiped out hundreds, maybe thousands of Africans for the sake of the rubber industry and the Spanish and British Empire campaigns and Napolean and Hitler's so-called ideals were all based on aquisition of territory and wealth. The then Pope and the French King sent the Crusader armies to Jerusalem to get them out of their way and give them something to do, a clever ploy to let them find their own wages instead of paying them. An army not at war is but a pestilence. Thousands never saw Jerusalem but died from disease, famine and attacks by outlaws and mercenaries. The Turks and Saracens took care of the rest. The were told, "God wills it" when in actual fact his earthly mouthpieces actually did. Problem solved.

No, war is no answer in those lights. Defending your country in a war is another thing entirely but it's all about territory and not ideals. We have a soldier here, ask him if he fights for ideals or his country in his heart. The rest is political motivation and ideals a smokescreen.

Just my views.

[Prufrock]

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.

Thou art a dogged adversary Monty, but....

Of the four highlighted words I doubt if but the last two were in most minds when they were stuck in trenches or under fire in any country in the world. Culture and ideals simply wouldn't come into the equation. All they really wanted was to get home. My father was in the Dunkirk evacuation and getting home was his only thought I can tell you. I could go on forever about aquisition of territory and the power that goes with it, but that's political and the baronial view. The common soldier just wants his homeland.

at first i thought the emboldened words quoted from Monty (can i call you that?!) were my own. life on the front lines i would imagine changes views. ideals go out the window, again i use the word imagine because i cant even consider what it must be like in reality, but i imagine your first thought are of getting yourself out alive, then of looking after the people you love. my original point was meant to be the idea that if Britain were where France is but with the same people and the same history things would be no different in order to back up my point that in my utopia there would be no countries, and as for saying the people going into war were thinking of freedom and equality, i meant the non-conscripted ones.

personally i beleive that property is theft, thats about as radical left wing idealism as you get, but i also accept that we live in a capitalist society where such an idea doesnt really exsist. in fact i think you could argue, especially in the area of London i live, that theft is property. i also think my use of a world war as an example was a bad one. war transends idealism. but that is a major reason why i am anti war. whoever said that war is futile, said in my view the truest words ever spoken.

i personally feel little or no patriotism. i dont know if that is just me personally or the views of a generation that not only has never had to go to war, but has never really been touched by it (i mean that in general, obviously excepting the lads (and lasses) of my generation, braver than me who have put themselves on the line for their own beleifs). i feel more of a link with a left wing french person, than i do a BNP supporting Briton, and i would fight for that French man's life before that Briton's. i realise that is a glib statement to make because such a situation would never actually arise but i use it only as an example.

i have to say i find other peoples' views on patriotism fasinating as it is a concept i have just never got. i watch and i admire the patriotism of a lot of people i just have never felt it myself. i know to a lot of peolpe that is an alien concept, but i dont think it necessarily makes me a bad person,at least i hope not!

[Prufrock]

also when people say the soldiers were literally fighting for the LAND of britain, as in 'did those feet in ancient times' are people honestly saying that soldiers were fighting literally for the farm of some bloke from Leeds, or Newquay he'd never met, more than for the qualities of freedom and equality? if so that is something i cant imagine feeling. own familly and friends i see, then ideals of what country stands for ,but the actual landmass itself i dont get. i think and hope it doesnt make me disrespectful to anyone who has ever fought for this country to think that way, because i acknowledge and am truly thankful for the fact that without their effort, for whatever reason, i might not have the right to think what i do, and i certainly would NEVER hope to disrespect anyone who has died of suffered to grant me that right

[TANGODANCER]

My head's hurting. I'm just a simple uncomplicated person really.

[Montreal Wanderer]

You can call me Monty, Prufrock, whether or not we agree on issues. I did agree with you that a country was more than simply land and was a way of life within a defined territory. No one on TW would have much sympathy with a BNP Bolton supporter, indeed people have been banned for uttering racist views. I don't agree with your views that property is theft or other extreme left wing dogmatic views, although I might have done forty years ago (as Oscar Wilde said 'I'm not young enough to know everything'). I do believe in the rule of law and the protection of the individual from the tyranny of the majority. I'm an internationalist and opposed to nationalism in its more extreme forms. I believe governments have an obligation to provide social programs for citizens. And I am, in general, a pacifist. I just felt this thread encountered certain semantic difficulties - I have no argument with what Tango and others are saying - I just felt they might have somewhat misinterpreted what you were saying. Of course, I'm often wrong.

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

I've received a PM, asking me to give my view of some of the things written within this thread (though I normally try to stay clear of this type of debate) so here it is.

I don't think anyone can state why a soldier stands on the front line, at least not as a collective. I'm not blowing no trumpet, it's not my way; but I've stood on that line more then once, and it's been for different reasons each time. When I joined up nearly 18 years ago, it was to fight and serve my country in the first Gulf war, I stood on that line because it was an honour to serve my country in what I believed was a just cause. I wanted to know all about Saddam and the reason I was fighting, and believed everything I was told.

I was young, single and full of blood, pxss and wind. I was fighting for my country, and I was damn proud. Yet as the years have gone on, and I became older, mature and dare I say wiser; the reasons changed. I got married and had children, being away on operations meant we could save money during my six months away and we could afford a mortgage, the same could be said for the other two conflicts after.

While on my last tour of duty, I found myself standing on that line because I couldn't leave the army, I was too close to my pension. As bad as it sounds, I didn't give a rats arse whether I was there because my country needed me. I was there purely for my own reasons, and that was for the security of my future. Yet throughout my career, my views on those men that stood on the lines in both world wars have never changed. I have always been full of respect and admiration for them. They are the true soldiers.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is you can look up and down that front line, and there will be many different reasons why those men and woman are standing on it.

The only conclusive definite, is that there will always be a line for them to stand on.

[Prufrock]

You can call me Monty, Prufrock, whether or not we agree on issues. I did agree with you that a country was more than simply land and was a way of life within a defined territory. No one on TW would have much sympathy with a BNP Bolton supporter, indeed people have been banned for uttering racist views. I don't agree with your views that property is theft or other extreme left wing dogmatic views, although I might have done forty years ago (as Oscar Wilde said 'I'm not young enough to know everything'). I do believe in the rule of law and the protection of the individual from the tyranny of the majority. I'm an internationalist and opposed to nationalism in its more extreme forms. I believe governments have an obligation to provide social programs for citizens. And I am, in general, a pacifist. I just felt this thread encountered certain semantic difficulties - I have no argument with what Tango and others are saying - I just felt they might have somewhat misinterpreted what you were saying. Of course, I'm often wrong.

fair enough Monty, wasn't trying to put words into your mouth or anything. obviously we all have our own views and are each entitiled to them. that's the kinda point i was making when i said diversity is a good thing as long as it is not for diversity's sake. also think it is very interesting to read SOTWA's account. If you've been in for 18 years it is your career, and i certainly don't think that's any less valid a reason for being in the army than any other. i think you are being modest when you say the past soldiers are the true heroes, and i say that not taking anything away from them. i also think many of them will have signed up for the same reasons you did. you are all also a lot braver than me, if there was to be another world war now i would be doing my best to get an office post away from the front lines.

i hate the idea of war in all its forms, but human nature is such that there will always be people trying to impose their views on others and so i don't think there will ever be a day when there is no more war, which is a sad idea.

as i said at the very beginning, the only thing i can see myself doing at the moment after uni, is journalism, so what do people think of my original post as an article. obviously it has sparked a lengthy and varied debate which i'm guessing would be a good thing. however i'm not sure what i would do as a journalist, since my political views are hardly mainstream, music journalism is full of smug barstewards who think they know everything, or people who praise everything no matter how good, and if i wrote an article on my religious views i'd have the heads of pretty much every major religion gunning me down!!

[Montreal Wanderer]

As a journalist you should find the shift key, J. Alfred. Thanks for giving your frank views, SOTWA. I would agree there are many motivations and there is likely a difference in motivations between the professional career soldier and those who volunteered in the two world wars. As noted I am generally a pacifist but WW2 at least was a war that had to be fought and should have been fought sooner.

[Prufrock]

As a journalist you should find the shift key, J. Alfred. Thanks for giving your frank views, SOTWA. I would agree there are many motivations and there is likely a difference in motivations between the professional career soldier and those who volunteered in the two world wars. As noted I am generally a pacifist but WW2 at least was a war that had to be fought and should have been fought sooner.

editor's job monty, editor's job plus, i'm a member of the computer generation, microsoft word does all that grammar rubbish for us!

[TANGODANCER]

as i said at the very beginning, the only thing i can see myself doing at the moment after uni, is journalism, so what do people think of my original post as an article. obviously it has sparked a lengthy and varied debate which i'm guessing would be a good thing. however i'm not sure what i would do as a journalist, since my political views are hardly mainstream, music journalism is full of smug barstewards who think they know everything, or people who praise everything no matter how good, and if i wrote an article on my religious views i'd have the heads of pretty much every major religion gunning me down!!

With every respect Prufrock, a lot of them have seen much more life than your own tender years. At least base your views on your opinions and accept that others have the right to theirs. Music, politics, religion, they're all based on personal likes, dislikes and beliefs. Music is a personal thing and also a vast world that caters for everyone (check back on the posts in the "What are you playing tonight" thread. You'll find a diversified selection, but no-one knocking others views).

Remember also, most of us have been nineteen and you'll probably find that few feel exactly the same about life now as they did then.In addition to "Been there, read the book, seen the video" you could also add, "made the mistakes, learned the lessons". I've still lots to learn at nearly sixty nine. At nineteen, much though I thought differently, I now realise I didn't know shit.

As I said at the start, no disrespect meant.

[Prufrock]

as i said at the very beginning, the only thing i can see myself doing at the moment after uni, is journalism, so what do people think of my original post as an article. obviously it has sparked a lengthy and varied debate which i'm guessing would be a good thing. however i'm not sure what i would do as a journalist, since my political views are hardly mainstream, music journalism is full of smug barstewards who think they know everything, or people who praise everything no matter how good, and if i wrote an article on my religious views i'd have the heads of pretty much every major religion gunning me down!!

With every respect Prufrock, a lot of them have seen much more life than your own tender years. At least base your views on your opinions and accept that others have the right to theirs. Music, politics, religion, they're all based on personal likes, dislikes and beliefs. Music is a personal thing and also a vast world that caters for everyone (check back on the posts in the "What are you playing tonight" thread. You'll find a diversified selection, but no-one knocking others views).

Remember also, most of us have been nineteen and you'll probably find that few feel exactly the same about life now as they did then.In addition to "Been there, read the book, seen the video" you could also add, "made the mistakes, learned the lessons". I've still lots to learn at nearly sixty nine. At nineteen, much though I thought differently, I now realise I didn't know shit.

As I said at the start, no disrespect meant.

i mean that in terms of modern music journalism, and the stuff i am into, which many people give the(in my view ridiculously pretentious) name of 'alternative', there is magazine after magazine like the NME who judge music based on what is in at the moment, and if the band arent wearing skinny jeans or going to the right nightclub they won't get written about. that exact environment of people deciding for everybody else what is 'cool' is why i am put off about music journalism, not because people like stuff different to what i do

[Prufrock]

as i said at the very beginning, the only thing i can see myself doing at the moment after uni, is journalism, so what do people think of my original post as an article. obviously it has sparked a lengthy and varied debate which i'm guessing would be a good thing. however i'm not sure what i would do as a journalist, since my political views are hardly mainstream, music journalism is full of smug barstewards who think they know everything, or people who praise everything no matter how good, and if i wrote an article on my religious views i'd have the heads of pretty much every major religion gunning me down!!

With every respect Prufrock, a lot of them have seen much more life than your own tender years. At least base your views on your opinions and accept that others have the right to theirs. Music, politics, religion, they're all based on personal likes, dislikes and beliefs. Music is a personal thing and also a vast world that caters for everyone (check back on the posts in the "What are you playing tonight" thread. You'll find a diversified selection, but no-one knocking others views).

Remember also, most of us have been nineteen and you'll probably find that few feel exactly the same about life now as they did then.In addition to "Been there, read the book, seen the video" you could also add, "made the mistakes, learned the lessons". I've still lots to learn at nearly sixty nine. At nineteen, much though I thought differently, I now realise I didn't know shit.

As I said at the start, no disrespect meant.

i mean that in terms of modern music journalism, and the stuff i am into, which many people give the(in my view ridiculously pretentious) name of 'alternative', there is magazine after magazine like the NME who judge music based on what is in at the moment, and if the band arent wearing skinny jeans or going to the right nightclub they won't get written about. that exact environment of people deciding for everybody else what is 'cool' is why i am put off about music journalism, not because people like stuff different to what i do

also how do i write that without sounding like a tard, 'that which i do' sounds sooooo formal, yet 'what i do' sounds like Vicky Pollard

[Dujon]

Patriotism;Nationalism;Jingoism: There are so many grey areas that, at least linguistically, they can seem to overlap - at least in the English language they can. I cannot speak for other languages as I am not multilingual (unless talking fair dinkum, true blue Strine counts).

Protection of one's own, whether territorial or familial, seems to be built in to our psyche. Look into the non-sentient world (I detest the term, but many don't) and you will find the same - from the largest mammals to the wee insects that we swat with gay abandon. Even microscopic entities will knock the seven bells, or try to, out of their enemies should the occasion arise (which is often every time they meet them).

We, as human beings, like to think we are above all that sort of nonsense. History though shows that we are not. Perhaps we might evolve to a state where altruism becomes the driving force but, regardless of the idealists who try to bring such about, I think it will be a long, long time before it happens. If ever.

Who, in any age or society, is going to willingly allow some other person or society to ride roughshod over their own and thus have imposed upon them unwanted values? Moreover, if such a change occurs within a defeated society and the unwanted becomes a requirement demanded by the victor then there's going to be trouble down't mill.

Prufrock, I admire your view on life - I really do - but regrettably societies (with or without geographical borders) don't work like that. The "All for One and One for All" just doesn't happen on the grander scale and often not on a small scale (have you ever been a member of a common interest group and looked at what happens within that tiny, tiny world?).

If it is of any consolation altruism within a group can and sometimes does prevail whilst inter-group relationships tend to be dominated by those who operate on a simple "what's in it for me/us" basis.

Funny old world isn't it?

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I have read this thread with increasing interest.

From a very young age I knew and loved five great-uncles who had all served in the First World War, either as members of the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment or the East Lancashire Regiment. A sixth great-uncle had perished during the Battle of the Somme whilst serving in the 15th Battalion Welsh Regiment. All were volunteers. I spoke to those survivors many times about their experiences. It was of great interest to the rest of the family that they would confide in me, a young boy at primary school, and tell me things that they had not spoken of to anyone for fifty years. They did not glorify their experiences.

Out of this I have developed a great interest in military history, particularly of the 19th and 20th century conflicts. I have taken, and continue to take, every opportunity to speak to relatives, friends and acquaintances who have had experience of the Second World War and subsequent conflicts to try to understand what it was like. I also read as many books as I can on the subject. A strange and sad hobby, you might think. But there you go.

What has come through to me over the years was the fact that "King and Country" was only a small motivation to combatants. Many fought in the Second World War because it was a war that needed to be fought - but even for them that was only a secondary reason. Whether volunteers or conscripts, when the bullets and shells were flying, they fought for their mates. That means their section, company or platoon. Beyond that was the cap-badge and it didn't go much further than that. Our forces are organised and our training structured in such a way as to take this into account. When I served in the Army in the 1980's (thankfully never seeing action!) it was apparent to me, from basic training onwards, that the army functioned on this principle. It is very effective too.

Thank God that we will always have men and women willing to put their lives on the line - for this country or their friends.

Finally, top post SOTWA!