One Thank you, Your choice!

[MOCAŠ]

If politicians and religious leaders had to send their own children to war on the front-line, there would be no wars......

Really sweetpea? Does it count for nothing that Sir Winston Churchill's son Major Randolph Churchill saw active service with the SAS behind enemy lines during World War II?

Given that it was traditional in British families for a second son to enter the military and a third the clergy, it has at various times been highly likely that the sons of politicians and religious leaders would serve their country in wartime.

 

[Alex Crow]

..........seeing faith is impossible but seeing for instance Banardo's, the Red Cross or The Salvation Army's good works is an outward indication of what faith can inspire people to do......

Your original analogy was clearly intended to suggest that some God or other might exist despite, or regardless of, any proof.

You have now changed your point to mean something very different.

A claim that faith exists (easy to demonstrate, as you have) is very different to a claim that a deity exists.

 

[fatdazza]

Really sweetpea? Does it could for nothing that Sir Winston Churchill's son Major Randolph Churchill saw active service with the SAS behind enemy lines during World War II?

Given that it was traditional in British families for a second son to enter the military and a third the clergy, it has at various times been highly likely that the sons of politicians and religious leaders would serve their country in wartime.

"Highly likely" ? Hardly a scientific argument? I would like to see some figures comparing lives lost in conflict. I somehow doubt that the politicians and religious leaders have lost their "fair share" of sons?

 

[MOCAŠ]

"Highly likely" ? Hardly a scientific argument? I would like to see some figures comparing lives lost in conflict. I somehow doubt that the politicians and religious leaders have lost their "fair share" of sons?

Fair share? An uncharacteristically crass suggestion, if I may say so. My point was that there has traditionally been a predisposition within the families of politicians for their sons to undertake military service. This was in response to sweetpea's wild contention that such a situation would see an end to war. And he only referred to front-line service, not loss of life - the two are not synonymous.

 

[fatdazza]

Fair share? An uncharacteristically crass suggestion, if I may say so. My point was that there is has traditionally been a predisposition within the families of politicians for their sons to undertake military service. This was in response to sweetpea's wild contention that such a situation would see an end to war. And he only referred to front-line service, not loss of life - the two are not synonymous.

You may certainly say so, that is your right in a reasoned debate.

My point was that there is a difference between "undertaking military service" and serving on the front line, where the risk of loss of life is much greater. Politicians' sons will, more often than not, serve as commissioned officers, and face much lower risks of loss of life or injury.

Sweatpea was (in my opinion) correct. Politicians send other people's children to war.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Really sweetpea? Does it count for nothing that Sir Winston Churchill's son Major Randolph Churchill saw active service with the SAS behind enemy lines during World War II?

Given that it was traditional in British families for a second son to enter the military and a third the clergy, it has at various times been highly likely that the sons of politicians and religious leaders would serve their country in wartime.

Do you genuinely believe that Churchill's son would have been in any sort of real danger? And was that not 70 odd years ago, before people were more informed about 'war' than they are now?

And which 'traditional British families' are you referring to?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Fair share? An uncharacteristically crass suggestion, if I may say so. My point was that there has traditionally been a predisposition within the families of politicians for their sons to undertake military service. This was in response to sweetpea's wild contention that such a situation would see an end to war. And he only referred to front-line service, not loss of life - the two are not synonymous.

Why is it 'wild contention'? I don't know if you have children, but if you do, wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to protect them? And before you start splitting hairs, there is a greater chance of you dying doing something dangerous like being on the front-line as opposed to walking across the street.

What makes the life of one human being more important than the other, as you seem to be implying?

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I'd just like to apologise for playing a part in taking this thread too far off-topic, it's meant to be a happy thread.

Sorry R2D2.

 

[MOCAŠ]

My point was that there is a difference between "undertaking military service" and serving on the front line, where the risk of loss of life is much greater. Politicians' sons will, more often than not, serve as commissioned officers, and face much lower risks of loss of life or injury.

Sweatpea was (in my opinion) correct. Politicians send other people's children to war.

It's largely a myth that COs are somehow insulated from danger in war zones. FWIW, both my father and grandfather served in WWII, as Lieutenant and Captain respectively. My father was invalided out having caught some shrapnel, resulting in the loss of sight in his left eye. Had that shrapnel landed elsewhere, it could just as easily have taken his life and I wouldn't be writing this now...

It's all very well decrying COs and the role they play in the theatre of war, but let's not forget that without effective leadership, many more lives would be lost. I'll spare you the usual cliche about sheep and lions, but strategic planning is critically important to an effective campaign, and someone has to do that. Necessarily, the higher up the ranks you go, the fewer incumbents you will find at that rank, and the emphasis shifts from frontline command to logistical planning and tactics. However, all have a crucial part to play.

Politicians don't "send other people's sons" to war. Nobody makes a declaration of war lightly, but these days when war is declared, those who fight it have voluntarily signed up to do so, be they COs or NCOs. It matters not whose son (or daughter) they may be. Even under conscription, the vast of majority of conscripts (in the UK, at least) saw it as their duty to serve their country in time of need.

 

[trapperjohn]

Lt Col H Jones. RIP.

Edit. Bit of apt background.

Jones was born in Putney the eldest of three sons of Herbert Jones (1888–1957), an American artist, and his Welsh wife, Olwen Pritchard (1902–1990), a nurse.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Do you genuinely believe that Churchill's son would have been in any sort of real danger? And was that not 70 odd years ago, before people were more informed about 'war' than they are now?

Anyone who sees active service is by definition in real danger. They don't wrap you up in cotton wool, you know, and I suspect the casualty rates for COs, as a propotion of numbers holding that commission, would make interesting reading. I used WWII as an example of a war fought by conscripts, as this was a better fit for your notion of people being 'sent' to war.

And which 'traditional British families' are you referring to?

Slight (intentional?) misquote there, sweetpea. For want of a better phrase, I was referring to landed families, though not necessarily aristocratic ones. Let's not turn this into class war, though.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Why is it 'wild contention'? I don't know if you have children, but if you do, wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to protect them? And before you start splitting hairs, there is a greater chance of you dying doing something dangerous like being on the front-line as opposed to walking across the street.

What makes the life of one human being more important than the other, as you seem to be implying?

Sweetpea, nobody can 'protect' their children while also allowing them to live their own lives.

The one thing we seem to have lost as a nation over recent generations is a sense of duty, but it is this that would have made fathers proud that their sons were willing to fight for their country. Yes, of course there is an increased risk of death, but if a war is worth fighting then the consequences of not fighting it are just as grave for all concerned.

I have not implied that one life is more important than another, nor do I believe that to be the case. However, in purely strategic terms it will sometimes be true. Let's not forget that COs at various levels are responsible for the lives and operations of any number of NCOs and, of course, other COs.

 

[davethemus]

Sir David Attenborough for showing the world the world, he's our greatest export since the English language.

Paul Gascoigne for being the greatest footballer to ever were the blue jersey and being the only footballer who made me cry tears of joy and despair (Rangers vs Aberdeen)(England vs Scotland)

Every British, American and Soviet soldier during WWII

 

[janner]

John Bardeen

 

[markjay]

What do cars, the Internet, and religion have in common?

Cars kill around 3,000 people in Britain every year. They also provide bank robbers with a very effective getaway vehicle.

But then ambulances, fire engines, and police cars save lives every day. And grandparents can go and visit their children and grandchildren on the Sunday even if they happen to live a hundred miles away.

The Internet allows terrorists to hatch plots that kill people on the Underground. And sexual predators to prey on the vulnerable and young.

But then it gives us Wikipedia, and Google, and MBclub...

Religion brought on mankind the worst misery, wars, and hatred. Yet it also gave us hope, kindness, comfort, and a sense of community.

The common part? Neither are good or bad. They are what we make them. Evil people will do bad things using cars, or the Internet, or in the name of religion. Good people will do good using cars, the Internet, and through their religion.

So don't blame religion. Any religion.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Slight (intentional?) misquote there, sweetpea. For want of a better phrase, I was referring to landed families, though not necessarily aristocratic ones. Let's not turn this into class war, though.

It's not a 'misquote', intentional or otherwise.
You seem to have this opinion that people should know their place and that's not an attempt to turn this into a class war, you said 'traditional families' which to me would mean the millions of families that go about their business quietly and are what I would call the working class of today (working a normal forty hour job, worrying about paying their mortgage/rent etc etc)

 

[Deleted member 37751]

The one thing we seem to have lost as a nation over recent generations is a sense of duty, but it is this that would have made fathers proud that their sons were willing to fight for their country. Yes, of course there is an increased risk of death, but if a war is worth fighting then the consequences of not fighting it are just as grave for all concerned.

I have not implied that one life is more important than another, nor do I believe that to be the case. However, in purely strategic terms it will sometimes be true. Let's not forget that COs at various levels are responsible for the lives and operations of any number of NCOs and, of course, other COs.

If *if* the day came where we were about to be 'invaded', I would sign up to fight, no bother. Which is a lot different to having a sense of duty. I think the thing is nowadays people are a lot more wise to these 'wars' waged by the political and religious leaders, Iraq springs to mind straightaway.

Strategically if you agree one life is worth more than another, then you are saying what I'd assumed.

No human life is worth more than any other, strategically speaking or not in my opinion.

 

[Mike Walker]

The Soft Machine including Robert Wyatt

 

[Dryce]

Every British, American and Soviet soldier during WWII

So you're thanking the Soviet troops who invaded Poland and Finland?

 

[R2D2]

Thought for the day. Remember to never ask anyone who they'd like to thank