I was away form my desk for most of yesterday afternoon so missed some of the debate - and slanging match - on here. Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth.

I disagree with dbd's attitude towards Remembrance Day, though I understand his reasonsing and defend his right to hold the opinions that he does.

Armistice Day was first marked in the years immediately following WWI, in memory of the fallen in that conflict. It was "expanded," if that's the right expression, to include a remembrance of those killed in WWII, then Korea, and (for the British at least) every significant action since - the Malayan emergency, various UN-badged peacekeeping missions, Suez, Aden, and so on. Some time during that post-WWII period (1964, I think) the nature of the British armed services changed with the ending of compulsory National Service. In the years leading up to that change, the makeup of the services gradually became more voluntary than compulsory - a transition that was complete after the last national serviceman left in the mid 1960s.

To reduce dbd's argument to absurdity, we should remember a little bit less of each action since the 1950s and pay no attention at all to anything from about 1967 onwards, despite the fact that the same forces were engaged in the same conflicts during that transition (Brunei, Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation, peacekeeping in Cyprus, for example). While the theatre of operations for armed conflict since WWII has been remote from the UK (wiht the notable exception of Northern Ireland, of course), the same forces were on garrison duty in the UK, formed the NATO defence against the (very real) threat of Soviet action in central Europe through the height of the Cold War, and have since formed the basis of UN-mandated missions elsewhere in the world.

It is sometimes difficult, but in my opinion necessary, to separate the function of the armed services from the instruction of the politicians who deploy them. Some of the claims made further up this thread are laughable and thoroughly discredited. There is now little doubt that politicians misled the public about the justifications for the second Gulf War by twisting the words of the UN inspectorate on WMD (in Britain's case, the "dodgy dossier" incident); a graph of the trends for production of opiates in Afghanistan against the intensity of Western troop involvement in that country show that more poppies have been produced every year since that involvement began, having been significantly reduced under the Taliban (though there were of course many other very good reasons for disapproving of the Taliban regine).

Added to which, the war-by-proxy policies of previous (particularly US) administrations - in arming the Mujahideen against communist-sympathetic Afghan leadership, leading ultimately to the Soviet invasion of 1979; of arming the more-West-friendly Saddam Hussain against the Islamic Iranian state that had deposed the US's friend the Shah; of arming anti-government rebels in several sub-Saharan African states in an effort to destabilise Chinese-friendly governments - have come back to bite all of us in the backside.

For myself, as the grandson of two men who were deeply affected by WWII (one grandfather was killed, the other taken prisoner and put to work on the Burma-Thai Railway), the son of a retired Army officer, and a former Territorial reservist, I marked my remembrance of ALL those who have died in conflict, at all times since WWI and on all sides in battle.

That is all.

Great post, I think that says it all.

as the grandson of two men who were deeply affected by WWII (one grandfather ( in the family regiment KRR’s) went on to be part of the of the Artist rifles later to become the SAS and, the other a medic who spoke very little but what was said was disturbing), and the son of a retired Army Sergeant
I nearly joined the RAF and at one point was expected as the oldest son of the oldest son to think about the family regiment but the fiasco of the Falklands and the realisation that governments cause wars and sometimes for political gain spun a wholly different and much more cynical point of view

but think a few on here forgot that they fought for us to have the right to express our opinions freely in public

Novobo__ks and DBD33....same old shi_e, not that I was expecting any change.

Anyway, feel free to read more on Remembrance Day.

http://www.cstc-a.com/News/2008%20ne...norheroes.html

As for the country from which the article is derived, 62% of the fighting against against the enemies of this place, is now led by the indigenous folks themselves, people who want a better life, just like the one you enjoy for themselves and their families.

You pair, just don't have a clue.

62% by rounds fired or blows landed?

I'm glad to see you weren't expecting any change. I think consistency, rather than indoctrination, is important.

Very classy. Not.