to get DD a white poppy to wear at a remembrance service?

[GallumDrawnAndQuartered]

She is 14 and has been selected by the school to represent her house at their service.

DD is vehemently pacifist and anti-war.

Rather than her get in trouble for refusing to go (which is what she is planning on doing) would it be unreasonable for her to go but to wear a white poppy instead of a red one?

I think it's great that we can blithely discuss our forces and troops and offer criticism - only because of them can we do this of course - oh the irony.

I think it's great that we can blithely discuss our forces and troops and offer criticism - only because of them can we do this of course - oh the irony

Really I didnt realise that 2nd world war veterans were still serving today!

I will wear my Poppy for my Grandfather & 3 Uncles who died protecting our country.

For the young people who sign up to protect us not knowing where their fight may lead them, I will also wear it and salute their bravery.

I think it's great that we can blithely discuss our forces and troops and offer criticism - only because of them can we do this of course - oh the irony.

That's not irony, it's the truth. The freedom to say, think and do what you believe in is exactly that. Villifying people for doing so, now that is ironic.

you prefer just to focus on whats going on in the war zones and judge every single one on that alone!

Hmm, that is kind of their primary role though. All the other jobs in the services exist solely to support such a role.

"...those prepared to kill in conflicts we should not be involved in."

I've killed people while on duty before, and I was prepared to do it. Why? Because I know that if I hadn't, they would have wounded/killed me, or worse, one of my men. I wasn't prepared to see men who are my responsibility be killed on my watch, so I didn't falter in killing those who tried to do so.

You're forgetting yourself catholic, neither I nor my superiors decide where we go to war; you know that. Tomorrow I could be sat in the mess having a nice cuppa when a senior officer could walk in and say to me, "You're being deployed to Mongolia (purely a hypothetical example) next week, orders from the top." and I'd have to go, no matter how much tea I spat out in disbelief. If I outright refuse to go somewhere I'm being sent, I lose my job; it's as simple as that. The personnel in the armed forces don't decide where to get deployed.

I never asked to be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, I was just told to go and follow orders once there. I didn't ask questions because it's not my job to do so.

Seriously, I thought I wouldn't have to spell this out to people.

On the note of the labelling of heroes, I agree, not everyone in the armed forces should be labelled as a hero. I'm not a hero because I've never done anything heroic, I was brave enough to not crap my pants once bullets started flying around me, but that's as far as it gets. I was wounded a few years ago on duty and many people were involved in saving my life, from a medic in the field to the heli winchman who carried me to the helicopter to the surgeon back at base. I'd call them heroes because they probably saved my sorry life.

'and I'd have to go'

No you don't.

'I didn't ask questions because it's not my job to do so.'

The Nuremberg Defense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders

You have lost all my respect for that comment.

And just in case nobody clicks through to Wiki I'll quote a section here:

'In 1945 and 1946, during the Nuremberg Trials the issue of Superior Orders again arose: These trials gained so much attention that the "Superior Orders defense" has subsequently become interchangeable with the label, "Nuremberg Defense." This is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "orders are orders") and is therefore not responsible for his or her crimes.

Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which specifically stated that following an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders

And for anybody with limited understanding, the war on Iraq was unlawful.

You don't join the forces then just refuse to go to war. Strictly, you're right, I could say no, but I don't much like the idea of kicking up a fuss and dragging my heels.

And your comments about unlawful orders (such as the My Lai massacre, if you're familiar), I'm not talking about that, I mean being sent to a foreign country. When I was sent to Iraq, I (and those around me) saw nothing unlawful about it so therefore saw no reason to question it. The military isn't a democracy and, to be perfectly honest, isn't suited for people who constantly question orders and generally try to kick up a fuss. If I was told to go and shoot an innocent civilian, then yes I'd definitely refuse on the grounds military law, but that's an order which is clearly unlawful. With Iraq, and other cases where you're deployed somewhere, there was nothing clearly unlawful about going there. We leave the questioning of legalties at that level to the chiefs of staff and politicians.

And a quote to support what I was saying (and it also words it better!):

"In this case, the judge ruled that soldiers, in general, are not responsible for determining whether the order to go to war itself is a lawful order - but are only responsible for those orders resulting in a specific application of military force, such as an order to shoot civilians, or to treat POWs inconsistently with the Geneva Conventions."

The case it refers to is American, but it appropriately explains what I was trying to say.

I appreciate your response WingDad. With regards to The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, America isn't a signatory and I wouldn't depend on it if I was a service woman. Furthermore, you well know that the Geneva Conventions have been completely disregarded by the US and Britain et al so there is no reason for anybody to follow them. And they don't.

Just sat here in tears watching Remembrance Week on BBC showing the bravery of veterans of conflicts including WWII and Afghanistan and their losses.

Perhaps your daughter should watch this - her ignorance has made me increasingly angry this week. I suspect that pacifist views or not she will be ashamed of this stance in years to come.

The argument of the meaning of the poppy has been done to death on this thread with a blind refusal to accept any other point of view. Good job these aren't the people 'debating' their way out of war.

As to the question of being unreasonable-clearly she is and what is worse she is being ignorant.

Well, Putonthepan the OP's daughter decided to not take part.

And clearly she is not being unreasonable, given the variety of opinions on this on this thread and in the media.

I also saw that letter in the Guardian on Saturday, and I think it summarises one side of the argument quite well.

"a blind refusal to accept any other point of view."

You obviously haven't read the thread very carefully if you've come away from it thinking this.

I like what MrsCrafty said and agree with her reasons for wearing the poppy.
A friend's 19yo DD just qualified as a medic + will soon go to afgahnistan so i will wear the poppy with pride thinking of her, as well as the lads from my home town who have been killed. I do not like the fact our troops are out there (lots of reasons but no time / energy to type them) but i support them for being our troops.

I will wear my red poppy on the 14th when we have the remembrance service in Brussels. There will be at that service members of HM Forces serving in Brussels like my dh. I will be thinking of my brother who did 6 months in Afghanistan (RN); I will be thinking of all those at the service who are the widows or children of those who fought in WWII. I will be thinking of the sailors who died on the Arctic convoy runs, both RN and Merchantmen, and who fought in the Battle of the Atlantic.

The money raised by the RBL in Belgium goes to help the widows (amongst others) of those who dies in WWII. It supplements their income, or helps them when they need something specific like medical care, or provides a lunch club for them. Money goes to provide comforts for the WWII veterans here in homes. I don't begrudge that at all.

I do love to see people wearing a poppy before Remembrance Day. It's a cause I want to support financially and emotionally. I have mixed or opposing views on current/past conflicts, I've been a CND member, I deplore the deployment of troops with crap equipment and not enough training, and crimes carried otu by troops. But Remembrance Day has and should have such an important place in the nation's psyche. It's a way for me of saying, it's not taken for granted, none of it, the service, the deaths, the freedom, the terrible decisions, the trauma.

Your 14 year old is vehemently pacifist and anti-war.

Aren't most "civilised" people ?
Until they have a cause "worth" fighting for?

As a result of the sufragette movement she has gained a measure of autonomy. She is enjoying a full education and will in good time, acquire the vote. Whilst pacifist let's not pretend it was without casualties. How did the chap on the horse feel when he mowed down the Woman, through no fault of his own ?
That was a passive aggresive action on the part of the Sufragette. She undoubtedly caused that man harm.
Following her "vehemently pacifist" stance through, she should eshew the vote and the education that she is currently enjoying, but causing, the current dillema.

This is the world of a 14 year old. Black and white and trying to find her feet.

I remember the same stance; and then watching the "World at War" (?) on Sunday morning whilst I was catching up on homework. The images will live with me for ever.

One episode was massive pits of emaciated dead Jews. Images that the Nazis made out of the body products of Jews. Lampshades, soap etc......

Being a Pacifist and Anti war is great; until you meet someone that doesn't share your view. That's both on a personal and national level.

The red poppy is a symbol of remembrance for those that have fallen "in war"

Men and Women that have died.It doesn't glorify War. It remembers the people that have fallen in war.

I thank God that my FIL fought the Nazis. I remember the two Brothers that didn't survive. FIl was 18yrs old and shit scared. He was also pacifist and anti-war (Quaker).

Without him and the likes of him, I might now well have had Jew skin lampshades, toiletry products etc etc. and because I wouldn't have the education; but indoctrination; would find it entirely acceptable.

Pacifism and anti war are great if you're a uni cellular amoeba.

History will judge more recent wars.

In the meantime; I will wear my red poppy with very considerable pride; and remember all of those that were brave enough to fight for what they believed in.

Your DD should refuse the appointment.

It's called a conscientious objector. No shame in that.

Emily Davison as an aggressor on the poor jockey - I've heard it all now :o

The thing with the forces is a lot of people deride them and criticise them (nothing wrong with not worshipping them blindly and questioning them). But some of the comments on here have been very anti-forces, might as well just come out and call them all baby killers. I guess these same people would still be happy to see them if the shit ever hit the fan and you relied on them for help if not you and your families lives.

Penelope, I think your post deserves mroe than that and I like it. Very cogent.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Mon 08-Nov-10 14:03:15
Emily Davison as an aggressor on the poor jockey - I've heard it all now*

Emily Davison surely was. Not just the jockey, but the horse.

It was a suicide "for the cause". Do you have no idea in your head that this would cause trauma to the man and the horse?

If a child/man/woman ran out in front of you; and you killed them, you would experience guilt/grief, even if it wasn't your fault.

Emily Davison WAS an agressor. She subjected both an horse and a jockey to a dreadful ordeal.

Neither deserved it.

Appletrees - I have left this thread really as couldn't keep up with it all and felt it was going round in circles. Hence just popping back in at the mention of Emily Davison (or "the Woman" as PTD referred to her). This is in no way a comment on the rest of the PTD's post, which was interesting.

PTD - it is stretching a point ridiculously far to compare someone jumping in front of a horse (not that I'm advocating it, kids) to someone actively firing guns at people or bombing them or what have you with the aim of killing them. What about that monk who set himself on fire to protest about the invasion of Tibet? Aggressor to the bystanders? What about Rachel Corrie run over by an Israeli bulldozer? Aggressor to the driver? FWIW there is evidence she wasn't trying to kill herself btw, but even if she had been. Depressed person jumping in front of a train - horribly distressing to the driver, yes, aggressive, no.