Poppy dillemma

Ah. I see. Well, I don't look down on people so I'm not supercilious. Thank you for clearing that up.

I wonder if I'll be able to use the word myself some time? Probably not. I should think it's only used by people who are supercilious themselves in some way. Or who are practised at recognising it, which I'm not.

As I said, it's not a word it has ever occurred to me to use, although I did know of its existence. Hegemony is another word I've met today of whose existence I knew but which I've never used until today (and then probably not quite correctly).

Jalima You say that it is inevitable that wars should occur and imply that it isn't the manufacturing of arms that is a problem but that "we need to stop selling arms to aggressors".

I would have thought that the very act of purchasing arms suggests some level of aggression. In any event, in many conflicts the line becomes blurred as to which of the parties involved is the aggressor. Such judgments are often made on the basis of political, cultural and economic/trading interests.

Many people on here have expressed disapproval of the US's laws regarding the sale of arms, believing that their easy availability and the acceptance of them within the home and on the street is a major contributor to the number of shootings that occur. Surely the same applies to arms - the more they are available and the more their sale is seen as "normal" and legitimate, the more they will be used.

Humans are animals, and many species including our own, have demonstrated a propensity for aggression. Whether it is inevitable that humans will continue to be aggressive, I don't know. But I'm inclined to think that the sale and manufacture of weapons continues to normalise and reinforce violence.

We have to hope that the opposite can happen, Eloethan.
HopenotHate and the Campaign against the Arms Trade are at least trying to stop aggression.

the very act of purchasing arms suggests some level of aggression.
but what about defence?

You say that it is inevitable that wars should occur
not should occur but will occur sadly

Yes, what about defence? Nothing will change the fact that some people in powerful positions will become (have become) aggressors. Defence against such people will always be necessary however generally peaceful and anti-war the vast majority of people are. Denying this or pretending it can be overcome is not being realistic.

you say that it is inevitable that wars should occur

Eloethan if you could point me in the direction of the post where I said those words I would be grateful. Thanks.

I did say this:
No, we have learnt nothing and I don't think we ever will - even the most popular futuristic films etc are based on war

which does not mean the same

And - however much people want peace, there will be some in positions of power who do not for whatever reason.
Therefore we need defence.

Can you tell me how selling weapons to Saudi Arabia so they can bomb Yemen and kill innocent children is in our defence?
Or anyone's defence?
Can you tell me where any of our forces are actually involved in the defence of the realm?

Can you tell me how selling weapons to Saudi Arabia so they can bomb Yemen and kill innocent children is in our defence?
No

Well, that's what I meant about not selling arms to aggressors.

Can you tell me where any of our forces are actually involved in the defence of the realm?

Yes:

The British Army is actively engaged in operational duties across the globe. The work we do ranges from peacekeeping to providing humanitarian aid, from enforcing anti-terrorism measures to helping combat the international drugs trade.

Tensions threatening Britain’s interests can arise anywhere. Which is why the Royal Navy makes the most of our freedom to deploy globally. Our proximity to unstable or aggressive nations has the power to curb destabilising behaviour.

The Royal Air Force makes a vital contribution as a force for good in the world by delivering flexible air power wherever it is needed. The Cold War may be over, but it has left behind a world that is less predictable and, in many places, less stable. Britain and her Allies are now faced with challenges of many different kinds. The RAF is ready to meet these challenges.
The RAF needs to be able to respond swiftly and effectively to new threats and challenges, preventing escalation in dangerous situations by projecting air power and, if necessary, countering force with superior force and skill.

Please address any further questions to Presidents Putin and Assad.

Thanks

Exactly. That's not our defence.
We don't need to sell arms to provide humanitarian aid.
Humanitarian aid would not be needed in Yemen if we did not supply bombs, planes and training.

Sorry, but countering force with force destroys the world, country by country.

Re Defence.
If someone breaks into my home I am not going to roll over and say 'take what you want, including my granddaughters'.
Sorry, but I will fight and die for them.

The same goes for the country but I would hope that defence forces would do it for me.

In the meantime, all I we can do is pick up the pieces of the mess made by other people - the leaders and politicians.
Which is what the Poppy money does
Which is what the White Helmets do
Which is what the Red Cross do
Which is what many charities, large and small, do.

I was sneered at on another thread when I said I was worried about 3 drivers trying to get into Aleppo to deliver aid and made to feel ridiculous as if I was showing off.

I don't care what anyone thinks or names they call me on here, and am just glad to say that they got through safely and back out again.

However, the bombing has got worse since last week.

Yes, if anybody breaks into your house.
Defence means that. What would you do if it was a neighbour's house, or a house three countries away?
When does defence become attack? When it's in somebody else's country.

I am pleased they got in as well, and out. I wish it wasn't happening. But it's mainly their own leader who is dropping the barrel bombs on Aleppo. I really do not see what Assad is getting out of bombing Aleppo. There's not much of it left.
Could you imagine the Queen bombing Glasgow if Scotland decided to leave the UK?

The Queen doesn't decide things like that. How ridiculous.

Some countries feel they need arms to defend themselves in case of attack by a threatening force - not to attack.

No, I don't know either.
Why do any of these leaders that history throws up do such unspeakable things to their own people.

Why do terrorist groups emerge that do unspeakable things to others?

If I knew the answer I would be running the world.

All I know is that I would not say no to a brave serviceman who said he would stand between me and an enemy and defend me.
I would not say 'sorry, I don't agree with what you do, I am a pacifist, please go away and leave me and my granddaughters to our fate'.
Sorry, but I wouldn't.

As for the Queen, I presume that is a bad joke.

No, not the Queen. It was Winston Churchill who confined all the Scottish Soldiers to barracks and then sent the tanks into George Square, Glasgow.

Always done in the name of the queen. I never realised that, Granny23.

You reminded me, Granny23, it was Thatcher who sent soldiers dressed as policemen to attack miners, just for protecting their jobs and families.

What I am saying is that we don't need to make so many arms to protect ourselves. What we need to stop doing is selling them to other coutries to attack a third country.
It is actually illegal, against the arms convention. Again, something that the UK ignores.

I do hope we don't upset Trump. He's going to add 30,000 troops, and attack both Syria and Iran.

We have had this thread before ( probably many times) is this what it means to be older, running the same arguements and counter arguements ad nauseam?
Making arms for our defence, and for use in other countries and selling arms to other nations is what lots of countries do.We, as a country have alliances and arrangements with 'friendly' countries and sell to them.It's a big industry.Whether we should or not is another matter(the selling of them) however, if we didn't, other countries would simply hoover up the arms orders with glee, we would lose money and jobs and certain countries would still be bombed etc.

Money and jobs are secondary - sorry, but I am sure we can deploy the skills from the arms industry in something more useful.

Swords into ploughshares? It has been thought of ( but rejected.)

I have a very heavy candlestick made out of an army shell.
It hasn't been rejected by all of us.
For twenty years Russia and America have been collaborating on a programme to turn nuclear warheads into nuclear fuel. It's called the Megatons to Megawatts programme.
All those people who are making weapons can easily use their engineering skills to make all sorts of more useful things.
There's even someone who has made a guitar out of an AK-47.

It has been rejected by people who want to make money out of killing others.

Of course it's POSSIBLE to turn weapons into other things ( or elephants feet into wastebaskets) but it will never happen on a grand scale.

Jalima I should probably said "you imply" rather than "you say" but isn't that splitting hairs really? As you acknowledge, you said in relation to human aggression "we have learnt nothing and I don't think we ever will - even the most popular futuristic films are based on war". Doesn't that statement imply that you believe war is a sad but unfortunate inevitability?

rosesarered The statement that "if we didn't sell arms, somebody else woulde" is true but if we live by that tenet then we can justify almost any behaviour on the basis that "if I didn't do it, someone else would" so why not cash in and make some money too.

This country, and the rest of the world, needs to explore as a matter of urgency new ways of providing energy. Additionally, we need to stop wasting energy. So many homes and public buildings here are in dire need of energy-saving measures, such as proper insulation. Not many governments seem overly keen on investing in projects of this nature which yield long term financial and environmental benefits. But I think money and labour would be much better used for measures like this than producing horrific weapons which, whatever is said, will inevitably kill innocent people and tear apart families and communities and destroy homes, hospitals and vital infrastructure.

Of course it won't if people think like you, roses.
It needs political will. You appear not to have noticed the US and Russia turning nuclear weapons into nuclear fuel. That's rather large scale.
Anyway, it doesn't need grand scale. Bit by bit....

Good Grief did I stumble upon a nursery post? bikker bikker !!

Eloethan exactly, I was putting the words that any government would say and think regarding the arms business ( it doesn't matter what you or I think as it won't change a thing.)Because it's not only big business but part of diplomacy with other countries.
djen both the US and Russia are also keeping quite a lot of nuclear weapons AS weapons as well.
Yes shan some posts are very nursery like and personal ( a sign of a poor debater.)

But, ultimately, we all wish for the same thing, whether through marches and demonstrations, helping pick up the aftermath of the destruction wrought by the will of leaders and politicians or by fervent prayer

www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/topical-prayers/prayers-for-peace-all-those-affected-by-violence.aspx