Poll: Wear a White Poppy

[SaturdayS]

I wear nothing so I can point out the hypocrisy of those who try to start a fight with me about it. No disrespect intended, except to those who clearly weren't "remembering" anyway.

 

[Furious Styles]

I always buy a poppy but never wear it, i don't know why. Usually i lose it before i can put it on because I'm not wearing my coat when I buy it and attaching it to a shirt would be moronic because I'll put it in the washing basket when I go to bed.

Either way, the whole white poppy thing is a good idea but I'd rather wear red personally.

 

[PureChaos]

wouldn't be able to choose between them so i'd go for both

 

[thezookeeper]

I can't help but wonder, who gets the money when I buy a white poppy?

 

[tahrey]

And there I thought rememberance day and the classic red flanders poppy was in support of everyone affected by conflict that the legion looks after. Never come across this white poppy thing. The original meaning is close to being merely historic now anyway - there's but a very literal handful of WW1 survivors left.

Such unneccessary and divisive squabbling seems surely counter the point?

Plus if I may swing the bias slightly the other way (devilish advocacy... 's.. 'r us), until quite recently (ie iraq) the number and severity of civilian deaths and injuries pales in comparison to those suffered by serving troops, out to do their country's - and so by extension, our - bidding and seemingly "the right thing", whether conscripted or, as is much much more the case, of their own courageous volition.

 

[sky14kemea]

If I can find a white poppy, I'll wear both :0 but I only saw them selling red ones in town. =[

 

[Soushi]

And there I thought rememberance day and the classic red flanders poppy was in support of everyone affected by conflict that the legion looks after. Never come across this white poppy thing. The original meaning is close to being merely historic now anyway - there's but a very literal handful of WW1 survivors left.

Such unneccessary and divisive squabbling seems surely counter the point?

Plus if I may swing the bias slightly the other way (devilish advocacy... 's.. 'r us), until quite recently (ie iraq) the number and severity of civilian deaths and injuries pales in comparison to those suffered by serving troops, out to do their country's - and so by extension, our - bidding and seemingly "the right thing", whether conscripted or, as is much much more the case, of their own courageous volition.

I would tend to disagree. Look up figured pretaining to the German blitz in london, or to what Arthur Harris of the RAF did. On 14 February 1942, Directive No. 22 was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers." Factories were no longer targets, nor were military installations.

 

[The Bum]

I'd wear one but for life of me I don't know where to find one in the US. So I'll just wear my red one.

On a side note heres a little somthing I like to read on rembrance day.

Dear Lord,
Lest I continue my complacent way,
Help me to remember that somewhere,
Somehow out there,
A man died for me today.
As long as there be war,
I then must,
Ask and answer,
Am I worth dying for?

 

[monstersquad]

a white poppy is irrelevant. We wear the poppy to remember everyone[/i] involved in war, and the sacrifice that every person had to make. Not only dead soldiers and civilians, but all the people affected by war, both living and dead. So...yeah I feel that there's no point in a white poppy, it's just objectionism.

 

[ManiacEskimo]

I don't need a piece of plastic and a very sharp metal pin to remind me of anything. Plus I will be at home all day finishing my research essay for my anthropology class anyways so no reason for me to wear one.

 

[martin's a madman]

I don't wear them anyway, unless I have a suit on. Seeing as how I won't, I won't.

I know, poppies are super classy.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

I would wear one (I usually do) but my mum only got two and there are three people in my family. -_-' I would buy a white one/ red one myself but I just never got round to purchasing either.

As it is I'm wearing neither, and to add salt onto the wound my Driving Test will be happening during the two minute silence. Still not sure how that's going to work.

If I can find a white poppy, I'll wear both :0 but I only saw them selling red ones in town. =[

You really need to look in the right places to find them, I only know one place in my home town that sells them. If you have something like a small healthfood/ organic/ fairtrade/ vegan etc. shop in your town then chances are you'll be able to find them in that.

I'm in full support of sharing cake to remember the fallen.

In fact if I were dying on the battlefield, my dying words would be "you guys should eat cake, like totally".

Alright, we'll eat the cake. It's too good a cake not to eat. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZWRe9DFYZ8]

 

[Fetzenfisch]

What is with this whole white poppy versus red poppy thing, anyway? It's so petty. It dishonors all those who need to be remembered and distracts from the entire purpose. I'll wear a chartreuse poppy, if necessary.

The white poppy is essentially the same as a Red poppy except the white poppy is also a protest to sending more people to war. We honour those in the war every year yet we still send people to their deaths.

I see. So, basically they're taking a day that is supposed to honor those who've given their lives to serve and turning it into an anti-war/military political statement. They're just full of tact, aren't they.

I bet those that got killed arent that big fans of war anymore

 

[tahrey]

And there I thought rememberance day and the classic red flanders poppy was in support of everyone affected by conflict that the legion looks after. Never come across this white poppy thing. The original meaning is close to being merely historic now anyway - there's but a very literal handful of WW1 survivors left.

Such unneccessary and divisive squabbling seems surely counter the point?

Plus if I may swing the bias slightly the other way (devilish advocacy... 's.. 'r us), until quite recently (ie iraq) the number and severity of civilian deaths and injuries pales in comparison to those suffered by serving troops, out to do their country's - and so by extension, our - bidding and seemingly "the right thing", whether conscripted or, as is much much more the case, of their own courageous volition.

I would tend to disagree. Look up figured pretaining to the German blitz in london, or to what Arthur Harris of the RAF did. On 14 February 1942, Directive No. 22 was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers." Factories were no longer targets, nor were military installations.

No, I'm not going to. As the one raising such a point, I believe the burden of proof is in your court. I know that there was one hell of a massacre at St Petersburg between the Germans and Russians, and of course we have the little matter of the Holocaust - but are you saying the figures record greater casualties for the bombing of either British or German cities (or those of any other nation involved in that conflict) than that of the actual front line fighting troops? Even including places like Coventry or Dresden that were pretty much razed to the ground?*

We had warnings, evacuations and bomb shelters (I can't speak for The Opposing Forces). There was a great deal of property destruction, and yes quite a bit of death, but I wouldn't for a minute rank it alongside that suffered by endless swathes of fighting men who were cut down in their hundreds of thousands, who left a gaping hole in the population after the conflict ceased, and are the reason for not only the poppies themselves (Flanders and Ypres fields where whole cities worth of soldiers on both sides died in a pitched trench battle) but things like the baby boom, trying to recover from it.

Also, I wasn't particularly concentrating on WW2, but everything from WW1 forward, to date, but thanks for giving me something to concentrate on and easily retort against.

* I will concede slightly on the points of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where quite obviously a good percentage of the population was indiscriminately wiped out by the atomic blasts - but that is something not seen before or since, was shocking by its sheer difference (even vs the firestorms from incendiary bombing), was attacking industrially and militarily important targets, and was an attack actually judged to be worth carrying out because by potentially shortening the war it would save more lives than it ended.

 

[Gentle Dementia]

Well I'm a filthy American pig-dog so I'm just going to sit over here while you guys have culture.

EDIT: The poppy thing has to do with an Australian war right? If not you may classify as stupid as well.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

As a cadet, if I wear a white poppy instead of a red one I will get murdered by a drill sergeant.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

Well I'm a filthy American pig-dog so I'm just going to sit over here while you guys have culture.

EDIT: The poppy thing has to do with an Australian war right? If not you may classify as stupid as well.

World war one, I think. Lots of poppies grew on the battlefields in France after the war, apparently. But yeah, don't you have your own veterans day?

 

[Soushi]

And there I thought rememberance day and the classic red flanders poppy was in support of everyone affected by conflict that the legion looks after. Never come across this white poppy thing. The original meaning is close to being merely historic now anyway - there's but a very literal handful of WW1 survivors left.

Such unneccessary and divisive squabbling seems surely counter the point?

Plus if I may swing the bias slightly the other way (devilish advocacy... 's.. 'r us), until quite recently (ie iraq) the number and severity of civilian deaths and injuries pales in comparison to those suffered by serving troops, out to do their country's - and so by extension, our - bidding and seemingly "the right thing", whether conscripted or, as is much much more the case, of their own courageous volition.

I would tend to disagree. Look up figured pretaining to the German blitz in london, or to what Arthur Harris of the RAF did. On 14 February 1942, Directive No. 22 was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be "focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers." Factories were no longer targets, nor were military installations.

No, I'm not going to. As the one raising such a point, I believe the burden of proof is in your court. I know that there was one hell of a massacre at St Petersburg between the Germans and Russians, and of course we have the little matter of the Holocaust - but are you saying the figures record greater casualties for the bombing of either British or German cities (or those of any other nation involved in that conflict) than that of the actual front line fighting troops? Even including places like Coventry or Dresden that were pretty much razed to the ground?*

We had warnings, evacuations and bomb shelters (I can't speak for The Opposing Forces). There was a great deal of property destruction, and yes quite a bit of death, but I wouldn't for a minute rank it alongside that suffered by endless swathes of fighting men who were cut down in their hundreds of thousands, who left a gaping hole in the population after the conflict ceased, and are the reason for not only the poppies themselves (Flanders and Ypres fields where whole cities worth of soldiers on both sides died in a pitched trench battle) but things like the baby boom, trying to recover from it.

Also, I wasn't particularly concentrating on WW2, but everything from WW1 forward, to date, but thanks for giving me something to concentrate on and easily retort against.

* I will concede slightly on the points of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where quite obviously a good percentage of the population was indiscriminately wiped out by the atomic blasts - but that is something not seen before or since, was shocking by its sheer difference (even vs the firestorms from incendiary bombing), was attacking industrially and militarily important targets, and was an attack actually judged to be worth carrying out because by potentially shortening the war it would save more lives than it ended.

I am not trying to glorify or belittle anybody's suffering. All suffering during war is equal, it is equally tragic and unacceptable in any amount no matter who it happens to.I reffered to ww2 specifically becasue it serves as an excellent example of how evil and tragic war was on both sides. It was my intention to point out that civilians were targeted deliberatly, killed enmass and using barbiric techniques (phosperous incindaries, targetting evacuation stations, ect) in order to accompish some vague goal. Not only that, but thier losses are often glazed over, an embarrasing stain on the records of the so-called 'good guys'.
And by the way, i know this is the internet, but please try to excersise some manners. Thanking me for, "giving you something to easily retort against" is in the same classfication of saying "zing" when you feel you have been clever. I would love to discuss this with you, but only as long as it can be done in a respectful and civilised manner.

 

[Soushi]

As a cadet, if I wear a white poppy instead of a red one I will get murdered by a drill sergeant.

Pity. Ah well, i suppose civilian casualities are just one of those things that many would rather not talk about. It is hard to feel like a good guy on some moral pedestal when the base of said pedestal is covered in the blood of those who could not, would not, or had not the will to fight.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I am not trying to glorify or belittle anybody's suffering. All suffering during war is equal, it is equally tragic and unacceptable in any amount no matter who it happens to.I reffered to ww2 specifically becasue it serves as an excellent example of how evil and tragic war was on both sides. It was my intention to point out that civilians were targeted deliberatly, killed enmass and using barbiric techniques (phosperous incindaries, targetting evacuation stations, ect) in order to accompish some vague goal. Not only that, but thier losses are often glazed over, an embarrasing stain on the records of the so-called 'good guys'.
And by the way, i know this is the internet, but please try to excersise some manners. Thanking me for, "giving you something to easily retort against" is in the same classfication of saying "zing" when you feel you have been clever. I would love to discuss this with you, but only as long as it can be done in a respectful and civilised manner.

Just to help you along...looks like civilian casualties just edge it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

military dead 22-25 million

civilian dead 40-52 million.