|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Nov 6, 2024 19:34:06 GMT
So I fear many are either unnecessarily over complicating things in regards to explaining Trump's victory or are being directed by their own prejudices/agendas.
As is the case in most elections where the incumbent has been in power during an economic shock that has impacted voters living standards, they get punished at the ballot box. Lesson for Labour - Starmer/Reeves will need turn on the taps to ensure voters feel that in time for the next GE and ditch the 'tough decisions' approach as the voters wont thank them for it.
Trump is very easy to understand, and from the testimony of those who have worked closely with him, he really has no morals or ideology but is incredibly self obsessed and selfish. He will be driven by a desire to reward those who helped him and punish those who opposed/wronged him. While he likes the international limelight, he has no real interest in it and is an isolationist at heart. He will support/reward Netanyaho, and punish Zelensky. Overall foreign policy will be chaotic and idiosyncratic.
Systemically in the US it looks like he will have at least 2 years when he will control the three branches - as a friend said to me today, he is unlikely to destroy a 250 year old democracy in that time and the usual pattern of checks and balances will re-assert themselves. In terms of the international system, which is much more fragile and weak atm, I think in four years given the current situation, he could do irreparable long term damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 6, 2024 19:34:30 GMT
laszlo4new Wrong. Remembrance Sunday has been held since the end of the first world war. However Remembrance Day is to honour armed forces members and civilians who have died in the line of duty.
Not just in the first world war.
Perhaps You might like to share your thoughts with the royal British legion that no one killed after 1918 are being honoured. This is what the RBL says "Remembrance Sunday is a national opportunity to remember the service and sacrifice of all those that have defended our freedoms and protected our way of life." He isn't wrong is he? "Remembrance Day is observed on 11 November to recall the end of First World War hostilities. Hostilities ended "at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" of 1918" Of course it is appropriate we remember the sacrifice of others that have died since. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 6, 2024 19:41:57 GMT
Whilst we're talking about the Dems needing to change the habit of a few generations and advocate social democratic economics, here are propositions that passed in ultra Conservative Missouri:
- raise minimum wage to $15/hr (currently higher than the UK;and
- paid sick leave.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 6, 2024 20:20:02 GMT
mark61"I hope you would accept it is the Duty of The Prime Minister to put Britain's interests first and foster good relations with the incoming administration" Which of course won't prevent president rapist from abusing anyone he feels like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Nov 6, 2024 21:11:27 GMT
So I fear many are either unnecessarily over complicating things in regards to explaining Trump's victory or are being directed by their own prejudices/agendas.
As is the case in most elections where the incumbent has been in power during an economic shock that has impacted voters living standards, they get punished at the ballot box. Lesson for Labour - Starmer/Reeves will need turn on the taps to ensure voters feel that in time for the next GE and ditch the 'tough decisions' approach as the voters wont thank them for it.
Trump is very easy to understand, and from the testimony of those who have worked closely with him, he really has no morals or ideology but is incredibly self obsessed and selfish. He will be driven by a desire to reward those who helped him and punish those who opposed/wronged him. While he likes the international limelight, he has no real interest in it and is an isolationist at heart. He will support/reward Netanyaho, and punish Zelensky. Overall foreign policy will be chaotic and idiosyncratic.
Systemically in the US it looks like he will have at least 2 years when he will control the three branches - as a friend said to me today, he is unlikely to destroy a 250 year old democracy in that time and the usual pattern of checks and balances will re-assert themselves. In terms of the international system, which is much more fragile and weak atm, I think in four years given the current situation, he could do irreparable long term damage. Lordy, lululemonmustdobetter, I thought you were trying to be reassuring. Then I read your final sentence … . |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by Danny on Nov 6, 2024 21:32:38 GMT
If you are right and he really is in Fortress America mood could he just stop the arms to Ukraine and leave it to "Europe" to sort out. ? Dunno-squeeky bum time on this i think. I think Trump is nowhere near as stupid or obsessive as he is portrayed. He will also have good professional advisors. Politicians major stock in trade is to tell voters what they want to hear, not what you plan to do. And then finess what you want to do without them noticing. I imagine in general Trump would quite like to be seen as a success, and actually leave the place better than he found it. What he says though seems consistent that he wants to repatriate industries to the US so it becomes more self contained. Keep out the foreigners, no reliance on outsiders. With regard to europe, Nato and Ukraine, the US has long wanted to reduce its involvement in defence of Europe. First it no longer has world imprerial ambitions. Second Russia is no longer such a major threat. And third Europe is today quite capable of defending itself against Russia, but is in effect freeloading on the US to do it for them. Creating a powerful armed Europe is likely seen as an advantage for the US because its likely to align with the US rather than other blocks. The US needs Europe to rearm. The US under several presidents has already asked nicely, it didnt work. I said years ago that what has happened in Ukraine is a great benefit to the US in encouraging europe to rearm. But the whole process is now stuck, with the US doing the work (or at least paying). It needs to force europe to take over. So either assist while europe takes over supplying Ukraine, or allow Ukraine to lose so as to create a further Russian threat to Europe to make them rearm. I think the best course (for the US) would be to coerce europe to take over, not just ditch Ukraine. So thats what Trump should be trying to do. Will Europe rearm as required? Will we? Obviously, he will be much more ocncerned about those in the EU block than the UK isolated by itself. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 6, 2024 22:26:15 GMT
Danny, I'm not sure I share your confidence that Trump will have good Professional advisors, The last lot weren't exactly tearing up any trees and nearly all of them other than Gulliani have repudiated him since. I think you can look forward to Pompeo, Kennedy and Musk and possibly Ramaswamy. In addition it seems Trump's mental capacity seems to have declined since 2020 we seem to be in choppy waters.
Early indictor is whether he pursues a revenge agenda, let us hope his bark is worse than his bite. If the Republicans have also won the House there are few checks on the new administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 6, 2024 22:30:15 GMT
mark61 "I hope you would accept it is the Duty of The Prime Minister to put Britain's interests first and foster good relations with the incoming administration" Which of course won't prevent president rapist from abusing anyone he feels like. However I'm sure Sir Ed's wise words will already have sent Trump to the Confessional in a spirit of repentance. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 6, 2024 22:52:15 GMT
Note on turnout in the US election; a record high at 67%.
The turnout in the UK GE was 59.7%
Sounds like a healthy democracy?
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 6, 2024 23:15:39 GMT
Note on turnout in the US election; a record high at 67%. The turnout in the UK GE was 59.7% Sounds like a healthy democracy? To be fair, 59.7% would have been one of the highest numbers for a US Presidential election prior to 2020, and is obviously historically pretty low for the UK. Part of the excuse for the US numbers has often been the predictability of the binary contest (whether nationally or more locally) and likewise our number this year surely does reflect what was widely felt to be the foregone conclusion that Labour would win very comfortably. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 6, 2024 23:37:41 GMT
Dom. ''In 2020 I was overjoyed when Biden won but in hindsight now I wish Trump had won a second term back then.'' My son said this at the time and bemoaned to gerontocracy in the Democratic Party. Like you he wanted a clear out of the Democrats old guard so a new generation could compete effectively in 2024.I didn't agree as I thought Biden the stop - gap was preferable to Trump but, as others have said, his ego got in the way of a proper primary process. Only Pete Buttigieg of the contenders 4 years ago offered anything fresh. There is a problem specific to the Democrats, which is their system of seniority based on the number of terms served. So the Democrats who chair committees and hold other positions of power in the House and Senate, are basically those who have been there the longest. Although the Presidency isn't subject to seniority, presidential candidates for the two main parties have usually either been in Congress or State Governors. Donald Trump is the notable exception here, having never held elected office, while Joe Biden was a Senator from 1973-2009 (the term starts in January, like the President). This system of seniority means that young Congressmen can take years to develop enough of a profile to allow them to run for the Presidency, while those who are often past their best get the most important roles. The Republicans have a slightly different approach to seniority, but I don't know the details.It's a combination of the above and dynastic nepotism - almost every pick they've made in the last 50 years or so has been based on Whose Turn It Was, either through incumbency, seniority or just entitlement. The only exceptions since Reagan in 1980 have been Mitt Romney who got the nod when no-one serious wanted to waste their chance losing to the incumbent Obama, and Trump who earned emnity for life from the Bush/Cheney/Rove clique by denying Jeb Bush his birthright Presidency. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Nov 7, 2024 0:06:21 GMT
laszlo4new Wrong. Remembrance Sunday has been held since the end of the first world war. However Remembrance Day is to honour armed forces members and civilians who have died in the line of duty.
Not just in the first world war.
Perhaps You might like to share your thoughts with the royal British legion that no one killed after 1918 are being honoured. This is what the RBL says "Remembrance Sunday is a national opportunity to remember the service and sacrifice of all those that have defended our freedoms and protected our way of life." It shows that you don't know anything about it. Do your homework. I have attended the 2018 one and talked to a number of leading figures. They all said that it is about WW1, and victims and on both sides (!). On fascism - you have to wait till May. In November we celebrate the 10 million victims of the imperialist war. In May we celebrate the heroes of defeating fascism. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 7, 2024 0:18:58 GMT
This is not the first time that evil has been seen to triumph . I doubt that it will be the last. No talk yet of California seeking to secede from the Union! Well no, because that was never a serious idea. And the exacerbated polarisation it relied on doesn't seem to have happened anyway - quite the reverse this time. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 7, 2024 0:43:33 GMT
Biden was an emergency candidate in that year and that I think was part of the problem. Someone Biden’s age should never have got the nomination. There was zero longterm thought. Worse than that, Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan was, lets be honest, the trigger for Putin believing he could get away with invading Ukraine. Putin thought America was running home with its tail between its legs. If Trump had been in power at that point I don’t think he would have withdrawn from Afghanistan, certainly not in the way that it was done if only because he wouldn’t want to look weak Agree with a lot of your post, but on the two points above: Many Democrats thought in 2020 that Biden was agreeing to be a one term president who would promote and build-up a successor. He appeared to hint that himself. But the old boy's ego took over. The Trump administration planned the Afghan withdrawal - it was his policy that Biden inherited and implemented. Maybe it would have played out a little differently under Trump, but the basic policy would have been the same. "As part of the United States–Taliban deal, the Trump administration agreed to an initial reduction of US forces from 13,000 to 8,600 troops by July 2020, followed by a complete withdrawal by 1 May 2021, if the Taliban kept its commitments." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_U.S._troop_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20the%20United,the%20Taliban%20kept%20its%20commitments. - agree with you very much about Biden's duplicity and ego, and at the same time it's sad but inevitable to see him now being blamed by the leaders of the Harris campaign for everything including their own tactical failures. I disagree quite a bit on Afghanistan - this argument that Biden was simply following through what Trump had outlined is ludicrous. Biden was the President of the United States, the commander of the supreme military power there - if he'd wanted to change any of part of what was happening at any point then he could have, the idea his hands were somehow fully tied because of what Trump had laid out the previous year is bizarre. Yes it's perfectly fair to argue that Trump would probably have followed the same approach had he remained in office, but that's also irrelevant - Biden had six or seven months to change tack and didn't chose to and so was rightly held accountable for what then happened on his watch. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by Danny on Nov 7, 2024 7:41:54 GMT
In terms of the international system, which is much more fragile and weak atm, I think in four years given the current situation, he could do irreparable long term damage. This seems an example of the 'James Burke, connections' type. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. International relations are on the cusp of a state change because international advantage has shifted for the US against open trade. Ditto, uncontrolled migration on humanitarian grounds is rising out of control. There is minimal interest for the US in fighting Russia in Europe. Invading Afghanistan, Iraq, were seen as ultimately futile. Maybe the only key interest remaining is Taiwan. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by Danny on Nov 7, 2024 7:48:05 GMT
If the Republicans have also won the House there are few checks on the new administration. That not quite true, you get into the same situation con got into during brexit negotiations, that your own side disagrees with your policies. Much more relevant in the US where nominal party members from different states have very different outlooks. Also there are in built constitutional super majority thresholds for serious changes. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by Danny on Nov 7, 2024 7:52:57 GMT
Note on turnout in the US election; a record high at 67%. The turnout in the UK GE was 59.7% Sounds like a healthy democracy? Seriously? 33% thought neither party worth voting for 34% favoued the winner and another 33% favoured the loser? And I have no idea what proportion simply arent registered... wikipedia suggests 30% of eligble citizens in the US arent registered to vote. So that is really only about 1/4 voted for Trump. 1/4 voted for Harris, and half thought neither worth it. Quite posisbly the majority was for neither. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Nov 7, 2024 8:15:07 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by Danny on Nov 7, 2024 8:36:40 GMT
Might further encourage the US to put more pressure on them to increase defence spending by threatening to pull the rug out on Ukraine. It funny in its way, how the US has reversed policy and wants both Japan and Germany to resume being military superpowers. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Nov 7, 2024 8:48:43 GMT
Not sure what good news for Ukraine looks like these days but in current circumstances at least I'd have said it's probably good news as there will be elections in March in which the CDU/CSU will undoubtedly come out on top . That means Friedrich Merz as chancellor who has been pushing Scholz to be more supportive of Ukraine from the get go. He even said recently on allowing western weapons to be used against deeper Russian targets that he would give Russia 24 hours to stop attacking civilian targets and if they didn't then allow the Ukrainians to use western long range weapons against Russian airfields. I hope however that the war will be over or close to over by March. The FDP, who were always an odd fit in this coalition, have made it no longer tenable and they're doing this because their ratings are now so low that they fear extinction and feel they have to try to distance themselves from what is in effect an loc gvt and get some identity back. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Nov 7, 2024 8:55:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Nov 7, 2024 8:57:46 GMT
, I think in four years given the current situation, he could do irreparable long term damage. Lordy, lululemonmustdobetter , I thought you were trying to be reassuring. Then I read your final sentence … . . Well the US system was specifically designed to thwart the emergence of a 'king'/leader type in Trump's mould. Underpinning the international system is a need that the most powerful actor operates in a stabilising/measured approach. The risk, as usual, is not necessarily what most people think it is. Trump is no warmonger, in fact he's pretty much the opposite. He perceives himself as a businessman man, and views the world and relations through that lens and interactions with other leaders as 'doing deals' etc. While personal interactions between leaders etc are a factor in international relations, its a very naïve view that complex issue's such as the Middle East etc can be sorted out in such a manner.
The state of the international system has deteriorated significantly since his last term in office (which in fact was one of the route causes of the decline). Now while Biden's foreign policy has in reality been relatively ineffective (I'm being generous), it has been conducted in a manner consistent with the US role as the primary force supporting the rules based system. Trump's personalised, erratic, disruptive style will add a level of uncertainty and disruption which will be destabilising with consequences difficult to predict. Khrushchev was far more dangerous than Stalin due to his unpredictability and erratic behaviour.
In reality Trump is out of his depth, and out of step with the US foreign policy establishment, when it comes to foreign affairs. Exactly what we don't need atm. However, and this may come across as a bit cynical and contradictory, the UK should act in its own interests and see if it can exploit the situation if a beneficial trade deal (deals are what drives Trump) is possibly on the cards. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 7, 2024 9:11:10 GMT
I certainly agree that MAGA is for a domestic audience. Key policies in illegal migration and trade tariffs are all about his US jobs agenda. I think his Foreign Affairs agenda remains to be seen. I suspect it may be a mixed bag:- China-a military threat as well as economic . So Taiwan a red line .US military presence in Pacific etc Iran-I suppose it depends on his policy on Israel. Russia-I wonder whether his instinct might have been that he could stop the UKraine war & America's expenditure on it by forcing a partition on Ukraine-deal done & end of problem. But this sort of deal making fell over with Kim -and Kim is now supplying Russia in Ukraine. So he must know that there will be lots of loose ends to tie up on security guarantees for Ukraine. Is he up to that sort of stuff. Has he got the patience ?. If you are right and he really is in Fortress America mood could he just stop the arms to Ukraine and leave it to "Europe" to sort out. ? Dunno-squeeky bum time on this i think. The other issue with Iran is that it is very easy for them to close off the Persian Gulf at the Strait of Hormuz. I'm thinking of mining it rather than a blockade. That would send oil prices through the roof. I cannot see even Trump allowing Israel to use nukes against Iran. Trump, I think would be quite happy with allowing Israel to expand and push out the remaining Palestinians, but from his experience with Afghanistan he won't want a Middle East war against one of the major powers, which may very well have Russian support. Yes Looks like I'm wrong on Taiwan. Just reading of a Bloomberg interview in which Trump said Taiwan should pay US for defending it and that it was " stealing" American microchip production. Its going to be an uncomfortable and unpredictable period under a Trump foreign policy primarily focused on US taxpayers' interests ! And with political change imminent in EU's two most influential countries there seem to be so many moving parts. Except in UK !. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Nov 7, 2024 9:16:32 GMT
Hi johntel, I'm not particularly hopeful in terms of the likely outcome for the Ukraine currently. This is exactly the scenario Putin was hoping for! In reality, this a massive failure of Biden approach. The relatively timid approach to supporting Ukraine, delays in supplying weapons, especially aircraft etc, have made it a bit of a forgone conclusion that they wont be able to regain their lost territory!
Difficult to see how Zelensky would survive politically if they have to accept humiliating terms after the sacrifices they have made - who and what type of government would replace him is unclear, or who will put up the money to reconstruct Ukraine?
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 7, 2024 9:36:08 GMT
Agree with a lot of your post, but on the two points above: Many Democrats thought in 2020 that Biden was agreeing to be a one term president who would promote and build-up a successor. He appeared to hint that himself. But the old boy's ego took over. The Trump administration planned the Afghan withdrawal - it was his policy that Biden inherited and implemented. Maybe it would have played out a little differently under Trump, but the basic policy would have been the same. "As part of the United States–Taliban deal, the Trump administration agreed to an initial reduction of US forces from 13,000 to 8,600 troops by July 2020, followed by a complete withdrawal by 1 May 2021, if the Taliban kept its commitments." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_U.S._troop_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20the%20United,the%20Taliban%20kept%20its%20commitments. Yes it's perfectly fair to argue that Trump would probably have followed the same approach had he remained in office, but that's also irrelevant - Biden had six or seven months to change tack and didn't chose to and so was rightly held accountable for what then happened on his watch. Biden did delay the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Under Trump's agreement with the Taliban it was to be in April, but after he was told that would create severe problems for the UK because we could not get our forces out on that timescale he delayed it to August. We still made a mess of it, getting cats and dogs out instead of evacuating Afghans who had worked for us, but that's Boris Johnson for you. |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Nov 7, 2024 9:40:53 GMT
Hi johntel , I'm not particularly hopeful in terms of the likely outcome for the Ukraine currently. This is exactly the scenario Putin was hoping for! In reality, this a massive failure of Biden approach. The relatively timid approach to supporting Ukraine, delays in supplying weapons, especially aircraft etc, have made it a bit of a forgone conclusion that they wont be able to regain their lost territory!
Difficult to see how Zelensky would survive politically if they have to accept humiliating terms after the sacrifices they have made - who and what type of government would replace him is unclear, or who will put up the money to reconstruct Ukraine? Hi lulu. I think you may be underestimating Zelenskiy's willingness to compromise - on several occasions he's conceded that it will be necessary to give up land for security, it's all down to the guarantees for the integrity for the rest of Ukraine. Immediate NATO membership isn't going to happen, but personally I think that he would agree some sort of compromise. Trump will expect UK/EU to pay their share of the military guarantees and Putin will of course play hardball in negotiations - but ultimately can't argue with US might. I live in hope - the alternative of a long slow death for Ukraine would be awful. It really behoves Europe to present a coherent plan, but tbh I can't see them getting their act together. If the borders end up at the current line of contact I view it as a victory for Ukraine and I don't think Putin will be happy. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 7, 2024 9:51:04 GMT
The FDP is a strange party; part of the same group in the European Parliament as the Lib Dems were and also members of Liberal International. They are quite right-of-centre, essentially economic liberals and in the past have regularly been in government with the CDU/CSU. There are several 'liberal' parties in Europe that occupy a similar position (VVD in the Netherlands is another one). |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 7, 2024 10:00:37 GMT
pjw1961 - agree with you very much about Biden's duplicity and ego, and at the same time it's sad but inevitable to see him now being blamed by the leaders of the Harris campaign for everything including their own tactical failures. I disagree quite a bit on Afghanistan - this argument that Biden was simply following through what Trump had outlined is ludicrous. Biden was the President of the United States, the commander of the supreme military power there - if he'd wanted to change any of part of what was happening at any point then he could have, the idea his hands were somehow fully tied because of what Trump had laid out the previous year is bizarre. Yes it's perfectly fair to argue that Trump would probably have followed the same approach had he remained in office, but that's also irrelevant - Biden had six or seven months to change tack and didn't chose to and so was rightly held accountable for what then happened on his watch. I didn't anywhere say Biden wasn't accountable for what happened, but if you look at the article by the time he took over the US troop numbers were already down to 2,500 and the withdrawal well underway. The idea that Biden could have reversed that and sent substantial numbers of US troops back to Afghanistan seems politically unviable. The final chaos was down to Biden, but given the Afghan forces failed to put up much of a fight it was always going to be a mess. The US record of successfully creating popular regimes and viable armies on the Asian continent is dire, Afghanistan just being the latest on a long list of failure. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 7, 2024 10:28:47 GMT
pjw1961 - agree with you very much about Biden's duplicity and ego, and at the same time it's sad but inevitable to see him now being blamed by the leaders of the Harris campaign for everything including their own tactical failures. I disagree quite a bit on Afghanistan - this argument that Biden was simply following through what Trump had outlined is ludicrous. Biden was the President of the United States, the commander of the supreme military power there - if he'd wanted to change any of part of what was happening at any point then he could have, the idea his hands were somehow fully tied because of what Trump had laid out the previous year is bizarre. Yes it's perfectly fair to argue that Trump would probably have followed the same approach had he remained in office, but that's also irrelevant - Biden had six or seven months to change tack and didn't chose to and so was rightly held accountable for what then happened on his watch. I didn't anywhere say Biden wasn't accountable for what happened, but if you look at the article by the time he took over the US troop numbers were already down to 2,500 and the withdrawal well underway. The idea that Biden could have reversed that and sent substantial numbers of US troops back to Afghanistan seems politically unviable. The final chaos was down to Biden, but given the Afghan forces failed to put up much of a fight it was always going to be a mess. The US record of successfully creating popular regimes and viable armies on the Asian continent is dire, Afghanistan just being the latest on a long list of failure. Possibly with the exception of South Korea and the continuing support for Taiwan....but just nit picking. I think there are lessons here too for the forthcoming withdrawal of support for Ukraine to ensure it doesn't turn into a Russian rout - the peace plan and partition line needs to be in place, and the Russians will demand international recognition of the territorial situation as well. Biden was always a strange President, caretaker / grandad type figure always lurching fron one stumble to the next. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 7, 2024 11:02:11 GMT
laszlo4new Oh good another contributor who knows more about remembrance Sunday than the Royal British legion This is what the organisation that is lead in caring for veterans says and I'll take their opinion over that of an anonymous keyboard warrior any day of the week. "Remembrance honours those who serve to defend our democratic freedoms and way of life. We unite across faiths, cultures and backgrounds to remember the service and sacrifice of the Armed Forces community from United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. We will remember them. We remember the sacrifice of the Armed Forces community from United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
We pay tribute to the special contribution of families and of the emergency services.
We acknowledge innocent civilians who have lost their lives in conflict and acts of terrorism.
Remembrance honours those who serve to defend our democratic freedoms and way of life.We unite across faiths, cultures and backgrounds to remember the service and sacrifice of the Armed Forces community from United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. We will remember them.
We remember the sacrifice of the Armed Forces community from United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
We pay tribute to the special contribution of families and of the emergency services.
We acknowledge innocent civilians who have lost their lives in conflict and acts of terrorism.
Remembrance does not glorify war and its symbol, the red poppy, is a sign of both Remembrance and hope for a peaceful future.Wearing a poppy is is never compulsory but is greatly appreciated by those who it is intended to support. When and how you choose to wear a poppy is a reflection of your individual experiences and personal memories. Remembrance unites people of all faiths, cultures, and backgrounds but it is also deeply personal.
It could mean wearing a poppy in November, before Remembrance Sunday. It could mean joining with others in your community on a commemorative anniversary. Or it could mean taking a moment on your own to pause and reflect.Everyone is free to remember in their own way, or to choose not to remember at all. does not glorify war and its symbol, the red poppy, is a sign of both Remembrance and hope for a peaceful future. Wearing a poppy is is never compulsory but is greatly appreciated by those who it is intended to support. When and how you choose to wear a poppy is a reflection of your individual experiences and personal memories. Remembrance unites people of all faiths, cultures, and backgrounds but it is also deeply personal.
It could mean wearing a poppy in November, before Remembrance Sunday. It could mean joining with others in your community on a commemorative anniversary. Or it could mean taking a moment on your own to pause and reflect. Everyone is free to remember in their own way, or to choose not to remember at all. " There's nothing in their assessments that refers to a single conflict it honours all the fallen. As a member of a family where numerous members have served I find the minimising of their sacrifices quite insulting. Do a proper fact check. It's not difficult if you can read.
|
|
