Honouring the soldiers

Ollie

Rudyard Kipling's comment is also pertinent:
'It's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and chuck 'im out, the brute.
But it's the saviour of his country when the guns begin to shoot'.
The British Army is about the only institution that still works well and still has honour, dignity and the respect of what is left of decent elements in this decadent country.
What a pity that its officer corps are still dedicated to carrying out the commands of its debased
'democratic' leaders that the idea of a cleansing coup d'etat in Britain is unthinkable. What we need is a modern Cromwell.
L'armee au pouvoir! Arriba Britannia! Vive Dictator Gen. Danatt!

John Caulker

‘THE MAN IN THE ARENA’

“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne, 1910)

lloyd

As with the Gurkha debate yesterday, the one thing that unites our nation - Scots, Wesh, Irish and English - is a pride and humility in the face of those who volunteer to possibly lay down their lives for a people and a belief that is, perhaps, often their power of articulation.

When the political leaders are wrong the soldier still does his duty and the pride the British public take in their ill-equipped but fiercly loyal armed forces is a credit to the country.

It took 'The Sun' to shame the authorities into giving a hero's welcome to any serviceperson who died in conflict.

The issue isn't the rights and wrongs of the conflict but the dedication and committment of the boys - yes, really boys - who die for us.

Nick

Poor Googling skills. The quote is from Charles M Province's poem It is the Soldier. Mr Province is an Army Veteran and bit of a General Patton fan.

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

mart

Well said!

Kevyn Bodman

If you can read, thank a teacher.
If you can read in English,thank a soldier.

George from Oxford

Radio 4's PM programme broadcast the reading of the 179 British names, uninterrupted, in the middle of tonight's bulletin. A moment of real decency amidst the usual babble. I was driving home in Oxfordshire and passed the well-tended war memorial in Wooton village just before it ended. They are respected.

TGF UKIP

As one who is always prepared to admit he is wrong, I am intrigued and red-faced that you "served in Iraq."

Bearing in mind your present image as a europhile guardianista, it would I am sure greatly assist you to get a more receptive audience for your posts if you could shed your military humility and tell us more of your role in Iraq and in the British Army generally.

PS even if you won the VC, not sure if it would make your europhile views any more digestible but they might at least be read.

Chuck Unsworth

Amen to that. But I think that most people in Britain fully understand the gallantry and selflessness of these young men and women - except for the perfidious and iniquitous politicians, who so casually and irresponsibly signed their death warrants.

Why is it that these self-same 'leaders' have always avoided attending the repatriations and funerals of these brave people? It is because they dare not look the grieving kith and kin in the eye. They are, simply, dishonourable scum.

Verity

Kevyn Bodman, your post brought tears to my eyes.

All the comments attached to this post are thoughtful and very touching.

Anna

I honour the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers, and weep for them and their families, and pay tribute to their courage as guardians of my liberty.

But... those who fell moved on to a better place, they do not face a lifetime of living with appalling injuries as so many of their comrades do. Of course, those names could not be read out too, it would be far too long and would be an invasion of their privacy. However, they are in the here and now, swept under the carpet and appallingly treated by a government that sends them out to fight and loses interest when they can fight no more.

We should remember them, too, and make what contributions we can to look after them in the absence of what they deserve from the government.

Constant reader

Having thought about it for twenty four hours I find the whole Gurkha thing great as a political jape but disturbingly patronising. The stuff about them laying down their lives for the country implies patriotism on their part but these guys are Nepali; if they feel patriotic about anywhere, that would be Nepal. That's what patriotism is. Why would they feel patriotic about a country which, leaving aside any comparison between the UK and Nepal, isn't their own? Are we saying that Nepal is so horrible, and their experience of the UK - not direct, but by seeing the splendid, dashing, wonderful and above all white ruperts fom sandhurst who command them - causes them to sort of instinctively recognise the superiority of the anglo saxon race over little brown blokes like them and therefore to elevate the UK to fatherland status? These guys are literally, and non-pejoratively, mercenaries doing a skilled job for - to them - a high wage and for additional benefits - if any - that were agreed when they signed up. Good for them if they can screw any additional benefits out of their employers, but J Lumley emoting about how loyal the little darlings were to her Daddy sounds to me no different from Jilly Cooper emoting about unwanted labradors.

London Calling

In silence we honour
All those who fell
For freedoms sake they sacrificed
Remember them well
With pride we stand
Together with stead
In silence we do so honour
For freedoms sake they sacrificed
They died for our tomorrow.

LC

Verity

And how simply grotesque and heart-breaking that the "tomorrow" for which they bravely sacrificed their young lives and futures is a new version of the Soviet Union, but with better means of monitoring thoughts.

Gramsci Gordon, the nauseating Trot Jack Straw, the nauseating stench Jacqui Smith and her wanking husband, the nauseating Ed "SO WHAT??" Balls, various Millipedes, Tessa Jowell promoting an apparachik at the expense of taxpayers (Gould's fat 22-year-old kid) while supposedly speaking about her brief, the London Olympics (pause for a big laugh from the crowd), Yvette Cooper and all the other pigswill (sic), David Cameron and his little shadow cabinet, in these convenient days of "swine flu".

Swine flu's a big tent. All are welcome to use it as camouflage.

Cassius

Contrast with Chris Paul yesterday who described the Gurkhas as follows:

"And there is an extraordinarily sentimental reaction to some outsourced workers-in-uniform. They're making outrageous demands for improved terms and ..."

Kevyn Bodman

Verity,
My comment is not original, but I can't remember where I came across it, and I was passing through LHR and unable to search for the origin.

It might have been a bumper sticker in the USA.

logdon

All spin. And with the lives of loyal Ghurkas. Our bungling government has shown the worst disconnect possible in this fiasco. They read headlines of growing British aversion to mass immigration and doh, rather than realising that it's not immigration per se we object to, but the admission of thousands who have not the slightest interest in our country apart from the famed benefits and free house. So obvious yet so far from the consciousness and consciences of these featherbedded idiots. So when a group who, of all have shown an amazing loyalty, a loyalty which in this day and age of flippant fealty or even outright hostility brings feelings of warmth and genuine inclusivity amongst our populations, they reject them. Maybe the Ghurkas don't quite fit Labour’s post imperial narrative, reminders as they are of an age of selflessness and deference. Maybe they actually symbolise a kind of Britishness these self loathing nursery school marxists actually despise. Labours idea is to drum all of our historical nationalism from our psyches. Their idea of the perfect immigrant ticks one box, a compliant voting bloc bought by appeasement to islam and an introduction of creeping shariah. In their minds it’s all political and all about advantage and gain. These grubby people just do not get it. The Ghurkas are above all that. They are intertwined into the warp and weft of the tapestry of our history. They have fought valiantly, shed blood and died in defence of far off British Kings and Queens. This display of playing politics with the lives of these people has shown Labour’s true colours. Low and disengenuous.

Constant reader

"The Ghurkas are above all that. They are intertwined into the warp and weft of the tapestry of our history. They have fought valiantly, shed blood and died in defence of far off British Kings and Queens."

Patronising windbaggery. It would be odd if they felt any loyalty to a country which is not theirs. Now perhaps it is true, despite being odd, but if so why would no one interview one of them to find out? The answer to that question is that for the purposes of this story they are subconsciously categorised by everyone as candidates for a dog rescue trust, and dogs don't do interviews.

Verity

Constant Reader - They were fiercely loyal to their employer. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Constant reader

Verity - I am moderately sure they were, though I still don't see why nobody bothers to ask them and publish the answer. But loyalty to an employer only goes so far - it isn't grounds for asking for the contract of employment to be re-written. I repeat that all this I vow to thee my country (or rather not my country but one which is clearly superior to my own country beause it is ruled by big white bwanas) bilge is patronising and demeaning. And damaging to Nepal incidentally if it drains away the 34 year old highly skilled and self-reliant retirees who could otherwise make a massive difference to their ow country by staying there.

Henry Rogers

Constant Reader,
By using the word 'bwana' which comes from an utterly different part of the world from Nepal you create the impression that you haven't thought too hard about the issue or indeed about anything beyond the shores of this country. I do hope I am wrong and will cheerfully apologize if you can give me an excuse to do so.

Incidently, Mr Korski, you never answered TGF UKIP's earlier question. All we ask is you rank and number, Sir, we have your name already.