Any Day Is A Good Day For A Hanging....

"The fact that we've been able to discuss the issues with mutual respect, and not resorting to abusive remarks has made it worthwhile." I agree. We did well. Profanity count was low on both sides. And as for those accusations of improper conduct with livestock, I just took them as good-natured banter.

Is it not a bit arrogant to assume that any one person can decide the fate of another living soul? I understand the political reasons for Hussein's death but I do not agree with them. It seems to me that politics and disreputable agendas of certain countries (the UK included) have much to account for, including many of the lives lost in Iraq. While he was a disgusting despot, I think that it is important to remember that there are many disgusting despots- I believe that Mugabe was mentioned earlier up the thread? This was not a bid to free the iraq people and nobody has acted in their interests, therefore to say that Saddam Husein's execution was is pretty dumb. Clearly, the powers that be had no interest in punishing Hussein for his crimes. That was the excuse.

""It's ridiculous to suggest that Geoff Hoon should be put on trial." It's only ridiculous, if you haven't been paying attention." Well, no. I'm quite aware the Hoon was the defence secretary at the time of the war in Iraq. My contention is that he is a fawning Blairite functionary who has never had any political power or significant opinions of his own separate from those of his leader and - on that basis - it's ridiculous to hold him personally responsible for anything.

"My contention is that he is a fawning Blairite functionary who has never had any political power" He obviously had enough power to overrule the army's request for extra body armour that would have saved Steven Roberts' life.

"Finally finally, the intervention of the US in the last war, who were in no danger from Germany, saved your life and mine." I've no reason to be grateful to a person or power who saves my life inadvertently because they judge that the threat to me is also a threat to them. Expect Americans, and American leaders, to act as you or anyone else might in their place (assuming their major concern is maintaining power, wealth and internal stability). That gives you enough of a reason not to trust them, or to believe that the war had anything really to do with aiding the Iraqi people. Moral integrity is for people who have little or nothing to lose by doing the right thing.

I profoundly disagree Jack. You can always put a negative interpretation on any human action, but part of the reason why you and I live in a free country today is because American soldiers gave their lives to defeat Hitler in WWII. We have benefited from their sacrifice and that's something we should never ever forget.

In the case of WW2, I think Jack is talking about the motives of the US (generally) in joining the war... I think, however, that if the outcome is positive (and in this case it can't really be argued that it wasn't), the motives are largely irrelavent. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"You can always put a negative interpretation on any human action, but part of the reason why you and I live in a free country today is because American soldiers gave their lives to defeat Hitler in WWII." I find it very difficult to distinguish between the bravery of these soldiers and that of any other soldier who goes into battle against an enemy he is led to believe is genuinely evil, including jihadists. Suppose there was an information smokescreen across the Atlantic in WW2 and that, while Americans believed everything as it was historically told to them, the reality was far more ambiguous than that of conquering Nazis. Suppose the Nazis were consequently seen as 'the good guys' by people who can't intellectually cope with a history more complicated than good v. evil. The American soldiers would have acted in exactly the same way, but it's unlikely that you or anyone else would regard them as heroes today. Sacrifice is generally only recognised when it is consequently regarded as being for the right reasons. And the 'reason' why I live in a free country today is, I'm sure, a matter of many more factors than WW2, if I can be said to live in a free country at all.

Jack, History is linear, not parallel. It is measured in time and events. WWII happened, as did everything else along a time line...a linear series of events with some events happening at the same relative point in time. WWII was a defining moment in western civilization. One can always argue that what occurred before that point in time had a definite impact on what happened during that time, but the end result was events at that moment in time defining all subsequent events, regarding Great Britain, The US and virtually every other country in the world. The entire period was heavily documented by those who participated and by thousands upon thousands of intelligent people who have reviewed that documentation thousands of times and general conclusions have been drawn and will continue to be drawn based on known facts. I doubt that we can do much better figuring it out from a human standpoint. I don't see a smoke screen, what I see is revisionism. Short of any knowledge of unknown facts, your opinion amounts to post-event revisionist thinking and of no factual significance whatsoever. You over rationalize sometimes. Things aren't always that complicated to understand, nor explain. I don't think Americans regard ourselves (in general) as saviors of the free world as a result of our participation in WWII or any other mega-event. Perhaps we regard ourselves with a varying degree of pride for having secured control of our own destiny and helped other countries with theirs, rather than give it to some power that we disagreed with. Do you believe for an instant that Great Britain would be the country it is today if America had not participated in WWII or even worse, been an ally of the Nazis? Your name could well be Wolfgang if we hadn't, assuming your ancestors hadn't been killed. If you are unhappy with the status quo, perhaps you should find an alternate reality to live in, or perhaps you have. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

George, From my way of thinking, it seems to me it is more about securing a historical legitimacy for the trial and execution rather than what Saddam deserved or didn't deserve. I haven't an ounce of compassion for the turd, but again, I don't believe we as humans execute people as a deterrent but as revenge, and seeking revenge will only result in revenge beeing seeked. What we want is for the thing to appear clinical and dignified, when in fact there is no dignity in killing another person. There is only revenge. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

It is a difficult thing George. I am opposed to the death penalty. I am not opposed to a life of incarceration for egregious acts. I am opposed to standards being applied inequitably, but I know they always will be. The only real justice in my opinion would have been to shoot the man when he was found and not dragging him from his hole and paraded for spectacle before the world. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

The problem with the execution video is that it suggests that, rather than impose teh rule of law and democracy on Iraq, all we have succeeded in doing is hand the country over to a bunch of sectarian thugs.

"Jon, it's easy to say that your freedom, or whatever you wish to call it, wasn't dependent on the outcome of WW2, but you're sadly wrong." I didn't say it wasn't dependent on the outcome of WW2 - I said that there were other factors, other things it depended on, many of which are arguably more important. I've got no more reason to thank America for my situation than I have to thank Hitler for giving up on invading Britain, or Claudius for invading in the first place, or Cromwell's model army for killing the king. All sorts of conflagrations of people have done whatever they've deemed necessary or expedient or useful at the time, and the result is whatever the situation is now. Nothing is inevitable until it happens, and we can only imagine what the situation would be if things had happened differently, at any point in history. "Short of any knowledge of unknown facts, your opinion amounts to post-event revisionist thinking and of no factual significance whatsoever." You've completely misunderstood me. I asked you to suppose that the reality had been different to what it was ie. if American soldiers had acted in exactly the same way, in a different context (but, as far as they knew themselves, in the same context) would they be regarded as heroes? I am not proposing an alternative account of what happened. You should read A. J. P. Taylor's 'The Origins of the Second World War'. I have a feeling that might stick in your craw. Trust you two to scold me for views I don't hold, but which you, conveniently, find easy to confront. "You have the 'freedom' in this country to say what the hell you like..." That's a different debate altogether. Your opinion, as expressed here, would be vehemently opposed by the crowd who harp on about 'political correctness gone mad', who I'm sure you're sympathetic toward. "It's become very fashionable in this country in recent years to be anti-American..." It's not really a recent phenomenon. Goes back as far as Kafka's 'Amerika', if not further. It also goes far deeper than the reasons you cite. Americans themselves are the experts when it comes to unearthing what is so sinister about their own country - Vonnegut, Chuck Polo-neck, Brett Easton-Ellis, Philip K. Dick etc, going back to Melville, Hawthorne and Twain. They've all seen the black side of it, with the result that a hefty wedge of America's literature history ends up being banned, or burned, in its homeland.

Jack, You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Wipe the slobber off your lip. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

See, RD, here's what you could have said, if you were capable of non-condescending debate: "You've completely misunderstood me...I am not proposing an alternative account of what happened." Ah, yes, I see. My apologies. I thought you were being a revisionist, oweing to my not reading your post properly. "That's a different debate altogether." Yes, it is, and certainly, it is an exaggeration to say that everyone can say whatever they damn well please, because it's more complicated than that. My point, though poorly expressed, was that you are certainly *relatively* free when compared to the situation as we might imagine it, were Hitler to have won WW2. "They've all seen the black side of it, with the result that a hefty wedge of America's literature history ends up being banned, or burned, in its homeland." What you say only applies to certain parts of America, which is, after all, a big country made up of many different organisations and communities. Many Americans are rightfully proud of their literary history and quite capable of recognising the darker side of our culture that so many of our authors have explored with integrity and conviction. As it happens, I even *look* a bit like Philip K. Dick. ~ So, do you want me to fill in any more of your answers, or do you think you could manage to do it yourself from now on? Y'know, without resorting to your own special brand of really lame insults?

Nobody ever mentions the russians when it comes to deciding who saved who in WWII, what's up with that?

Russians don't speak our language, and had a threateningly different political system for most of the twentieth century. Their culture is also very different - it's difficult for Missi to regard them as 'brothers'. So despite the fact that they were a deciding factor in the outcome of WW2, it's not as easy to feel that they 'saved' us.

I think we should be grateful to the US for the outcome of WW2. As far as I know, and I may be wrong, RD will probably know if it's right, but after the war of Independance the USA said fuck Europe and it's problems, yet still many Americans came and fought alongside us in both world wars due to them having affiliations with Europe. Amazing really considering many of those who had emigrated had done so as a result of being Royally shafted by the UK, (Irish in particular), or other parts of Europe, not to mention the reasons for the war of Independance in the first place. Like somebody already mentioned, America had the bomb, they had nothing to fear. I think we were extremely lucky they came in on our side, if someone had fucked me the way the UK had fucked America in the past I think I may well have sided with the enemy. Personally, with my family hailing from the West Coast of Scotland, (where the Vikings invaded) I'd have been okay, tall fair haired and blue eyes, sadly my half Romany Gypsy, half Jewish wife may not have been so lucky, or at least her ancestors. nobody

There's a little bit of rewriting of history going on here. When America entered WWII in December 1941 they didn't have the bomb and no one knew for sure a) how soon they could develop it b) how effectively it would work c) whether Hitler would beat them to it. The bomb really didn't enter the balance of power equation until August 1945 when Hitler was already about four months dead. As for the Russians, they suffered the heaviest losses in WWII and we are wrong not to acknowledge that more loudly. But remember they started the war as Hitler's allies, and not so long after the war ended they became our enemies, so naturally there is reluctance on the part of some Brits to feel too charitably towards them. However, now we're friends with the Russians again and they have valuable new energy sources to offer (natural gas, Polonium 210) maybe we should rethink our attitude to this.

Thakyou broosh, I stand corrected, (I'm not being patronising by the way), as I said, I'm probably wrong. That's the wonder of these threads you learn things. I didn't realise the USA entered in 1941, I thought it was later. Still I doubt if they'd have seen Germany as too big a threat. Also I didn't know they were initially on the German's side, why did they change their allegance? nobody

I think some are getting their world wars mixed up. The US was a fairly isolationist country prior to World War One. There was some sentiment towards Germany/Prussia within our political system prior to 1917, but it was never significant enough to have allowed us to enter on the side of the Germans. WW-Two however, a different animal. The US, while still leaning towards isolationism, had been awakened from that notion by WWI. We supported Great Britain in the years leading up to our entry into the war. We entered WWII as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec 7th, 1941..."A day that will live in infamy." Before we mustered troops, we had a little thing going on with England called the Lend-Lease act, where we supplied Great Britain with naval ships (mostly obsolete) and other materials, both civilian and military. Keep in mind, the US fought on two fronts just like the Germans did, with significant help from the Allies of course, but the war in the Pacific was primairly a US run operation. The war in Europe was primairly a Great Britain and Russion run operations un the US entered in force in June of 1944 (D-Day). It was Russia that was the allly of Germany until Hitler decided to invade it. Between early 1942 and June of 44, we mostly augmented the British forces and efforts in Africa, Italy and the Middle East. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Cheers for that RD, it seems to clarify a few points, as I said earlier, you're the person who seems to know about such historical events, (even if you are an old fart). Only kidding. What you said runs along the same lines as I knew so it was nice to know that I at least knew the basics, if not an in depth account. The USA saved our arses, love it or hate it, that's the way it was. I regard everyone who was part of D day as a hero, they laid down their lives for us and no matter their reasons we should respect that. Even if Broooosh is right and Radio Denver is wrong it makes no difference, people laid down their lives for a cause they believed in. Whether thay were disilousioned by politics or whatever, the men who fought and died did so for the right reasons, nothing else, and as aresult we should have nothing but gratitude. By the way I say this as a lefty anti-war individual. nobody

Saw an interesting documentary on BBC4 about film during WWII and how the documentary, 'Britain Can Take It' about the Blitz played a major role in turning american public opinion in our favour. I think it's sometimes easy to forget how close we were to defeat. We even had an ex-King working behind the scenes to negotiate a surrender. Yet, if we hadn't held on as long as we did, there wouldn't have been much of europe left to save. Certainly, if Hitler hadn't had a senior moment and invaded Russia and if the US hadn't come in when they did, we would've been screwed. p.s. Germany did declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour but, in reality, I expect that only served as a pretext for the US to do what it was about to do anyway. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

My point is more that it is odd and irrational to feel gratitude towards anyone for the situation you are born into. If I'm to be grateful for one historical event that shaped the present day, then I might as well be grateful for all of them. Any little thing could have made present day Britain a whole lot nastier. It's also irrational to feel gratitude towards Americans specifically because they acted in the same way people do when they feel there is a genuine threat/evil looming that needs to be battled. If I thank someone, I am generally showing appreciation for the fact they have thought of me specifically, and done something for my sake, not just because they've done something that happens to impact positively upon my situation. I mean, I'm glad the office is clean every day, but it would be odd to feel particular gratitude toward the cleaners. I see it as a case of being luck, and little more, that the US was sufficiently well informed, and the situation clear enough, for them to weigh in on what was definitely the right side. That luck hasn't struck again in any other conflict. That's not to say there wasn't bravery and sacrifice - but, as I say, that happens on all sides in any war, whatever the cause. I can recognise that, but why should we applaud it in American soldiers of WW2 over other soldiers in other conflicts?

So, what is your point? You seem to be rationalizing this as though it was nothing more than selecting the correct lottery numbers. If you've never involved yourself with a combined effort and simply sat back and observe and wait to be the benefactor of the positive result, you may very well perceive it as being good luck when things turn out okay or bad luck when you get a bayonet run through your stomach. When one takes action and even more to the point, possession of their situation, one is less likely to assess a positive outcome as being the result of good luck and more a result of having made the right choice. Bravery is putting ones life or well being on the line in the face of grave results without thinking of oneself. The coward chooses self first. Brave people are not uncommon and neither are cowards. Bravery garners respect and encourages reciprocation, cowards do not garner respect and therefore are less likely to be "lucky" the next time around. There's always a next time around. I'm less likely to give my life for someone I don't respect. I'd put my life on the line in a heartbeat for somebody I felt would do the same for me. In your case, I think you'd run out of luck fairly quickly. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

I agree with RD. If Jack didn't have the bravery to step up and fight in WW2 he shouldn't feel anything other than gratitude for the noble Americans that did.

You're err... still mixing up what I'm saying, RD. I see that this topic *does* engage you, however, so it's worth a shot at clarifying. I'm not saying 'the outcome of any particular situation is 100%' luck. My point is that the soldiers who fought in WW2 were probably no braver, on the whole, than soldiers who fight in any conflict. What is luck is that their bravery was *directed* against something close to a genuine evil. What more recent conflicts prove is that American soldiers, or the soldiers of any other country, repleat with the same amounts of bravery, can be just as easily put to use in an ill-judged or unjust war. So it is down to luck that those particular soldiers, in that particular war, were the ones that made the difference. In an alternative timeline, the twentieth century could have happened in such a way that those same soldiers had a negative impact on the world, despite being just as brave and just as prepared to sacrifice themselves. It all depends on the context, on what forces are governing their deployment. Your points about bravery and cowardice don't really figure into this and I'd disagree with some of them anyway. Cowards can be cunning, and can thus engineer their own fortune with more precision than someone who is simply brave. Cowards can also make themselves look brave, if they play their cards right, and thus convince others to jump in the line of fire for them. That happens an awful lot. There's a big difference between appreciating and respecting bravery, or any other quality, and feeling gratitude towards someone. Granted, gratitude can be irrational, so if people feel grateful to WW2 soldiers fine. But there's no reason we *have to*, at least not any more than we're grateful to brave people putting themselves on the line for something they believe in wherever and whenever it happens.

I think I have to side with Jack on this, insofar as gratitude is concerned, and if I understand him correctly. Gratitude to the soldiers of WWII is similar, IMO, to apologising to black people about slavery, or to native peoples about being slaughtered by my ancestors, in that it's something that happened an increasingly long time ago, in a world that was much different than it is today, and I myself had absolutely nothing to do with it and wouldn't support either. Am I glad we won WWII? Absolutely. But in war, men fight and die, and they do this on either side of the battlefield with equal amounts of bravery and cowardice, for their respective causes. That we happen to view one side of the cause as 'right' and the other as 'wrong' is down to where we were born. I personally hate the pomp and glorification of the war dead in the numerous Remembrance Day celebrations, even though both my grandfather and father-in-law fought in WWII.

Individuals are brave. Nations are political. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"Jon can bang on as long as he likes in an attempt to justify his argument, but WW2 is hardly history to many people." Obviously, it depends on your generation, but I'm fairly sure that it's history for the majority of the world's population. And that's not my argument anyway - if people have an emotional involvement with it, that's fine - I'm saying there's no *rational* reason for a person to feel that they owe anything to the particular American soldiers who fought in WW2, and therefore that it cannot be asked of someone who doesn't already feel that way. AG's right that this idea of inherited or non-direct debt, wherever it occurs, just doesn't square.

Jack said>"I'm saying there's no *rational* reason for a person to feel that they owe anything to the particular American soldiers who fought in WW2, and therefore that it cannot be asked of someone who doesn't already feel that way." Jack, Firstly, it is very difficult to discuss anything rationally with you. Reason being, any time somebody points out a flaw in your thinking, you generally retort with "That's not what I said, or you don't understand what I said". You repeat this theme in your arguments, over and over...to the point that there is no point in trying to discuss it with you. This is one reason I appear to be a twat to you, because I don't respect you for doing this and therefore give you no respect. In return, you give me no respect. Respect....think about that word. Wrap your brain around that word. What does it mean? Is respect a worthy notion? How does one earn respect? With words? With deads? With ideas? Respect starts with self. Self respect is required before one can respect others. One must have a set of values to have self respect. When one discovers what those values are, one can identify those like characteristics in others. A person with no values, will never respect the values of others. If Americans had no respect for Great Britain, Great Britain would not have survived World War II. Great Britain earned the respect of Americans, Americans reciprocated and took side with them in a struggle. To show gratitude towards anything is not irrational, it is respect and it is reciprocated. It's a very simple concept, rooted in self preservation. Americans didn't invent it, we don't claim to be the keepers of respect. If you show no respect for Americans that died saving your scruffy ass, you'll find yourself short of friends in the long run and the next time some lunatic wants to drop bombs on you, you'll be less likely to get a little help from your friends (if you have any). This applies to just about everyone, including Americans. Americans are suffering from a loss of respect as a result of the actions of our government in recent years. This is why we intend to toss the little shit and his cronies out on their asses. Now if you can't respect that concept, you're on your own. George is entirely correct in pointing out that for the present, the impact of WWII is still felt amongst many people in both countries. I have family members who fought and some who died in that conflict and my immediate family is shaped around that fact. The impact is and was real and being felt by thousands and thousands of people every day of their life. In another hundred years, it may be different. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

"Reason being, any time somebody points out a flaw in your thinking, you generally retort with "That's not what I said, or you don't understand what I said"." That's because their pointing out the flaw in a logic that isn't mine. If it was what I said, I wouldn't have a problem. When I propose an alternative timeline by way of illustration, and your response is that I'm revising history, I can't see another way of putting it other than, "That's not what I said." Each time it comes up, I make it very clear what the difference is between what I am arguing and what people think I am arguing. Not once has anyone been able to demonstrate that this distinction isn't present, for the simple reason that it is. For whatever reason, you and others choose to state the views you are more comfortable in asserting, rather than those that directly address what has come before. Thus, when I argue that the context in which America aided Great Britain was brought about by luck, you respond by telling me what bravery and cowardice are. "One must have a set of values to have self respect." Contestable, but I won't go into it now... "A person with no values, will never respect the values of others." Don't know if that's true either... "To show gratitude towards anything is not irrational, it is respect and it is reciprocated." Gratitude and respect are two different things. Gratitude can be rational, or it can be irrational. Abductees can feel gratitude towards their adbuctors when they are given back. I don't feel gratitude towards WW2 soldiers and I don't see any legitimate argument as to why I should. "If you show no respect for Americans that died saving your scruffy ass..." 1) They didn't save my ass. My ass wasn't around to be saved. 2) We're talking about gratitude, not respect. I have respect for their bravery. I've said that several times. You wonder why I accuse people of misrepresentation, and yet here you are putting words in my mouth! The issue here is why should I be grateful? Why should I feel any more positive emotions towards American WW2 soldiers than I do American Vietnam soldiers, or German WW1 soldiers? Understand that the main reason I have little respect for you is your not being prepared, much of the time, to engage in good faith in a topic of debate. As far as I'm concerned, if you enter a conversation, you should be prepared to consider other people's points of view, if you're a reasonable person. Whatever you accuse me of, I *know* I do that. I've conceded several times to debates on this site, changed my mind in response to what people have said, and with some things, like the subjectivity debate, I go on thinking about it for months afterwards. My manner is fiercely argumentative, and frustration creeps in when I feel something is going round in circles, but I *do* consider other people's points of view. You, on the other hand, are consistently aloof. Your manner implies that you are only prepared to dispense your version of the truth, rather then regard the subject as unresolved. You don't bother to rethink things. Plus, you quickly resort to childish taunting, which you regard as a perfectly legitimate form of enjoyment. The more exasperated I am, the more you love it. *That* is what makes you a twat. It's not like it's just me who realises that as well.

It all depends ones priorities Jon, I learned somewhere around the age of 4 or 5 (I'm guessing) that 1 + 1 = 2. I filed it and have since not had to count my fingers to achieve this result. The same can be said of many thoughts in the time since. I learn it, file it and use it when needed. It doesn't require revisiting to make myself or anyone else feel all warm and fuzzy. I know I am aloof...I am RadioDenver...I am a cartoon. You are in essence arguing with Garfield the Cat you moron. Consider this. Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. You stated that you continue to have people mis-understand you over and over, but for some reason, it's their fault. Have you considered the possibility that you are not making coherent arguments. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

"The same can be said of many thoughts in the time since. I learn it, file it and use it when needed." The problem is that 1+1 does equal 2. Most of the other things you think you know you do not know at all, and it's a demonstration of unpleasant arrogance to pretend that you do. As far as I'm concerned, a debate takes place when issues are unresolved or complicated. That is why there isn't much discussion over whether or not 1+1 equals 2. If you think you've already solved it - if you're absolutely certain of it and are not prepared to see that conclusion tested - you should stay out of the debate, because what happens is exactly what we see in the other thread - instead of taking part in the argument, you remain at the outskirts, throwing in turds. "I know I am aloof...I am RadioDenver...I am a cartoon. You are in essence arguing with Garfield the Cat you moron." See, you tick three twat boxes here. Saying something stupid that makes no sense whatsoever and isn't funny or interesting, making a flattering comparison for yourself, and unprovoked name-calling. "Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time." That's why I try to phrase things differently, as much as I am able. "Have you considered the possibility that you are not making coherent arguments." I have considered the possibility that I am not putting the argument across clearly enough, yes, which is why I try to put it across again in a more clear manner. The arguments themselves, however, appear coherent until someone actually takes apart the logic, and that doesn't happen as much as they are misrepresented or ignored.

Look, I'm not concerned with my twat level here. I'm RadioDenver...and I love to go swimmin' with bow-legged women. Wrap your brain around it, sooner or later it will register in one of those dormant brain cells you've been lugging around. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Hmm. The name-calling isn't exactly unprovoked, I've just realised. So your twat level goes down by 1. But then it gets raised again by your last post, which again contains meaningless babble and personal attacks, and demonstrates that really annoying (and cowardly) habit you have or arguing like you mean it and then pretending that you were never being serious. Missi - your points are worth thinking about further, but I've run out of time right now. I generally don't agree with the idea of inherited or indirect debt (by which I owe everything to your generation and will be owed everything by the generation that follows) so it follows that I don't really agree entirely, but I understand your position on it.

*burp Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

I think it's very sad that we live in a Britain where there are people like Jack who do not feel the need to thank their office cleaners. And probably think it's terribly uncool to do so. What a depressingly sterile and ungracious kind of world you inhabit mate.

My office cleaner is a lovely Tanzanian woman. I try to thank her every day. I do wish she'd dust a bit more often, however.

Perhaps this is a more nuanced argument than we realise. I agree with Jack that I should not feel obliged to be grateful for the sacrifices of men in the Crimean War or even my great-great-grandfather in WWI. Gratitude is in and of itself a strange and abstract thing, especially when applied to to a whole rather than to individuals. Gratitude is loaded with obligation. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I can't/don't honour the lives of the men who fought, if we truly understand what the threat was. Jack has distinguished between 'gratitude' and 'respect', which are also IMO very different things, with different connotations, and I agree with him on this. My grandpa went to Normandy on D-Day + 10 as a radio-man. He never, ever talked about it, not to my grandmother when he made it back home, not to anyone. So the war is in some ways still very close to home - in this I agree with Missi/RD, although that generation is dying off now, very rapidly. Perhaps, though, as an American I should stay out of the debate about gratitude for 'saving' Britain, because perhaps I really don't understand it at all, and I seem to agree with both sides of the argument, which means I need more coffee...