I am loth to start new threads when there must already be existing ones on the same subject. I recall there was one fairly recentish which was closed at the request of its starter, because he did not like the tone of some posts including mine. On 11/11 and today as the nearest Sunday the UK has been acknowledging the soldiers who have died in the country's service. I dont know how or to what extent this happens in other countries, but it is an annual event in the uk, alongside the sale of poppies to raise money for the british legion, which supports ex-members of the armed services. I feel this is important, both the real practical help for those who suffered, and also as a reminder to all of us of the real cost of war. This is not a lesson which should ever be forgotten. We are a long way now from Armistice day, 11/11/1918 or from the scale of slaughter at that time, but in a world currently bickering over financial war, it is well to consider what happens if these things are allowed to get out of control. The professionalism, courage and unique risk faced by soldiers merits our support for a necessary job done well. But I continue to insist on the distinction between the willingness of armed forces to take on tasks which they have been trained to do in defence of their homeland, and the motivation of politicians who send them to their deaths. We recall 1914-1918 as a necessary war. Today the most recent soldier to have died, in the last fortnight, got several mentions as the most recent of a steady trickle of deaths over the last decade. So exactly why are he and his compatriots dead? Another soldier was chatting amiably about being blown up and losing his legs. Yet another senior officer in the British army about losing his own son on service. So which bastard was responsible for this unnecessary foreign adventurism and slaughter?