Does wearing a poppy glorify war?

I'm pretty sure that the Mongolian empire has the highest % of the population death toll (killing 10% of the global population at the time)? Russia also racked up a pretty high death toll with the USSR (with about 56-62 million 'unnatural deaths'). A quick search shows that the British empire helped cause a famine in india (by continuing to export food out of the country when Indians were starving) which killed between 12-29 million (other atrocities such as the early concentration camps they set up in Africa (mainly for (white) boers) and the numerous times they killing protesters tended to claim a couple thousand to a hundred thousand, see here: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html%3famp). It's all equally terrible and inexcusable but I haven't found anything which shows that the British empire committed the most genocide? But if you have info which shows they did then please share it with us because frankly nothing is taught about the British empire in schools so it's pretty key to share this stuff + make it accssible to more people :3

Maybe we should increase the voting age to 26 and some form of National service. Not all young people are ignorant idiots plenty of young working class people join the armed services.

we invented concentration camps to "deal" with them

You fund an organisation yet have no idea what it actually does. Doesn't that bother you?

The money in no way goes to the Army. It goes to veterans and, in some cases, their families.


The poppy as a symbol recognises all war dead. Allies and axis, combatant and non, military and civilian. The Poppy Appeal raises money towards former UK service personnel, yes, but conflating the two is your mistake, not the charity's.



Oh, ok. So all those who are on peacekeeping duties for the UN in South Sudan, training the Afghan army to look after themselves, helping prevent further outbreaks of Ebola, conducting anti-piracy missions off the horn of Africa, working anti-drugs in the Caribbean, reacting to natural disasters all over the globe, helping police the skies for the Baltic states who don't have their own air forces, rescuing UK citizens when floods hit their towns and villages, providing emergency medical transport for the NHS, conducting long range search and rescue over millions of square miles of the Atlantic ocean ...to name but a few... are all things you can't support?

Good to know.



Does rather make me wonder what things you do support, though...





Wear a poppy, don't wear a poppy. I couldn't care less (and for context, unlike everyone else here, I have served). BUT. Try to know what the hell you're talking about.

Ahead of Remembrance Day on 11 November, there have been reports that a third of young people will refuse to wear a poppy as 'it glorifies war'.

Do you agree? Will you be wearing a poppy?

As a 21 year old, I believe that increasing the voting age to 26 is ridiculous. We have Members of Parliament who are younger than 26 (Mhairi Black). Young people who are bought up in today's world are more politically aware and are more interested in current affairs.

What a load of naive twaddle. History shows us we every much need armed forces to protect us as the worlds a dangerous place and people are all too willing to attack the weak. the idea you think protecting the country is dooming it is a joke and without their existence you wouldnt have the freedom to post what you just did.

Wearing one? no

Some of the people who are adamant that everyone should wear one and anyone who doesn't is somehow a traitor/unpatriotic/etc? Most of them seem pretty keen on glorifying war (and are the main reason I've just donated without wearing one this year)

Wearing poppies doesn't glorify war. Poppies are worn to remember the fallen. The hope that is by wearing poppies, those millions who perished will be remembered for as long as we wear them. Wearing poppies does nothing of the kind of glorification of war which we see in countries which did glorify war: for instance, instead of ignoring disastrous military incompetence (such as after WW2 in the USSR), we acknowledge how tens of thousands of our own men were butchered by our officers (we commemorated the 100th anniversary of the Somme, the bloodiest day in British military history).

Well, one thing's for sure, I don't support the army. I understand they do good work, but I don't condone what make up a large part of their actions. Yes, I am a pacifist. No, I will not support our army. The British Legion is a charity to support 'british armed forces'. I did donate money to them, as I understand they support ex-forces, but I am still wary because 'British Armed Forces' could mean anything. I don't want to support murder.

Young people who are bought up in today's world are more politically aware and are more interested in current affairs.

Considering that the armed forces haven't been 'used' in conflict since the withdrawal from Afghanistan a few years ago, the "large part of their actions" you claim to dislike are exactly the missions I describe. The humanitarian, multi-national, life-saving operations that nobody else is capable of.


I know you're young, but if you consider yourself to be (or at least trying to be) politically aware, then you'll continue learning and realise a lot of what you're presenting as facts simply aren't.

It is still a major part of their training, and it is their main function, at least from an outsiders perspective. One day, they will enter conflict again, that is undeniable. Those are the actions I described - granted, I wasn't aware that they don't currently 'fight'. One thing, though, with a depleted police force, I would suggest that a lot of people in the armed forces could help here.

It's the concept of the army that I'm more against, I am aware that they do good things, but it's the concept. After all, charities do humanitarian, life-saving operations. And they aren't trained to kill people.