I totally agree with your first sentence. And it has always been so. Because it is not a disinterested grouping of nations, but a highly politicised grouping where self-interest and political positioning determine the decisions reached. It has little to do with the aspirations of the League of Nations which spawned it.

There is a picture in the paper this morning of two small lengths of sawn tree trunk in a road. They have been coned off, no doubt awaiting removal by someone in full protective clothing, ear defenders, hard hat and heavy duty gloves.

What an interesting thread about something which I had taken for granted and never really thought about. Presumably there is literature on the subject. I might try some googling, unless members already know what is still in print.

What rankles even more is Zimbabwe. If ever there was a despot guilty of genocide it is Mugabe. But we haven’t heard a whisper about his potential arraignment in the Hague. 😡

Apologies for thread drift.

Now that I will second!!:(

Kev – his intimate knowledge of the two conflicts compared to our own is not the argument. It is the simplistic but probably inevitable view of many who have fought that fighting wars is never right. Many other brave servicemen who take a more objective view, believe that wars do sometimes have to be fought.

No one is suggesting he got things wrong, least of all me – that is not what we are discussing here. I was merely observing that in the vast scheme of history in the 20s and 30s Churchill embraced far more depth and experience than did Harry Patch. I did not mention Harry Patch originally but his words were introduced in another post in justification for not fighting wars.