The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Selective conscientious objection > Comments

Selective conscientious objection : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 3/9/2010

Every aspect of war, from our involvement as a nation to the rights of conscientious objectors, should be debated in Parliament.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Kelly, i have some concern at

"Every aspect of war, from our involvement as a nation to the rights (PDF 185KB) of individuals to resist being compelled to fight a war they believe on reasonable grounds to be unlawful or unjust, should be scrutinised at the same time as the imminent parliamentary debate on Afghanistan"

Kellie, I want you inform Australia what sort or military Australia would have if each soldier could not be compelled to fight, picking and choosing fights.

Sure express your right to influence people to force the govt to stop fighting, but please keep the debate real.

I think when you speak for soldiers, you may want to include their perspectives rather than assume they do not want to fight any war.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 3 September 2010 9:01:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know a lot of soldiers and sailors, all of them joined up because they wanted to.

They all totally enjoy going overseas to fight in wars, it's what they trained for and what they are about.

No one I know in the military objects to war.

Every person in our military has taken an oath to obey.

When I hear of soldiers objecting, I immediately suspect it's not war, but probably some personal problem, like their relationship that is at the heart (yes) of the matter. Lo and behold, it usually is.

Some American soldiers (Army) genuinely do not want to fight, because they often enlist to get an education, never dreaming they might fight. Their Army is huge and is the lowest skilled military in the USA - you never hear of Marines not wanting to fight .. they really are "soldiers", the US Army is an occupying Army, not an offensive army any more.

European armies are all top heavy with brass these days and have huge recruiting problems, so they end up with people years ago they would not have taken.

Not all militaries are the same, just as all people are not the sme - it's simplistic and I suppose convenient for you to lump them all together which shows you just have no idea.

You seem to think Australian military people are unwilling participants and have to be coerced to go to war zones. That's just insulting, you need to have a little more respect for the military since your assumptions about the Australian military are just wrong.

Honestly go and meet some Australian soldiers and sailors, it will open your eyes.

These articles by Kellie just get more and more strange and disconnected from reality.
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 3 September 2010 9:34:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder when this bloke became a conscientious objector?

Would it have been before he joined, but still wanted a nice secure "job"?

Would it have been after his training, paid for by us?

Perhaps it was after he was posted to his ship, & didn't like his bunk.

Would it have been when the ship was dispatched, but before it went into Perth?

Quite likely it was after receiving advice from a smart lawyer. Kellie should know all about that. I've never heard of any lawyer telling a defendant to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc.

Kelly must have a fertile mind. You'd have to, to get as much lefty gumpf out of one bloke missing his ship.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 3 September 2010 10:40:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I am not a coward and I would be prepared to fight for my country, because this is not our war, we are just following the Americans. I am prepared to die to defend my country but not to protect the United States oil lines. "

I support this statement,abbridged from the initial quote of a seaman of Conscience.

Australia must not be obliged to send our youth to an aggressive war on the say-so of a Prime Minister, on a littany of lies, without Parliamentary debate of both Houses of Parliament in support of the unilateral, illegal wars instigated by the united States

We must develop an independent Foreign Policy and stop supporting the Imperialist wars which have no part in developing Freedom and Democracy

Trained soldiers who love fighting and killing human beings are Mercenaries. They are not Patriots and do not deserve to be seen in any other light
Posted by maracas1, Friday, 3 September 2010 10:53:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fangs are out, aren't they amicus. Perhaps it is your interpretation that is out of touch with reality. When I read this article I did not get any of what you did. The point being made is not that Australian soldiers are afraid to go to war or that they must be coerced to do so, the point is that one man - ONE - made a decision for the entire country and now we are all made to follow it. It was not debated, it was not asked of the public or the armed forces whether we should be there we were all just told. The point of the article is that war being such a vast undertaking, expensive and costly in terms of lives, should not be left to one man to decide and one boys club to push and promote. It should be carefully weighed and debated, lest we end up with the royal mess that we have now. The US started to war, it was their decision to invade. What should have been a US Afghan war soon became a worldwide mess, a soldier not wishing to fight to support another country’s war should have the support of their own country and their own parliament. Australian soldiers are not cowards and they are more than willing to fight, but they should be asked to fight for Australia, not the US.
Posted by Arthur N, Friday, 3 September 2010 10:56:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Kellie, whatever. Somebody should do something. That's all you've got. As usual.
Posted by KenH, Friday, 3 September 2010 11:08:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a huge moral abyss between the ideals of those who join the armed forces, and the masters of the universe who send these young people into wars.

George W Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and John Howard exploited and manipulated the commitment and decency of those young men and women, just as they did with the rest of their country's populations.

This should never be allowed to happen again. Never.
Posted by briar rose, Friday, 3 September 2010 11:09:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
arthur n, "Perhaps it is your interpretation that is out of touch with reality" or perhaps yours?

This incident was not about the Afganistan UN invasion force it is the 1990 Gulf war to evict Iraq from their invasion of Kuwait.

I suggest you read the article properly without the usual kneejerk reaction.

PM Bob Hawke committed Australian troops to the first Gulf War.

briar rose - "George W Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and John Howard exploited and manipulated the commitment and decency of those young men and women, just as they did with the rest of their country's populations." Wrong George Bush, wrong Australian PM.

This is so typical of the whining finger waggers, to all jump up and down in confusion because you all relate this incident to something George W. Bush and John Howard have done .. wrong again.

It is the right of the PM to send us to war, that's how it rolls here, maybe it should not be, but it is.

Can you all rewrite your little whines now relating them to PM Bob Hawke?

War is bad, sure, but it's necessary otherwise intolerant people get to roll over others, we went to war in Kuwait because what Iraq did was wrong .. and if you don;t stand up to bullies you have no right to criticize them.

What sort of place would the world be if fine people like America, the UK and Australia did not stand up to thugs?
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 3 September 2010 12:06:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unless Australia is attacked or there is a domestic insurrection the prime minster should not have the sole authority to send Australians into combat.

There should be a national referendum and a debate in parliament on whether Australian forces should be committed to action. The debate should be followed by a conscience vote. There was time enough in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq to do that.

The ostensible aim of going into Afghanistan was to get bin Laden. Once this effort proved unsuccessful the forces should have been withdrawn.

Bush told three lies to justify the invasion of Iraq - Hussein's attempt to get yellowcake in Nigeria, the presence of WMDs in Iraq and Hussein's connection with 9/11. In debate these lies might have been made evident. By lying his country into war Bush committed a criminal act and is a war criminal. He should be indited.
Posted by david f, Friday, 3 September 2010 1:30:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f.

I agree that the level of connivance by the Bush Administration in contriving a seemingly plausible reason for the invasion of Iraq appears to be the height of deception. It's difficult, however, to envisage that Bush and his cohorts will ever be brought to account for their sham and its resultant atrocities. The masters of the global game place themselves above such mechanisms available within the jurisdiction of international law.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 3 September 2010 2:50:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It sounds like ther's a few squibbs among us. No one would join the reg; army if they wern't prepared to fight. Anyone who claims [consience] in the force, should be shot for treason.
How close to home should agression be before you do something.
I don't understand why you can say this is Americas war. Terrorism is free to all, the way i see it.
Posted by 579, Friday, 3 September 2010 2:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579,

Well, I'll say it - this is America's war, in as much as it represents globalised economic interests.
You sound like a person with exactly the sort of view that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were aiming at.
Noam Chomsky outlined three characteristics that a country must possess in order to be the target of a "preventive war".

1. It must be virtually defenceless.

2. It must be important enough to be worth the trouble.

3. There must be a way to portray it as the ultimate evil and an
imminent threat to our survival.

It took 'em a while to render Iraq virtually defenceless - and I don't believe there was any significant terror threat emanating from Iraq prior to the invasion, despite that country being imaginatively tied to 9/11.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 3 September 2010 4:17:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
poirot, you seem to be talking about two wars ..

"this is America's war", you mean Afghanistan? Because we're not in Iraq nor are the Americans. Why is it America's war, have we ever suffered from terrorism, remember the Hilton bombings?

then ..

"It took 'em a while to render Iraq virtually defenceless", so you've switched now to Iraq?

"I don't believe there was any significant terror threat emanating from Iraq prior to the invasion", everyone thought Iraq was dangerous, they used chemical warfare on the Kurds, they invaded Iran and Kuwait previously (they should have just asked you we find out now) they tried for years to snooker the weapons inspectors. It's still believed by some they moved their WMDs to Syria, but I digress. Eventually they found no WMDs, but the suspicion remained there were WMDs because Saddam worked so hard to convince everyone there were WMDs. The world believed it, the ALP supported the Lib/Nat coalition in invading Iraq, under UN resolution. I don't believe the Al Quaida angle, but who nows what the yanks knew and when, they can be very secretive people.

"3. There must be a way to portray it as the ultimate evil and an
imminent threat to our survival." Iraq did everything it could to support this view, now it turns out that was really stupid.

Easy in hindsight to pour scorn on these things, but we expect leaders to make decisions and they are the represented leaders, we don't try to have a committee to second guess everything that is done in our name, otherwise we would not have leaders at all. That's the downside of a democracy, you don't always get what you want.

Iraq was not defenceless, it's just that America is so incredibly powerful, the Iraq were too frightened to use their planes, they buried them, their tanks were all destroyed in a previous war and their army were poorly trained to take on the US forces.

You would have to be insane to take on the USA.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 3 September 2010 8:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg,

I was, in fact, referring to the Iraq war.
Are you seriously telling me that the Americans are no longer in Iraq? Combat operations have ceased, but 50,000 U.S. troops will remain on the ground. (Don't know if this number includes "contractors")

"Easy in hindsight to pour scorn on these things."- some of us were pouring scorn on these things when they were taking place.

"It's not that Iraq was defenceless..."- you then go on to point out that they had buried their planes, all their tanks had been destroyed and their army was poorly trained...don't know about you, rpg, but I'd call that defenceless...that is unless you subscribe to the Black Knight's code of battle ethics.

I'd just like to point out that Jihadist terror attacks increased around the world sevenfold in the three years following the 2003 invasion...so much for sailing into war under the banner of "Winning the war on Terrorism".
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 3 September 2010 9:17:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear rpg,

Gulf War 1 should not have happened. Bush 1 instructed April Glaspie, the US envoy, to tell Saddam Hussein that his conflict with Kuwait was not a concern of the US. This encouraged Hussein to attack and occupy Kuwait.

King Hussein of Jordan offered to mediate and get the Iraqis to evacuate Kuwait peacefully. Bush 1 refused saying that he would not allow Saddam Hussein to 'save face'. If one wishes to avoid conflict you allow the enemy to save face.

When the US Senate refused to sanction US troops going into Iraq there was testimony from a nurse supposedly who was working at a Kuwaiti hospital who testified that she saw Kuwaiti babies dumped on the floor when Iraqi troops took their incubators. It turned out later that the 'nurse' was a daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and had been coached in her story. She was never in Kuwait. Hill and Knowlton, a Washington, D. C., firm coached her. Her testimony was effective in getting five senators to change their vote. That was enough to sanction the invasion.

A clever journo in Sydney named Max Watts caught the lie. He asked a doctor friend in Sydney how many incubators they had in Sydney. According to that the number of incubators reportedly taken in Kuwait were enough for a much larger city.

Bush 1 wanted war. He encouraged Hussein to invade Kuwait. He refused attempts at negotiation, and he arranged false testimony to get the US Senate to sanction the US invasion.

Bush 1, like his son was later to be, was a war criminal.

"George Bush's War" by Jean Edward Smith published by Henry Holt & Co in 1992 gives the details.

Bush 1 wanted war, set up the war and arranged lying testimony to the US Senate to get his war.
Posted by david f, Friday, 3 September 2010 9:23:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When are we going to learn that the large corporate elites make huge profits from war? WW1 was orchestrated as the war to end all wars.The International Banksters finanaced both sides like they did Hitler during WW2.Prescott Bush,George Dubwua's grandfather was a senior executive in the Union Bank which laundered money for Hitler.

Vietnam was a lie,Iraq was a lie,Afghanistan and Pakistan are also.
Iran is another matter.Iran has serious conventional weapons,with China and Russia as allies.Iran can with it's strategic position and weapons can seriously cut off oil to the West.So if you want to experience real poverty and the possiblity of a nuke war,just encourage the US and Israeli neo-cons to attack Iran.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 3 September 2010 11:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you will get your wish to hit Iran. Pairot does not beleive terrorism is an infection. Why would terrorists somehow miss AU. Age or sex is no barrier to them, they even blow their own kind up. So we lose a few soldiers: they no what they are there for, its there choice.
Our casualties are minor compared to some. There are some among us think that we should hide in a rabbit borough, and let someone else look after world affares. We may need the great America one day.
Posted by 579, Saturday, 4 September 2010 8:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579,

There is, in my opinion, much difference between a legitemate threat and an invasion that is contrived to gain unfettered access to resources. The "great America" is not immune from acts of cunning and calculation carried out in the interests of its elite.
At the end of the initial invasion phase of the war when it was revealed that no WMD's existed and that the U.N. weapons inspectors had been correct in their conclusions, the Coalition fell back on altruistic virtue in defending the invasion - saying that they had freed Iraq from tyranny. The fact that the U.S. had been happily supplying this tyrant with weapons for years, of course, was overlooked - all the better to belt the daylights out of Iran, don't you know.
Iraq was one of the more advance countries in its region with advanced educational and medical infrastructure...to see it reduced to the pathetic mess it now is just boggles the mind.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 4 September 2010 9:00:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
24 09 10
Ms. Tranter,

The judgments meted at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials contest your academic views.

The names of the ones put to death in both trials indicate that those who gave orders were preeminent over those who executed orders.

I followed those Trials as they evolved and I find your views gratuitous
Posted by skeptic, Saturday, 4 September 2010 10:29:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

My wife was in Iraq shortly before Gulf War 1. She wrote a book about her experiences, but no publisher at that time was interested in putting out a book showing Iraq as a secular state which was more advanced in some ways than the surrounding countries. One way in which Iraq was advanced was in the status of women. They could be university professors or anything else which they had capacity for.

In the years before Gulf War 1 and 2 Saddam Hussein turned more to religion for support. Invading troops with Bush 2's armies were accompanied by representatives of 50 Christian fundamentalist organisations according to Time magazine. That certainly stirred up Muslim opposition.

In addition to the entire country being worse off for the war women especially have suffered as religious sectarianism has eroded their status.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 4 September 2010 10:47:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
poirot - a poor choice of tactics by Iraq does not mean they did not have a powerful at their disposal, we only found the buried planes afterward, for instance. Do you think the Kurds found them "mostly harmless"? I get it though, you hate America and nothing will ever justify anything they do so I'll stop trying, I don't care if you're convinced or gnashing your teeth at anything American, why not boycott all things they produce as well? Get off that computer..?

Selective hatred, is easy and the Americans are a big target since they are so tolerant.

davidf wants everyone he hates to be tried as war criminals, the victors never are, davidf so your hatred is impotent, you probably are used to that though.

davidf do you include Bob Hawke, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Obama in your war criminal list?

If not, why not .. none of them instantly stopped activities in the middle east. Is it only conservative US leaders you don't like, plus of course John Howard, our Man of Steel.

I can imagine your justification for excusing all the left wingnuts ..
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 4 September 2010 12:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear rpg,

I think the United States is a great country. I am a citizen of that country. Nevertheless, both Bushes lied my country into war causing death and destruction. Those were criminal acts. They were betrayals of trust. I hate neither Bush. I call them criminals because of their criminal acts.

I think some conservative US leaders were great. President Eisenhower kept the US from getting more involved in Vietnam in spite of pressures at that time to push the US into war. It was Kennedy who exceeded the limit on advisors and Johnson who escalated the war with his Tonkin Gulf Resolution which was based on a lie. Conservatives were not to blame for that war.

You are right. Victors get away with murder. They are not tried.

I include Bob Hawke. He supported the PNG war on Bougainville, the blockade of Bougainville for which the UN condemned Australia and supported the violation of the Crimes Act in hiring mercenaries to operate the aircraft on Bougainville.

It is much easier to get into a war than to get out of it. Obama is getting out of Iraq, and I know of nothing that Rudd or Gillard have done to designate the term, criminal.

John Howard lied about the children overboard. He is an unscrupulous politician who lied to win an election. He also lied about the SAS troops being in Iraq two months before Dubya's war.

Your crude comment about left wingnuts shows where you are coming from. Rather than thinking through issues you apparently choose to call names.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 4 September 2010 1:13:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
davidf - I expected a weak excuse and got it "It is much easier to get into a war than to get out of it. Obama is getting out of Iraq, and I know of nothing that Rudd or Gillard have done to designate the term, criminal."

What rubbish, even Gough Whitlamm was a better ALP leader than either Rudd or Gillard, he said he was going to take Australia out of Vietnam, and did it on day 2 of his stewardship. Rudd and Gillard have stayed on in Afghanistan for years, Gillard was deputy PM so is just as guilty as Rudd.

They are weak and full of spin, after all the BS before the 07 election, Rudd did nothing, Gillard did nothing - that alone makes them criminal.

Obama is the same, a weak man full of rhetoric and excuses.

Obama, Rudd and Gillard, all play the blame game, as you seem to.

Howard will be remembered in time as the greatest leader we have ever had, a man not scared of what people think, he is a man of conviction - there are many opinions about the children overboard, yours is just one of them. I note you tend to all the extreme ends of available evidence when things are not clear cut.

"Your crude comment about left wingnuts shows where you are coming from." toughen up princess, this is the big wide world out here.
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 4 September 2010 1:54:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the reason for the USA invading various countries is that those countries are run by "thugs", can someone please explain why the USA hasn't addressed the problem of the big thug in Zimbabwe, and all the other thugs bringing untold misery to their people all over the world?

Could it be that the motives for invasion are more to do with USA self-interest, rather than the altruistic desire to rid the world of "thugs?"

Could it possibly be that included in that self-interest are concerns such as having an arena in which to try out their weaponry? Or as a boost to the US economy, not only during these wars but in their aftermath when American companies get to reconstruct everything they just blasted to smithereens and make a tidy profit out of it?

Like I said before, there's this great big moral abyss between the young men and women who join the armed forces, and the masters of the universe who send them off to get killed, and you don't find many sons and daughters of the masters of the universe out there in the theatres of war.
Posted by briar rose, Saturday, 4 September 2010 6:58:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear briar rose,

I was going to mention Zimbabwe myself - and if you refer back to an earlier post of mine on this thread, it will become clear that poor old Zimbabwe only qualifies for one "preventive war" characteristic in that it is virtually defenceless - however it's not important enough to be worth the trouble of intervention and there is no real way available at present to portray it as an imminent danger to our survival.

Dear rpg,

I agree with you that it is extremely poor tactics to bury your planes in the sand - makes taking off really difficult, lol.
Furthermore...ho hum...I do not hate America. I'm interested in it (as I am in may countries) It's always the same old argument - or lack of it. I criticize a certain administration flying the U.S. banner, in line with my moral judgment, and am daubed with a "You hate America" accusation. Empty rhetoric as far as I'm concerned.

Dear David f.
That is interesting - what a valuable insight for your wife (and perhaps for all of us one day).Is it not possible for her to try and have it published in the future? Viewpoints such as hers are so important from an historical angle.
Your point about the emancipation of women prior to the first war is well made. Many people would be surprised to learn such things as they tend to lump all Middle-Eastern countries together in that regard.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 4 September 2010 7:37:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

My wife was at a conference in Sydney where she met a Palestinian woman who was a professor at an Iraqi university. They became good friends, and my wife was invited to visit Iraq.

Iraq was not a tourist destination. The only people who went there were business people, reporters or relatives of Iraqis. There was a lot of red tape, but she eventually got in. We were on a trip around the world, and my wife went to Iraq from Greece. I continued on.

They were suspicious of her and did not let her stay at her friend’s house. However, they put her up at a first class hotel, the Al-Rasheed, and gave her a car and driver – all free. She was unrestricted, and the driver took her any place she wanted to go. She met many Iraqis through her friend and visited many places.

At that time there were fifteen Iraqi families in Brisbane. We live a bit north of Brisbane, and I met some of them. One of the families was that of an agent of the Iraqi government who was there to keep tabs on the other fourteen families. The Iraqis were students at universities in Brisbane. In general they spoke good English, and I talked to them. I remember talking to one of them, an architecture student, at the staff house on the University of Queensland campus. The first Gulf War was going on, and I told him that the US and Australian soldiers were volunteers. He would not believe me as nobody outside of the officer class volunteers for the Iraqi army. They are all conscripts.

One Iraqi veterinarian studying at uni discovered a cure for a cattle disease affecting the cattle in northern Queensland. That saved millions of dollars for Australia.

The war broke out a couple of months after she left. Since the war the few Jews who still lived in Iraq and most of the Christians have fled. The war did a lot to promote religious hatred.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 5 September 2010 1:39:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear rpg,

Just noticed your imaginative narrative lauding John Howard as being a man of conviction.
I have to admit that he was fairly impressive in his role as a George Dubya groupie. Seldom have we witnessed such slavering obsequiousness to a third rate world leader. I found it somewhat nauseating, however to watch Mr Howard toadying around Washington attached to the coattails of the reigning neo-cons.
Mr Howard was not, in my opinion, a man of scruples or conviction, he was a man who regularly showed no compunction in opportunistically mustering all of his faculties of cunning and doublespeak to seduce the electorate whenever it was politically expedient to do so...one of his final exploits in this regard was the shameful treatment of Dr Haneef as a last ditch political ploy to avoid annihilation in the 2007 election campaign.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 5 September 2010 6:06:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg: << Howard will be remembered in time as the greatest leader we have ever had >>

There goes my coffee... but thanks for a Sunday morning laugh.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 5 September 2010 10:09:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about that Iran, Time has gotta be gettin close now. This out of controll system has got to be silenced.
I recon israel could handle that quite well.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 5 September 2010 3:57:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ/Poirot and there I was thinking the ultimate grovelling moment in Australia/US relations was PM Rudd saluting to President Bush, in public - beautiful, really shows who is who in international politics.

Did PM Howard top that? What short and selective memories you both have.

Then again, an ever greater grovel was Geraldine Doogue with her "we salute you" moment at the 2020 Best and Brightest lovefest of Ruddites. She is now defined by that incident, no greater grovel ever seen on the ABC and we see some doosies don't we from them.

Now I didn't like everything PM Howard did, but he showed leadership, he was not afraid of owning a fight and he went to the Australian people with things they did not always like. What has the ALP done in recent times? In 2.5 years the government is a disaster, defined by it's lack of leadership and vision - so what do they do, team up with a bunch of no hopers who have never had to be responsible in their political careers. If the ALP gets back in, it should be one heck of a ride, albeit, a short one and the last for many of them and any of the greens.

PM Howard, like PM Hawke, could commit and stick with it .. no one else has their guts .. that's why PM Howard will be remembered.
Posted by rpg, Sunday, 5 September 2010 4:36:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow...what an amazing sight.

Look.. It's Kellie Trantor, "negotiating" with the bloke in Jackboots and black shirt with the letters 'Wafen SS' embroidered on it, -about ..wait.. let me cup my ear with my hand..yep, I can hear now.. "human rights"... he is laughing..she has that 'serious concerned moral high ground' look.....

Oh wait.. there she is again... being marched off, head bowed..hair dishevelled, bruised face.. to a cattle truck by the looks of it....

seems those 'negotiations' didn't quite work out as she thought.

How strange that with a 'powerful argument' like she had.. it had no impact on the outcome of events.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 6 September 2010 8:01:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting thought, Boaz.

>>Look.. It's Kellie Trantor, "negotiating" with the bloke in Jackboots and black shirt with the letters 'Wafen SS' embroidered on it... How strange that with a 'powerful argument' like she had.. it had no impact on the outcome of events.<<

So, in your way of thinking, that makes the guy in the jackboots right?

Or have I missed something?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 September 2010 8:49:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms. Tranter,

Moreover,
One who voluntarily joins the srmy, any army, cannot claim objections of any kind. It is only the conscript that has such privilege.
Posted by skeptic, Monday, 6 September 2010 12:14:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kellie
You must surely shorten the life expectancy of the more warlike amongst your readers.
I think that more people should read a short book called "War is a Racket". It was written by a US Marine Brigardier General Smedley Butler (2 congressional medals of honour) in 1935. He realised that most wars take place in order to make a few people very rich. He came to realise that he had spent most of his life fighting and killing people in order to increase the number of millionaires in the USA. There were a lot more millionaires at the end of WW1 than at the beginning of the war.
Sadam Husssein was supplied with weapons by the West in order to fight Iran. He was supplied with all the chemicals to make chemical weapons and continued to be supplied even after he gassed the Kurds.
Unless we work to take the profit motive out of war we will continue to have wars around the world.
Posted by Peace, Monday, 6 September 2010 8:23:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peace,

You made a good suggestion.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm contains "War is a Racket."

One of our best writers made an eloquent and humorous plea against the killing. http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html contains the War Prayer by Mark Twain.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/they_kill_alex_20100906/ contains the reaction of one American father to the death of his son.

Dear skeptic,

One who voluntarily joins the army can change his or her mind. The recruiters go after the young who haven't thought matters out.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 3:48:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The army dosent cater for indicision, the army works as a team.
Indicision is treason.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 4:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear 579, Indecision is not treason.

The criminal code defines treason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Australia
Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Criminal Code Act 1995, defines treason as follows:

"A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:
(a) causes the death of the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(b) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister resulting in the death of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(c) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister, or imprisons or restrains the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or
(f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:
(i) another country; or
(ii) an organisation;
that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force; or
(g) instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or
(h) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act."
A person is not guilty of treason under paragraphs (e), (f) or (h) if their assistance or intended assistance is purely humanitarian in nature.

The maximum penalty for treason is life imprisonment. Section 24AA of the Crimes Act 1914 creates the related offence of treachery.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 5:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy