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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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