I'm afraid that naive Catriona simply does not realize that most BORDERS today, are the result of war.

We have peace in many places-yes, but that peace is based on the outcome of a war, and the scars of that war are still evident in the shared history of the losers.

All it takes for war to break out again is a strong, passionate charismatic leader among the "losers" (in the case of Indigenous Aussies..perhaps a Gary Foley?) to gee them up for another go at it.

There will NEVER NEVER EVER be peace in kosovo, because the current status could never ever be accepted by Serbs. Too much of their history is tied up in Kosovo. The current status simply reminds them of the inhuman imperialist and degenerate Ottoman invasions which made Kosovo so "muslim" in the first place.

Young people are 'useful'...they ARE reckless...invulnerable and most of all...fit and they have to suffer the brunt of our wars because of those characteristics. I've been in war (Vietnam) and I was, young, invulnerable and a bit reckless.

As they say "thats life"

ALGOREisRich wrote "There will NEVER NEVER EVER be peace in kosovo, because the current status could never ever be accepted by Serbs."

Then how do you explain the decades of peace and general prosperity for all the diverse peoples of the former Republic of Yugoslavia from the end of the Second World War until the "humanitarian intervention", invasion and bombing - using depleted uranium weaponry - by NATO and U$ military forces. And how do you explain the role of officials from the World bank and International Monetary Fund in that obscene 'intervention' that destroyed all that was built up during the long post-war period of mutual cooperation and prosperity for ALL of the peoples of that resource-rich region?

I didn't quite get where the author was headed with this.
It always rings a few alarm bells when what happens in some of the worst places in the world (such as Uganda) is cited to support a case for something that seems to be about what we can do here.

As long as we don't have conscription and the intake to the armed forces is primarily made up of young people it seems that youth do actually have a very big say in the issue. If the military does not have the numbers then they can't deploy. Don't join the military if you are not willing to go to war. Is there anybody currently in Australia's military who is not there by choice?

I would be interested to see some demographic breakup's of the troops serving in Afghanistan. What proportion of the combat troops in Afghanistan are under 30?

A different story where conscription is used. Perhaps if the need for that appears to arise then it should be put to a vote of those who would be subject to conscription if the vote was passed. A yes vote for conscription moved the voter to the front of the list. Anyone else who really believed that extra troops were required could apply to enlist.

R0bert

With regards to Kosovo, Al, sure it may not be perfect, but how about a little optimism? Sowat, so we should get another President for Life like Tito? Or better yet, a man like Milosevic who wanted to rule over all the people of Yugoslavia, whether they liked it or not?

The point about depleted uranium weapons etc. is valid. It is up to the average citizen to speak out about these incidents. That is one of the advantages of living in a democracy. Blaming the World Bank or the IMF (and no, I don't think they are perfect institutions) is pushing it a little far, isn't it?

R0bert, I think the author was trying to state that young people, by choice or not, are involved in armed conflicts. She does mention that for the ADF, people are there voluntarily. Though I have to agree that the Uganda bit could have been used a little differently.

As for the point of the article, what I took it to be was the following (perhaps the author's point, perhaps not):
- That young people in Australia, while voluntarily involved in the ADF, are subject to the whims of political leaders and as a whole are not seen by society as holding valid opinions.

Another point about conflict resolution etc. may not be as practical on a global stage, but how about we start in Australia? I would say that young and not so young members of Australian society are a little too easily prone to violence at times.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

jorge wrote "The point about depleted uranium weapons etc. is valid. It is up to the average citizen to speak out about these incidents. That is one of the advantages of living in a democracy."

PROVIDED THEY ARE INFORMED AND THUS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT DU WAS BEING USED ON THEM! ... AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS!

"Blaming the World Bank or the IMF (and no, I don't think they are perfect institutions) is pushing it a little far, isn't it?"

Read Michel Chossudosky's compelling articles on how the World Bank and IMF divided the once united (against Hitler and the Nazi regime)peoples of the Republic of Yugoslavia thru debt entrapment and 're-structuring/austerity measures' AND the use of DU against any who resisted being 're-structured'.

Sowat, I didn't mean that those on the receiving end of depleted uranium should be the ones to complain. I meant that citizens of the countries that use those weapons (in this case NATO) have the rights to speak up.

If you could provide a link or something to the article you mention, it would help. From what I've found it seems Chossudovsky focuses on the break-up of Yugoslavia. But looking at it from another point: were the people of Yugoslavia "united" based on mutual respect for each other or just on the fact that someone managed to set up a functioning economy? "Eastern Europe" edited by Richard Frucht includes historical accounts of ethnic tensions dating back to Ottoman times. Also, while their economy may have been functioning during the post-WW2 period, how much freedom did the peoples of Yugoslavia enjoy?

But then, we are perhaps veering a little off topic...

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/