A nice interesting read David, in your summary of points to recommend for prevention of war, I give particular strength to no 3 & 4. Especially no.3. that point goes for anything in life really.

However, its worth mentioning that future wars will undoubtedly involve more reliance on technology. Cyber war is a certainty, only this time critical infrastructures will be paralyzed. What will we make of this? it;s no science fiction, its actually already happening. The latest reports from internet security firms and government bodies echoes this.

Imagine a war whereby the enemy comes in, does damage and retreats well before anyone on your side finds out! My biggest fear is the fact that our society today is almost naively reliant on too much exchanges via the internet itself. If you have ever studied computer networking, you will know what I mean. Basically, electronic pulses over public infrastructure will always be 'hackable'. Doesn't matter how much anyone tries to lock things down, its a flaw in the fundamental design of the internet in the first place traced back to those days of the late 1960's when communications between some US universities took place with such a basic system. It all grew from there.

We, as a society have become seduced by the instantaneous and convenience of the internet. Seduction never looked so sneaky!

I'm sorry , but saying that Australians fought on the same side as Turkey in the Crimean War is drawing the long bow just a bit too far.

If that is true , then Australia fought , with the British , against the USA in 1812 , when they ( We , sorry ) burnt down what is now the White House.

Also there was that nasty chap , Napoleon, whom we had to educate as well .I won't mention the Opium Wars or the invasion of Zanzibar either

G'day David

First let me say your Police Mugshot looks a little young to be "old" and "fascinated by... sex".

Your youthful sex madness aside, your suggestions for peace are to be encouraged especially regarding those constant bastards The Enemy!

There, of course, is no life without modern appliances like submarines.

Let us remember the crews of submarines who, even in peacetime, on a grand day out, face grave risks https://youtu.be/ZKMEl4HU0fA .

Pete

.

Dear David,

.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I place too high a price on my freedom to be a pacifist but I subscribe wholeheartedly to your 13 points … plus one : maintain an effective means of national defense and dissuasion – both military and political - through a series of mutual alliances (ANZUS - Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty).

I was born in Cairns two days after Pearl Harbour and the day after Australia declared war on Japan. A few days later, the army evacuated my family to the old family home on the Darling Downs in south-west Queensland. As a kid, instead of shooting Indians, I grew-up shooting Japs.

WW2 wrecked havoc among several members of my family either directly or indirectly.

As for WW1, perhaps you will recall the exchange we had on this forum last January on the discussion George opened-up on the subject « Je suis Charlie' versus 'Je suis Juif' » :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6699#203183

Instead of parading around, blowing bugles and making speeches, I think it is high time ANZAC Day celebrations were devoted to the serious examination of the responsibilities of Australian politicians and military leaders for the debacle of their attitudes, decisions and actions resulting in the stupid, hopeless, useless, totally inept and simply criminal massacre of 62,000 of our most able young men during WW1.

Perhaps we should add a 15th point to your list : no more forced kamikaze operations for our able young men and women in armed conflicts.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Sometimes kamikaze operations are necessary. In the Battle of Midway which was the turning point of the war at sea against Japan American pilots flew their torpedo laden planes into Japanese warships. I would not add the 15th point. War would be much more pleasant if we could avoid death.

.

Dear David,

.

« Sometimes kamikaze operations are necessary. »
.

Then, so be it. I object to “forced” kamikaze operations.

To quote one of my favourite authors, writing on WW1 :

[ Between October 1915 and February 1916, nine recruitment marches were held … The social pressure on young men to join these marches must have been enormous. How many died because they were made to feel ashamed not to go? Did the 62,000 give their lives or were their lives taken from them? ]

The commanding officers during the “battle” of Fromelles, in France, ordered 5,000 young Australians (18 to 30 year olds) and 2,000 British troops to certain death by continuously charging firmly entrenched German soldiers who mowed them down in a single night, winning the “battle” – what battle? There was no “battle”. It was a slaughter.

The Australian War Memorial web site has this to say :

[ The commander of the British XI Corps, Lieutenant General Sir Richard Haking, who had directed the operation, later reported: “I think the attack, although it failed, has done both divisions a great deal of good.” This was an astonishingly callous judgement from a man who had, in the words of Bean, recklessly thrown away “7,000 troops in a single night …”.

On the day after the attack, British headquarters issued an official communiqué: “Yesterday about 140 German prisoners were captured.” It made no mention of Australian or British casualties.

The battle of Fromelles was an unmitigated military disaster, the dismal culmination of muddled planning and reckless decision-making by both British and Australian commanders and staff.

The major failing at Fromelles stemmed from the ineptitude of senior commanders. The carnage on the Somme had not taught their leaders anything. ]

That is what I call “forced” kamikaze operations.

Life and death are fundamental human rights. Individuals are free to commit suicide if they wish. Forcing people to do so by social pressure, appeal to heroism, honour, sacrifice, camaraderie, coercion or military order, in my opinion, should be banned. It qualifies as first-degree (premeditated) murder.

.

Dear Banjo,

"Life and death" are fundamental human rights."

Death is the destiny of all organisms except those who split to form new organisms.

Life is a characteristic of all living things.

I don't think there are fundamental human rights. There are only rights which a particular society allows to members of that society. In some societies your social class, religion and other attributes determine what rights you have.

How did you determine what is a fundamental human right?

Here's my take on it,
human beings have a fundamental right to life because they possess it and they also have a fundamental right to defend it as does every other
animal.

Just ask a tiger in the jungle or creep up on a kangaroo and belt him with a stick.

.

Dear David,

.

« How did you determine what is a fundamental human right? »
.

I didn’t. In my opinion, nobody can “determine” what is a fundamental human right. It is “attributed” by nature. It is inalienable without modifying the individual.

I see a fundamental human right as one which is intrinsic to a person as an individual human being, such as the right to life and death, freedom of thought, expression, etc. I see it as a natural right - the ability of the individual to exercise his own free will in respect of his own natural, biological abilities – those with which nature endowed him - without or despite any outside influence.

I consider that it is the duty of society to guarantee the respect of the individual’s fundamental human rights and to facilitate their exercise.

This, of course, is my personal vision - no doubt somewhat different from that of the United Nations and others.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Since Jefferson was a Deist the Creator referred to is really nature and not the God of the Bible. Read "Nature's God" by Matthew Stewart for the philosophical underpinnings of the American Revolution.

You wrote: "In my opinion, nobody can “determine” what is a fundamental human right. It is “attributed” by nature. It is inalienable without modifying the individual."

Your position is essentially the same as Thomas Jefferson as to the source of rights. However, he also maintained that government is necessary to secure those rights.

I differ from both of you. That could be the subject of several essays. Maybe I will write them.

On a lighter note I hope you all survived Abbott's immortal words at Gallipoli yesterday. Our great helmsman made himself an ANZAC By Association when he he uttered
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-the-touching-speech-prime-minister-tony-abbott-gave-at-the-dawn-service-in-gallipoli-2015-4 :

"...they became the founding heroes of modern Australia.

"... they faced the hardest possible test and they did not flinch."

"...Today, all of us who have not been tested in war salute all of those who have. Most of us have never worn our country’s uniform."

"...But we are the better for those who have."

"...The official historian, Charles Bean, said of the original Anzacs: “their story rises as it will always rise, above the mists of ages, a monument to great hearted men; and, for their nation a possession forever”."

Yes, they are us; and when we strive enough for the right things, we can be more like them.

So much has changed in one hundred years but not the things that really matter.

Duty, selflessness, moral courage: always these remain the mark of a decent human being.

They did their duty; now, let us do ours.

They gave us an example; now, let us be worthy of it.

They were as good as they could be in their time; now, let us be as good as we can be in ours."

.

Dear David,

.

« Your position is essentially the same as Thomas Jefferson as to the source of rights »
.

That is an interesting and, should I say, flattering comparison. However, as you rightly observe : « Since Jefferson was a Deist the Creator referred to is really nature and not the God of the Bible ».

Another important difference, in my mind, is that Jefferson mentions “life” as an unalienable right, but not “death”, probably reflecting his religious beliefs. Whereas I consider that the process of life and death is an evolutionary continuum. It is the process which is a fundamental human right, not just one phase of the process.

Life and death are inseparable. There can be no life without death and no death without life. They are two sides of the same coin. If life is an inalienable right, which apparently we both consider it is, then death is too.

That’s an unavoidable fact which, apparently, is not compatible with Jefferson’s concept of God.
.

« I differ from both of you. That could be the subject of several essays. Maybe I will write them. »
.

You have wet my appetite, David. I know that in addition to your analytic qualities, you also have an excellent synthetic mind. Couldn’t you give me some inkling as to what you are alluding to?

.

If the rights of the individual are paramount we have a fragmented atomised society. If the good of society is paramount we have an oppressive society. One example is that one has a great violinist sharing your kidney. If detached from your kidney he will die. However, you have no obligation to keep him attached to your kidney.

At this time I don't know how I would resolve this question. Whose right is paramount - the right of society to enjoy the genius of the violinist or your right to be free of a person attached to your kidney.

How would you resolve the question?

.

Dear David,

.

« Whose right is paramount - the right of society to enjoy the genius of the violinist or your right to be free of a person attached to your kidney ? »
.

You will recall that my definition of “a fundamental human right” (page 2), is that it is a natural right.

I am therefore free to chose to continue to share my kidney with the violinist or to detach it from him because, as you rightly observe, I have no obligation to continue to allow him to be attached to it. The kidney being an integral part of my person, attributed to me by nature, it is my “fundamental right” to do with it as I wish – “without or despite any outside influence”.

However, because of the risk of death of the violinist following detachment of my kidney, before taking any such action I would do everything in my power to help him find an alternative solution.

The fact that he happened to be a “great violinist”, highly appreciated by society, would not be a determining factor in my decision. What would be a determining factor, though, is if he happened to be either somebody very dear to me or, on the contrary, an Adolf Hitler or the like.

Allow me, however, to take a step back to your first premise :

« If the rights of the individual are paramount we have a fragmented atomised society ».

No doubt you will agree that nature has created a society in which each individual is unique. Nevertheless, by cooperating with each other in a myriad of relationships, most of us usually constitute a fairly coherent and efficient society. The fact that the rights of each individual happen to be “paramount” does not, in my view, detract from the coherence and efficiency of the group as a whole.

It seems to me that the exercise and respect of individual rights do not produce a “fragmented” society but rather a “composite” society – despite the inevitable cleavages on a number of specific issues.

.

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

Thanks for the link to that “politically correct” speech of Tony Abbott.

No risks taken, nothing gained but, more importantly of course, nothing lost either !

.

Thanks Banjo Paterson

Yes our great leader sang from the correct song sheet. Sadly forgettable.

To do him credit he has not felt entitled like any normal Aussies.

His private jet has taken him to Paris today.

Pete

Banjo Paterson wrote: "The fact that the rights of each individual happen to be “paramount” does not, in my view, detract from the coherence and efficiency of the group as a whole."

Dear Banjo,

Paramount = predominant. We have different views. My view is that if the rights of each individual happen to be “paramount” we cannot have any sort of society.

.

Dear David,

.

« Paramount = predominant. We have different views. My view is that if the rights of each individual happen to be “paramount” we cannot have any sort of society. »
.

I agree with your definition of “paramount” and have a great deal of respect for your opinion, all your opinions - whatever the subject - as I have observed that you never make assertions about anything of which you are not sure.

Perhaps I am a Utopian, but, for all practical purposes, rightly or wrongly, I see present-day Australia as a composite (multicultural) society in which the fundamental human rights of individual citizens are largely respected – despite the (regrettable) absence of a constitutionally entrenched national bill of rights and the recent curtailment of a certain number of individual rights necessitated by the threat of global terrorism.

As regards the latter, I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that it is in the common interest to forgo certain liberties in order to allow the state to make inroads into private domains which are normally strictly out of bounds to it.

The citizens of Australia have invested the state with an imperative obligation to protect them from aggression from whatever quarter, including terrorist attacks.

Provided Montesquieu’s checks and balances continue to apply in order to allow legitimate power to govern and good ideas to be implemented, while abuse of power, corruption, and oppression are minimized, though I find it highly regrettable, I see such inroads of the state into the private domain as a “lesser evil”.

It seems to me that in such abominable circumstances, pragmatism becomes an imperative necessity.

Might I add that according to the Human Rights Risk Atlas 2015, Australia and Canada appear to be the only countries in the world classified as “low risk”. By comparison, the US and all the European countries are classified as “medium risk” :

http://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2014/12/03/human-rights-deteriorating-most-ukraine-thailand-turkey-due-state-repression-civil-unrest-maplecroft-human-rights-risk-atlas/

But perhaps I have missed your point. If so, would you be so kind as to accept to elaborate just a little further.

.

Dear Banjo,

The Westminster system violates Montesquieu’s checks and balances. He proposed a system of government where one body (the legislature) makes the laws, another body (the executive) enforces the laws and a third body (the judiciary) interprets the laws and specifies penalties for those who violate the law. These three bodies check and balance each other. In Australia the government is part of parliament. There is no separate executive. To secure an independent judiciary judicial appointments by the executive must be discussed, debated and approved by parliament after such discussion and debate. In Queensland Premier Campbell appointed Carmody to be chief justice. Other members of the judiciary and many members of the legal profession pointed out his lack of qualifications, but Campbell Newman’s will be done. Apparently Carmody was a crony of Newman. In Australia Montesquieu is a dead letter.

I prefer a free society. A low-risk society is not the same. Nazi Germany was a low-risk society. Provided a German kept quiet and was not a member of a group not favoured by the government life was great. Social services were excellent, and streets were safe to walk on at any time during day or night.

Free speech is at a premium in Australia. Defamation laws can be used by the powerful and wealthy to quiet critics. Jo in Queensland used them in that way. Defamation laws are not the same as libel laws. Truth is no defence. Recently a broadcaster for SBS was fired because of certain remarks he made on social media. I regard his remarks as offensive. However, if we have free speech one has the right to make remarks others may find offensive. If he had made those remarks while broadcasting it might have been a cause for dismissal. Malcolm Turnbull called the director of SBS to mention the broadcaster who was summarily dismissed. Later Turnbull maintained that he didn’t ask for the man to be dismissed but only pointed out the comments by the man. Of course he didn’t need to say he wanted the broadcaster’s dismissal. The director got the message.

Continued

Continued

IMHO one measure of the worth of a society is how it treats those at the bottom. Two groups at the bottom are asylum seekers and Aborigines. Asylum seekers are held in hell-holes which are made difficult for reporters to access. I know a plumber who goes on contract to work at the offshore detention centres. His employment carries the proviso that he must not talk about what he sees there. After the inquiry concerning Aboriginal deaths in Custody most of the recommendations were not carried out.

Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) and the Refugee Action Collective are two organisations concerned with Aboriginal rights and the asylum seekers. I have been active in both. I find it deplorable that both Labor and the Libs are united to show how tough they can get with the boat people.

I have a very good life in Australia. On our veranda I am surrounded by greenery. This morning while my wife was tossing bits of meat to the kookaburras, butcherbirds, noisy miners and magpies that come around for their handout we saw a wallaby. Lorikeets, rosellas and other brightly coloured birds come around to the seed feeder.

However, I am mindful of those who don’t have such a good life.
I also think that the religious opinions or lack of them by its citizens should be no business of government. Yet Australia funds chaplains, largely fundamentalists, in the public schools. They are beasts of pray, preying on innocent children. I have also contributed to the lawsuits which seek to end that funding.

With all that Australia is far better than most countries. However, there remains great room for improvement.

While highly appreciative of the author’s historical insight and careful analysis I feel I must differ profoundly from any notion that war is in itself an evil. Aggression and expansion through conquest are evils, resistance to both is noble and failure to resist is suicidal. Exercising imperial control over distant populations against their will is an evil, resistance to it is noble. The American Revolution was noble and failure to pursue it would have been craven and suicidal.

However evil lurks in warfare directed to resisting injustice even though war directed to imposing injustice is unalloyed evil. Promoting a culture of instant, abject, unquestioning obedience is what the jingoistic Anzac Day ballyhoo is all about, brought to a ridiculous crescendo in the 100th anniversary extravaganza. Even worse, the objective of the Anzac landing was not to resist aggression but to serve British geopolitical ambitions far from the primary theatre and purpose of the war.

.

Dear David,

.

« The Westminster system violates Montesquieu’s checks and balances. »
.

Point well taken, David. I couldn’t agree with you more.

Not surprisingly, it seems there is no perfect system. There is no doubt that the checks and balances of the American Washington system are far more effective (at least in their conception) than those of the Westminster parliamentary system, even in its most highly developed form (including a federal constitution and bicameral parliament).

But despite that, the authors of the Human Rights Atlas 2015 consider that Australia is a “low risk” country and the US a “medium risk” country.

I found this interesting analysis of the “Pros and Cons of the Westminster or Parliamentary System on the internet :

http://www.southsearepublic.org/article/2811/read/pros_and_cons_of_the_westminster_or_parliamentary_system/

I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed by the obsequious attitude of my compatriots vis-à-vis the British monarchy and the “mother country” and its institutions. There has never been much in the way of reciprocity in the relationship. We began as slaves and abandoned by our masters to our sad fate at a crucial moment in our history when in dire straits and most in need of their help and protection. We, on the other hand, have always rushed to their aid whenever they called to arms, regardless of the cause, be it just or not.

As EmperorJulian points put on this thread :

« … the objective of the Anzac landing was not to resist aggression but to serve British geopolitical ambitions far from the primary theatre and purpose of the war. »

Sadly, after all these years, we have still not managed to shake off the heavy yoke of our self-inflicted servitude.

It has been suggested that we might reconsider the possibility of abandoning our constitutional monarchy and setting up a republic at the demise of our dear Queen Elizabeth II.

We’ll just have to wait and see - and hope for the best !

.