<< Blokes love war .>>

<<zest and glamour>>

<<natural aggression and our love for the spirit of warfare.>>

Dear_GECKO..I disagree.

There was only sadness and solemnness, and many tears, lumps in throats, human compassion and love which I saw and experienced.

Zebra's and Lions? good grief. Man you r deluded. I'll grant you one thing, if you applied that to the exploits of one Kalid Bin Al Waleed in the 7th centry, you would be right. He was the senior general of Islam, and it is from HIM that we hear the saying "We love death as you infidels love life". War of agression and acquisition of territory andbooty, including human beings, was applauded and approved of in that particular stream of history.

In our ceremony, 2 silloueted soldiers were placed either side of a white cross.Lest we forget was printed on the cross. The symolism has the following meaning.

-CROSS self sacrifice for a greater cause. Theologically, it was Christ thinking of us, rather than Himself, "I came.. to give my life as a ransom for many"

-SOLDIERS
Practically in the war context, the theological, connects to we giving our lives, to ensure freedom for our loved ones and fellow citizens.

The mixing of the 2 symbols, Cross and Soldier, to not naturally go together. Christ went to the cross in peace, and did not use violence or war to prevent this. Soldiers on the other hand, do that very thing.

So, there is a contradiction in symbolism if the full meaning of each is explored.

Perhaps the Cross at Anzac day services is saying:
"We have a Christian heritage, which includes the idea of self sacrifice, it is worth defending militarily" ?

Personally, I don't really like the Cross being closely associated with war. The Crucifixion of Jesus was violent enough.

There is, however nothing wrong with remembering our fallen comrades, who gave their lives for our freedom. It is also 'ok' to glorify genuine heroism in such defense. It is NOT 'ok' to glorify violence for it's own sake.

Agreeing with something that Boaz says happens so infrequently that I have to mark it, even though I don't have a great deal to add to the story.

>>There is, however nothing wrong with remembering our fallen comrades, who gave their lives for our freedom. It is also 'ok' to glorify genuine heroism in such defense.<<

That's the reality. We owe them, big time.

But on the broader question, it also might be useful to ponder the difference between our own celebration of ANZAC day with similar ceremonies held in Europe, where the fighting actually took place, and where countries were actually occupied by the enemy of the day.

On a spectrum that stretches from sombre reflection on the futility and misery of war, to the glorification of war and those who take part, I would suggest that we are at the opposite end to the Europeans.

Bronwyn,

Only the very sheltered would find university humbling. I have examined the arguments of the left, indeed I once believed in them, which is why I am now such a strident critic. All of the learning I did at uni except for my engineering degree was heavily slanted by leftist ideas. It took me a while to realize that they weren’t teaching without bias. More importantly however I have come to see the myriad of failures that leftist policy has championed.

I see those who blindly follow the lefts PC agenda as narrow minded and unthinking.

As regards the “peace activists” I was referring to their behaviour during the Vietnam conflict, in particular their disgusting behaviour towards veterans.

Fractelle

I found your original post very insensitive, especially in light of the fact that you were happy to honour your own veteran in whatever manner you pleased. Yet you wish to deny the rest of us the same right.

You didn’t, or more likely couldn’t, provide me with any evidence of how exactly ANZAC day today is any different to years ago.

SJF,

Just ask an Aussie veteran how they were treated when they got back. Rather than link me to some rubbish American Veterans against war site. Veterans on this very thread have been subject to the disgusting abuse by the “peace activists”. And these “peace activists” were the ones singing “Ho, Ho, Ho, Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh will win” not give peace a chance.

I’m a passionate but amateur military historian and there are literally dozens of accounts of Aussie soldiers coming back from Vietnam and being abused in the most appalling manner. It is undoubted that the so called “peace activists” blamed soldiers for the war and reacted accordingly. The favorite quote of the easily led and the unthinking was that the soldiers were “baby killers”

On an interesting side note, it’s funny that these anti American types jumped on an American bandwagon in the manner and style of their protesting.

My problem with Anzac Day is the I am supposed to "remember our fallen". I do not remember anyone. As a migrant it was not my country they were defending, claiming to defend nor was it my Empire, "the past is foreign country". Another thing is that no one was defending my (future) freedom because looking back I was inevitable but looking forward from then I was an extremely improbable event disruptable by any past event no matter how trivial.

Nor do I believe that soldiers fight for freedom or any other particular cause, they fight whom, when and how they are told to do their beliefs are purely coincidental. They, in short, obey orders. Nor are they particular paragons of virtue but a pepper and salt mixture of good and evil.

I suppose the real problem with Anzac Day is that war tends to be controversal, and if it was not it deserves to be. Controversy tends not to unite but polarize. Not a good day.

PaulL."The favorite quote of the easily led and the unthinking was that the soldiers were “baby killers”"

A lot of them were baby killers. It was an apt description. Not all soldiers were like this, but at the end of the day, the war was one of choice, not necessity and the people there were being slaaughtered by foreigners.

Brian Holden et al :

I have analysed the For and Against arguments of Brian Holden's epic : " it is time Anzac Day was replaced ".

As a whole, counting the number of repeats, rejoinders and repartee's, some of the contributors made to reinforce their arguments, the final judgement is as follows:

. 75 % referred to Gallipoli as the main reason for Anzac Day

. 50 % claimed Anzac Day stood for the glorificatrion of War

. 50 % claimed they were right about their " facts ".

. 30 % reffered to Australian servicemen as ' supermen'.

. 16 % brought ' conscientious objectors / ugly australian into the debate

. 16 % were offended at the reception afforded soldiers returning from Vietnam.

. 16 % brought Religion into the debate.

. 13 % brought Indigenous cause / people /contribution into the debate.

. 12 % argued combatants of WWI were only teenagers and therefore immature.

. 12 % were ambivalent.

. 12 % stated there was no ambiguity

Note: OLO has achieved it's purpose. It stirred a hornet's nest. Pity we will have to wait another 12 months to vent our spleen.

Jacinta