KatieO

‘SJF, … If you have a problem with government services, then it might be prudent to take it up with the appropriate government department, or your local member, not harangue war vets over their entitlements.’

Oh yeah … Can’t you just see Veterans Affairs writing back to me:

“Dear Madam,

Thank you for your thoughtful letter regarding our wasteful expenditure on non-means-tested welfare to war veterans who are rolling in money.

You’re absolutely right of course, and I will take this matter straight to both the Minister for Defence and the President of the RSL. I am in no doubt that they will take every measure to ensure that all wasteful military spending is not allowed to continue.

This of course will mean a considerable decrease in both their incomes, due to having to slash a billion or so from the DoD coffers, but I am sure they will be more than willing to see that justice is done.

Thank you for bringing this urgent matter to our attention.

Yours sincerely,
Ms Dogsbody
(Temp admin assistant on school work experience)

On behalf of the Honourable Minister for Veterans Affairs”

Passy,

Warmonger: a person or agency that advocates war or tries to bring about a war.

Well the Boers started the Boer war, The Germans started WW1 and WW2 so tell me how that makes Churchill a warmonger? Failed efforts in WW1 doesn’t make someone a war monger. That’s a ridiculous premise.

So you are suggesting that it wasn’t the Germans fault that they started WW2. is that what you are saying?

Churchill did not support Stalins’ takeover of Eastern Europe. But that is irrelevant anyway. The Soviets took Eastern Europe by force of arms and had no intention of giving it back.

I see Mao and Stalin were capitalists, won’t their comrades be surprised when you tell them. You seem to be continually ignoring the fact that what you call socialism has never actually existed for more than a moment. Communism inevitably leads to dictatorship or oligarchy, it always has.

Marxist guidelines studiously ignore the realities of history and human nature.

If you can’t tell the difference between the Soviets military parades and our remembrance of our war dead then your critical faculties are obviously inactive or non existent.

SJF,

Yes we could have chosen to make war on the Soviets. We would have lost, many more people would have died, and the Soviets might have taken more of Europe than they already had. Some choice. So you are trying to suggest that we chose to fight WW2 when we didn’t really need to, is that right? Because that would be a truly stupid suggestion.

I consider it brainwashing to be a soft leftie who believes that we weren’t justified in fighting WW1 and WW2. I think that takes a real leap of faith that only a brainwashed person could take.

The benefits of not being bombed flat tend to be filed under "the bleedin' obvious", SJF.

>>your portrayal of Ireland as a nation that somehow profited from its neutrality in WWII shows a woeful ignorance of Irish history.<<

But it was more the morality of their stance that doesn't bear examination. De Valera was not simply anti-English, he was blatantly pro-Nazi. Both he and the president Douglas Hyde made a point of recording their sorrow at Hitler's death.

Fortunately there were many tens of thousands of individual Irish volunteers who defied their leaders' opportunistic stance, and fought for the side they believed held the moral high ground.

Which is particularly interesting, in the light of your insistence that wars are entirely about power, not morality.

There was, after all, no coercion on these brave folk to fight for the allies, but they chose to do so. If you think about it, it would have been very much easier for them to justify fighting against the English, would it not?

Can you perhaps explain this differently?

Meanwhile the IRA, of course, showed their true colours by fighting for the Nazis, both openly and as terrorists.

Albie,

I was wondering if you knew that your quote re “no greater love” comes from the bible. Many contend that war = the antithesis of love. Yet the very words of Jesus are frequently associated with war memorials to affirm the sacrifice of soldiers in war.

(John 15:13):

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends

The verse is not a justification for war, which I think your post captures really well.

Actually, to put these words in the biblical context, Jesus was addressing his disciples, and this was immediately preceeded by:

(John 15:12)

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you

Jesus is asking his future Church to understand that discipleship will require sacrifices, to the point of death, and prophesying his own impending death.

ANZAC day can help us along the path of understanding sacrificial love, with Jesus being the epitome. A soldier’s death in war is the human equivalent. If I cross-reference this passage with:

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

And then contrast that with the next verse,

John 10:12 “The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away.”

Jesus died for all, not just Australians, and went to his death voluntarily, on behalf of his flock, who belong to him.

Another passage helps understand motivation, Romans 5:7 :

“For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die”.

Our ANZACs were prepared to lay down their lives, for their friends, their families and their descendents. We are the “good man” that our ANZACS died for.

At our church service yesterday, the minister talked about “Chocolate Soldiers” in the context of Christian ministry. These are the ones who melt when the heat is on. I’d rather distinguish myself in the “service” in the same spirit as the ANZACs , not the “hired hand”.

katie0: << ANZAC day can help us along the path of understanding sacrificial love, with Jesus being the epitome. >>

That's the best reason anybody's posted yet for dispensing with Anzac Day.

Anzac Day's about national identity and the stupidity of war. It's about remembering the fallen, then getting pissed and playing two-up with your mates.

If it's allowed to be hijacked by Christian nutters it will rapidly lose its real meaning and become just another holiday, like Easter or Xmas.

Katie, how nice that you still believe in the tooth fairy but you should really have watched the first part of the story of chemical warfare used in WW1 last Friday night. It might have changed your mind about the sense of war that you trumpet.

Now to set the record straight and for no other reason than I have been slandered by a fool.

My German family arrived here in 1844. My English and Welsh families in 1880 and one, only one, grandfather came in 1920 as a 15 year old solo child.

None of them were assisted migrants but the Germans were refugees from the Prussian invasion and persecution of Lutherans of the times. That makes me about a 6th or 7 generation Australian of free settler stock. Kapeesh Katie dear?

Now get over this war thing. All it does is kill people.

And Paul, Iraq had a population of 12 million children under 16, they had no real army, no navy and certainly no airforce.

So all we were doing is bombing children and unarmed civilians who did not fight. YOu cannot blame it all on the sunni/shi'ite divide because they all pretty much lived together until we invaded the joint.

The thing about Iraq is that it had not harmed us, was not going to harm us, was not about to invade anyone nor destroy anyone.

They were and are starving to death.