I think the author needs to take a long lie down. He is himself trying to hijack Remembrance Day for to promote his own political agenda.

For me, Remebrance Day is not about The rights and wrongs of the wars, but respecting the those soldiers who died for their country, whichever country that might be. Some volunteered, some were conscripted. Some believed, some did not. But many died. And the majority were very young, barely more than boys many of whom probably didn't fully understand what they were fighting for. It's about anyone who has died in conflict, anywhere, anytime. It's about remembering these people, understanding the horrors of war that they went through, and trying not to let it happen in the future.

It's certainly not a stage for getting up to spout politics, in the guise of a history lesson. That is simply the worst form of opportunism. The author is similar to John Howard in his scrambling to make political capital out of the misfortune of others.

And a note to the author. Unfortunately there will be wars whether there is capitalism or not. Wars can come from all sorts of disagreements whether they be economic, religious,political or even because of ambitious dictators. I suggest that the author's own fundamental and seemingly set-in-stone ideological position is one of the starting points that has led to conflict in the past.

The author gets rather carried away with “defence” of capital, “Australia’s ruling class” and “cannon fodder”: he seems to be still fighting his own class war. And, Australia’s defence against the Japanese doesn’t deserve his criticism.

But, if we drop his “defence of capital”, his criticism of Australia’s involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is certainly supportable, even if they are not re-runs of WW1 and WW11 as he seems to think.

None of the ‘little’ wars mentioned have or had anything to do with Australia. Korea could be called a ‘draw’; Vietnam was lost, and Iraq and Afghanistan are being lost. Australians were killed, and will continue to be killed in Afghanistan, for absolutely no reason affecting Australia or our region.

But, to suggest that silly, incompetent, Australian politicians are sacrificing lives for capital and for imperialist motives is sick, as is the idea that it is some “ruling class” that celebrates Remembrance Day.

Australia has had no real reason to become embroiled in any conflict since WW11. Australian troops should be used to defend Australia (if the need arises) in our own region. Anzac Day and look-at me ponces walking the Kadoka trail are passé and boring.

But for a frustrated socialist to use the unnecessary deaths of Australians to rabbit on about ruling classes, imperialism and other such left wing nonsense is downright disgusting

One may argue the merits of waging war, but to assert that there will be war until we rid the world of capitalism is farcical. By his words, Passant implies that capitalism causes war. Who is he trying to dupe?

There have always been wars, and it's irrational to think anything could change this fact of life on planet Earth. Men have always fought... be it over the love of a woman, property, territory, politics, or even unkind comments about their dog. It's our nature, our blood. In truth, it's the nature of all living things.

And men have always formed alliances for protecting their common values. Countries have always maintained armies to be used for self-defense of the citizenry. From time to time, it's useful to test one's army in battle, if only to protect the alliance with one's neighbors and demonstrate resolve. The history of mankind bears this out.

Countries whose sons and daughters have fallen in battle have always been honored, and rightly so. But for Passant to denegrate the fallen simply because they weren't fighting for HIS cause is unconscionable.

Phil

‘And the majority were very young, barely more than boys many of whom probably didn't fully understand what they were fighting for.’

This is what always astounds me about the never-ending war remembrance machine. Why should such a morally naïve person be honoured as pivotal to our country’s narrative and identity?

Pity is one thing. Honour is another. However, most war-remembrance mystique deliberately blends the two together, so that we are unable to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Daisym,

'Countries have always maintained armies to be used for self-defense of the citizenry.'

More often than not, these armies have been used AGAINST their own citizenry. Ultimately, the real purpose of armies is social control.

Also, it's a myth that war is part of human nature. Conflict is part of human nature, but war is not. War is a highly organised, amoral institution of power that came relatively late to human affairs.

"..it's irrational to think anything could change this fact of life [war] on planet Earth...it's the nature of all living things."

Yeah, so let's just give up on all this wishy washy peace crap and accept we're not up to rising above it all. We should just cut to the chase and start invading weaker countries to take stuff we want for ourselves. Sound about right?



The article raises some valid points about the nature of conflict but gets a bit narrow towards the end. It isn't all about capitalism; ego and sheer bloody-mindedness are also involved. Though a world at peace is a utopian ideal - a bit like Clean Up Australia Day - it's an ideal worth working for.

Phil Matimein

"I think the author needs to take a long lie down. He is himself trying to hijack Remembrance Day for to promote his own political agenda."

There are many who share John's concerns at the increasingly jingoistic manner in which Australia Day, ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day are now being celebrated. If these widespread and perfectly legitimate concerns aren't raised on the occasion of the actual celebration, when are they to be raised? They won't gain traction in our fickle media at any other time of the year.

I don't see John's article as a highjacking of Remembrance Day at all. It is possible, and indeed necessary, to remember and honour the sacrifice of these young lives, and yet at the same time question why they died and why their deaths are being celebrated the way they are. The soldiers, who soon learnt for themselves how dispensable their lives really were as they lay forgotten in far off foul and rotting trenches, would expect it of us.

The accusation levelled at John, of highjacking the day to promote a particular political agenda, can equally be made against those who use the day to recreate a selective and revisionist view of war and conquest.

"Wars can come from all sorts of disagreements whether they be economic, religious, political or even because of ambitious dictators."

I doubt you could list many wars that weren't related to the acquisition of resources. Most are fought ostensibly on political and religious grounds - soldiers wouldn't die for them otherwise - but the real reasons can usually be traced back to much less noble causes.

Mr. Right

"Korea could be called a ‘draw’; Vietnam was lost, and Iraq and Afghanistan are being lost."

What wars are ever won? No wars produce winners. And as John very pertinently reminds us, it is the average everyday working class people who bear the brunt of loss.