keith,

*) nothing i wrote comes close to warranting your over the top reaction.

*) i wasn't for a minute trying to be disrespectful to or condescending to oggy. i was disrespectful to you, because i do not appreciate being characterised, and gratuitously, as one of a type, one of an ilk.

*) i genuinely admire the courage, and largely the spirit, of those who go to war, and i sympathise with them. i agree with those who say that i cannot know what it is like. i know i cannot. veterans know about the horrors of war the way few others in australia can.

*) but that does not grant veterans a special status to declare the purpose or the morality of a war. oggy is entitled to his opinion, and i never for a minute suggested otherwise. but his being a veteran does not make his opinion more valid. it also doesn't make it less valid: i never claimed or implied this.

there is a common political trick, to characterise those who are against a war as actually being "against the troops" fighting that war. sometimes it's honest confusion of the two, and one of the troubles with the original article is that confusion. but more often than not, it's a deliberate political ploy. and commonly, veterans and soldiers are paraded to support a war, so that to object to what the soldier says is easily interpreted as an attack on the soldier.

i wasn't attacking oggy, merely the presumption that his opinion on the politics of vietnam war had some predetermined weight. that's it.

I thought keith's reaction was way OTT too - in fact, I figured he'd been imbibing a bit too much when he let fly at bushbasher. While he's rescinded somewhat, his reaction to bushbasher's quite reasonable comment remains grossly overstated, and deserves an apology.

Given that keith quite often posts in a similarly intemperate style, I'm quite surprised to hear him claim to be a pacifist.

cj

It's you who drinks ... remember

bb

yeah yeah whatever

1."WWI peace movement - drawing up to 100,000-strong crowds to its public rallies"
Dear SJF please provide some evidence of this.
Response:"the main source for WWI anti-war/conscription rally numbers is ‘The Wobblies at War’ by Frank Cain (1993)....The active anti-conscription movement"
Evidence for the peace movement become anti-war/anti conscription rally numbers which then become evidence of the anti-conscription numbers. Nowhere did I deny strong opposition to conscription, but the call for conscription resulted from the horrific casualty numbers suffered by Australian volunteers in 1915 and 1916 and the perceived need for replacement(Australia was the only Allied nation to have a volunteer army which incidentally was the best paid). The two failed plebiscites were held at the end of 1916 and 1917.
2."Also, the prolific presence of WWI memorials around the countryside is not an accurate measure of the level of support for the troops in WWI. Rather, they indicate the post-war political and financial clout of the RSL and the determination by post-war Australian governments to expunge virtually all traces of the anti-war movement"
I was not referring to the number of memorials but to the numbers of WW1 dead whose names were recorded on the memorials. These were volunteers who showed their support for the War .
3.Some Australian Statistics
First World War 4/8/1914 -- 11/11/1918
416,809 enlisted AIF (includes AFC) -- 13.43 percent of the white male population and probably about half the eligible men.
331,000 enlisted and served overseas
61,720 died (all causes)
155,000 wounded (all services)
4,044 taken POW, 397 died while captive.
4. Some other figures
"By the end of World War I almost 1 in 4 of the total male population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had joined, over five million men."
Of these approximately 2 million were conscripts; thus the UK volunteers were approximately 15 percent of the total male population, a similar figure to Australia's volunteer level.

People, you are arguing about war history here, the first casualty of war is truth. It has only been in the last couple of years that we have learned that the Japanese bombed Darwin. It was not once, but many times, also Broome and other towns were bombed too. HMAS Sydney files still have not been released either. You will only find the truth from those that were there, and WW1 blokes are not talking anymore. History of it has been changed to suit the political landscape since. The Vietnamese Vets are still here,, well some of us, and no one wants to listen to us either, God forbid the truth might come out if someone actually listened.
But then again, you put 3 Vietnam Veterans in a room and you will have 5 different arguments and 10 different opinions instantly. Self included. And I still believe in the domino theory to this day, no one has proven it wrong,,,,, or right!

Blairbar

I took issue with your use of the words ‘overwhelming public support’ for the war. To me, a war in which 62% (almost 2-thirds) of eligible men did NOT enlist does not constitute overwhelming public support.

Also, if the support was ‘overwhelming’, why the need for the War Precautions Act? Why the jailings and deportations? Why the banning of anti-war and anti-conscription material? Why the white feather brigades? Why the recruitment marches? Why was the Queensland Government Printing Office (the only state government openly opposed to conscription) shut down and placed under military guard?

These are not the actions of a government whose involvement in a war has ‘overwhelming public support’.

bushbasher

'... there is a common political trick, to characterise those who are against a war as actually being "against the troops" fighting that war.'

Yes, there is. But why should anyone feel shame for being 'against the troops'? For reasons that continue to escape me, holding troops to account for the horrors of the wars they willingly participate in is perceived as the ultimate in immorality.

Yet the main reason that politicians keep declaring wars is because they know there is always a ready supply of morally naive, eager young warriors to fight them.