Paul.L.
I think you'll find that the true basis for most wars has been over the simple desire for additional territory or resources. They may be marketed as something else but that's the real reason. From Genghis Khan to the Roman Empire and the Crusades and Pax Americana - it's always been the same. Profit.

The reasons armies and laws exist are to maintain and protect the interests of the influential and powerful, not as a way to win a philosophical argument.

Anybody who thinks that the war in Iraq for example, is only about a sudden altruistic urge to spread democracy by one side (considering they've done everything to prevent it up till now) and a desire to forcibly convert others to Islam by the other (equally unlikely) is deluding themselves.

Both sides are simply laying claim to the same resources but neither is going to recruit entire armies on that basis alone are they? Who would willingly die for a commercial sponsor? Would anybody declare war on Finland for example, just to make them lower the drinking age because they personally think it's unfair to Finnish youth?

It's always dressed up as good vs evil - never anything else - because nothing else would work.

Germany and Japan (and Korea) were after territory and resources, East Timor was particularly important to all players because of the gas fields. Do you think those invaders just wanted to convert other countries to their political systems, improve their way of life and then pack up and go home afterwards believing in a job well done? No, they were there for the long haul.

Of course, a military attack on Australia from any country requires a response and I would also go in such circumstances, but economic takeovers apparently don't seem to be so much of a problem these days if they don't threaten our way of life.

Gday PaulL how ya going bloke?
Read your last post.
Agreed with some of it.
Are you eating plumbs at the time you wrote it mate?

professional soldiers fight for their paymaster. they're at work in afghanistan now. they will continue to do as they are told by politicians, as long as there is a reasonable chance they will live to spend their pay.

this has nothing to do with defense of the nation. it is merely political maneuvering for the benefit of pollies.

defense of the nation is a different thing entirely. it is best done by citizens in arms, in a national militia. they should fight on the beaches of australia. in these conditions, it will be clear to all that fighting is not being done for political advantage, but for survival against aggression.

oz can probably equip and train 5 million adults to fire an rpg or ak-47 effectively. if the government provided this training, no one would step ashore without invitation. the government will not, because a national militia is the base for democracy, more feared by politicians than any foreign enemy.

DEMOS “defense of the nation is a different thing entirely. it is best done by citizens in arms,”

I can see it now,

mothers with babies in prams, covered in camouflage netting setting up mortar barrages with the rounds carried among the feeding bottles.
Older citizens maneuvering using their walking frames to jam the tracks of enemy tanks

Whilst I said previously I have no reservations to defending the country who I chose and which chose me,

somehow, I think my best efforts are not up to those of a professional volunteer army.

As for “oz can probably equip and train 5 million adults to fire an rpg or ak-47 effectively.”

I know, I have fired an M16 but it don’t mean I am safe doing so.

“because a national militia is the base for democracy, more feared by politicians than any foreign enemy.”

And who “controls” this “militia”… I recall some nasty incidences in South America with renegade (so called) militia

Gibo,

I've done some searches. I looked at the Australian League of Rights website. Not much info there, but my search came up with something interesting:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/1991/16/1144

I do not generally read the Green Left Weekly and I don't support their cause, but nevertheless some of their material is good reading.

This was another result:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XiPAMuTaQFEC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22south+irian%22&source=web&ots=Ba2ZsA28Zm&sig=az9HuB-d3EWh1FaQMi8Ql1crIjk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA29,M1

I didn't have time to read all this, but given your interest in this matter, you've probably already read these.

There are numerous sources that state this idea but none of them can show a copy of the map. I really would be interested if anybody can find reference to this map that Gibo speaks about. I want to see a reproduction so I can confirm this as fact. No matter how well intentioned a person can be, it's a fact that 30% of what we say is lost when the information is given to another person.

I've tried doing searches for Indonesian sites using the Indonesian "Irian Selatan" (South Irian). My knowledge of Indonesian is limited and I need to have a dictonary with me to translate a lot of words but there might be some info there. No pictures yet though.

Wobbles,

I see you are backtracking rapidly. I asked you to chose from your comprehensive list, the reason why we were involved in ww1, ww2, Korea and East Timor.

You say >> “I think you'll find that the true basis for most wars has … always been the same. Profit.”

Really? Nato involvement in Kosovo and Bosnia? For profit? The US intervention in Somalia? Profit too?

You say >> “Germany and Japan (and Korea) were after territory and resources”

Are you trying to suggest that we were after territory and resources as well, in all these conflicts? Or are you entirely IGNORING our motives for involvement in these conflicts because it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas.

You say >> “The reasons armies and laws exist are to maintain and protect the interests of the influential and powerful, not as a way to win a philosophical argument.”

I see. That’s why there are different laws for rich people, than for the rest of us. Doh!
We have the rule of law in this country, everyone abides by the same laws. Laws exist because humans cannot be relied upon to do the right thing.

Armies exist to defend the interests of the nation. Unfortunately it is an unavoidable fact that countries resort to war for many reasons. The lack of a defence force would just make it more likely that our enemies would resort to violence, because it would be profitable to do so. Ask the British people who lived through the WW2 Blitz whether they felt that the RAAF was defending them or just the fat cats?

Demos,’

you say >> “professional soldiers fight for their paymaster. … they will continue to do as they are told by politicians, as long as there is a reasonable chance they will live to spend their pay.”

This is obscene nonsense. Not only is it FLAT OUT WRONG. It is also highly OFFENSIVE to the men and women of the ADF, some of whom have already given their lives in service to their country. You are not even worthy to comment upon their sacrifice.