I think you're being a little harsh on david f, StG. He's certainly right that thousands of people were killed for no objectively good reason on 9/11 and at Hill 60, but also dead wrong to reduce the 'Anzac spirit' to imperialistic militarism.

While Australian troops were certainly used as cannon fodder by the 'Mother Country' in WW1, their actions - psrticularly in the defeat at Gallipoli - are symbolically very powerful in the Australian psyche. Arguably, Gallipoli and Anzac are two of the most dominant symbols of Australian nationalism, which is celebrated in the national ritual of Anzac Day. Indeed, Anzac has been described as Australia's secular national religion.

Being an old peacenik, I've never participated in it much, but I have respectfully attended the odd Dawn Service and watched lots of marches - not to mention playing the ritual 2-up. Over the past few decades I've coincidentally lived in towns with strong military presences, including where I live now, which was important during WW2, so I guess over time (and given my former profession) I've come to appreciate its cultural centrality to Australian society.

It's easy to dismiss Anzac Day as a celebration of warmongering, but it has far more meaning to Australians than that. Perhaps david f could do a bit of reading on the subject - the 'Anzac Spirit' has been examined and dissected prolifically from every conceivable angle in historical and cultural analysis.

I think that david f's point about unnecessary slaughter of thousands of people is quite valid, but his facile analogy misses the essence of the 'Anzac Spirit'.

I denigrate nobody's bravery or sacrifice. Those who carried out 9/11 were brave men sacrificing their lives for something they found worthwhile. The same goes for those brave men who tunneled under Hill 60. I am making the judgment that neither should have happened. I am thinking in both cases of those who were killed.

There should have been a public outcry in the countries arming for WW1. Instead there was in many cases wild enthusiasm as they went to war. Muslim preachers and ideologues have encouraged Jihad. Many Muslims think of the 9/11 killers as heroes.

What are we doing to prevent another war? What are we doing about the arms trade, the population explosion which creates more people to fight over the same resources and all the other actions which make war more likely? I would like to see efforts to prevent new wars rather than commemorate the spirit of those who fought the past ones.

Agree with all of your comments CJ on this thread; albeit reluctantly after sending up my viewpoints and Individuals regarding National Service in which we both know what is occurring with a high percentage of 15-18 year olds around the country and with technology the way it is; the next generation following. Let us see how many of these kids are still around and functioning mentally well, without National Service or some type of program, in about ten years time.

Sorry I remain offended by the concept you put forward David.
WW1 was a wast in fact it was fought because of too much power in a Royal family that ruled both sides.
Silly almost willful murderers sent good men to die without regard.
that is what anzac cove is about.
But those dead men did not come near the hate filled monsters behind 9/11.
Germans shot and killed hundreds of unarmed women, children, and old men, they dug the same mine holes with the same intent.
You saw a story based on fact, not the true whole awful story.
This country has gained so very much from our loss.
We no longer bend our knee to one family, our leaders ,church and army are not from an class hardly capable of wiping its own nose.
But we lost the very best, if those brave people had been allowed to continue to have children and live we would have an even better country.
War is horrible, but laying down our sides weapons is slavery.

I'm with you, David. the fact that one lot of killings was "justified" by beng given the imprimatur of a State doesn't change the ethical situation one iota.

It seems that the basis for StG and Belly to disagree is that one was conducted within a battlefield under the "rules of war" while the other was a surprise attack on a civilian target in the absence of a formal declaration of war between two States, but in the presence of a known condition of hostility between the US and a large group of Stateless people. IOW, they are asserting the rights of a State to commit atrocities and to determine where and when atrocities may occur. I reject that. Does Fred the Worker really care whether he gets blown up in a hole in the gound or in a tower above it?

The trench warfare of the First World War was only ever going to end due to negotiation at the highest level. The fact that did not occur until the needless deaths of nearly 20 million people is not an endorsement of State authority, but a condemnation of a failure of States to protect their populace.

A State should be better able to take steps to prevent such atrocities and to be magnanimous toward those who choose to provoke it. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the biggest kid at school should have carte blanche to make all the other kids do as he says and to act atrociously in response to provocation.

Do Belly and StG believe that should be the case? I don't really think so.

I'm quite shocked by Belly's stated view, actually. Back when Unions actually stood for something, Unionists were very active in condemning warfare of any kind, even going to the trouble of refusing to load munitions and such. It seems that they now see themselves as part of the ruling elite, rather than as representatives of ordinary men who are likely to be sent to die in such atrocities.

Rightio, I sorta GET the 9/11/WW1 link, though it's like comparing the Hubble Telescope to the LHC. Yeah, they're both for science and universe but the application and story behind them isn't even on the same end of the science department. Moving on...

I think you're HORRENDOUSLY naive David. We war, that is what we do. We have done it from the dawn of man and will continue to do it till we become extinct. You and me personally can go to war, why do you think the courts are full to over flowing with law suits, why do you think we have jails filled to over flowing with people who declared war on someone else?. Right now, you've declared war on my ideas. You come to my house and assault my partner I WILL declare war on you. Governments and entities declaring war on each other is no different, it's just that the scale is different and the reasons change. Right now, we are at war with Islam, tomorrow it will be resources.

I bet at some stage in your life you've considered how to deal with conflict with another. Can I take him physically, do I have the funds to sue, and I capable of various physical necessities if the need arises?. We've all done it. That, my friend, is you preparing for war.

I agree with Belly on the last sentence too.