*it will be about resources...

Dear Belly,

I do not think of the perpetrators of 9/11 as hate filled murderers as differentiated from those on our side. I think of them as motivated by idealism and feeling that idealism was justified even though it resulted in the deaths of innocent people. I don't think of our bomber crews as hate filled murderers, but when they drop bombs on a city they kill babies and others who are just victims because they are on the wrong side. The other side may think of them as hate filled murderers, but we know they're not.

Actually Gallipoli had a genuine reasonable military objective. It was to open a way to supply Russia and keep it in the war without total reliance on the northern sea route which was subject to German submarines. Had it been competently carried out and successful there would have been no Lenin taking power, and the war would have been over earlier.

Yes, StG, I have had conflict in my life. I believe we can resolve conflicts without going to war. To equate all conflict with going to war is not reasonable. When I heard the news that the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan I felt a great surge of joy. A while later I realised that I had felt great joy at the news that a large number of people were killed. The war had caused me, li'l old good guy, me, to become hate-filled. That's one thing war does. It sets up your side as the good guys whose heroism at killing large numbers of the bad guys even though some of the bad guys are babies is justified.

President Obama has set as an objective the abolition of nuclear weapons. I doubt if he can do it, but he is trying. I think that effort is more worthwhile than the heroism of war. I would like to see more effort in that direction.

Davidf

>> I believe we can resolve conflicts without going to war. To equate all conflict with going to war is not reasonable. When I heard the news that the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan I felt a great surge of joy. A while later I realised that I had felt great joy at the news that a large number of people were killed. The war had caused me, li'l old good guy, me, to become hate-filled. That's one thing war does. It sets up your side as the good guys whose heroism at killing large numbers of the bad guys even though some of the bad guys are babies is justified. <<

I understand completely where you are coming from. At first glance, your opening post appeared to be a poor analogy - one atrocity was performed during a time of supposed 'peace', the other during formally declared war. Neither actions advance humans towards anything approaching civilisation, no matter how often we declare ourselves as such - doesn't make it true.

I'm with Stephen Hawking - if aliens are anything like us I wouldn't want to meet them.

I agree with david f that it is unreasonable to equate all conflict with warfare - indeed, it's another facile analogy. To disagree with someone's ideas is not equivalent to "declaring war" on them, and any interpersonal conflict at the individual level is generally far better resolved via negotiation than through aggression.

David is also quite correct when he asks:

<< 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? >>

It seems that Australia hasn't learnt a great deal from the unnecessary sacrifice of far too many of our young people in fighting other people's wars. We still send our military off to far-flung places to risk their lives on behalf of our latter-day 'imperial' masters.

While I think that david f doesn't appreciate the wider meanings of Anzac to his adopted society, he is absolutely correct to question the stupidity of war. Incidentally, there's quite a good article that touches on these issue over at New Matilda: http://newmatilda.com/2010/04/26/our-national-day .

Didn't say it was better to fight it out...

Dear CJ Morgan,

I read the article you referred to. It contained:

"Once the venerable core of Anzac Day rituals, by the 1980s, the British had become "the bad guys", reduced to the stereotype of the pompous Pom — hedgehog-moustached officers who spoke in plummy accents and held nothing but contempt for uncouth Australians — the perfect antidote to the problem of Anzac’s Imperial past. In popular culture, Anzac Day was slowly being reinvented as an exclusively Australian odyssey."

That is what is wrong with Anzac Day. Exalting the nation almost invariably implies putting down those who are not part of the nation. Apparently to properly absorb the Anzac spirit it is necessary to put down the Poms. They are human. We are human. Every human on this earth is human.

When I became a citizen of Australia Michael Lavarch spoke at the citizenship ceremony. He said that Australia was the best country on earth. I chose to live in Australia, obey its laws, be part of the society which is not the same as the political nation and in other ways be a good citizen. That does not mean I must think Australia is the best nation on earth.

What does one mean when he says his nation is the 'best nation on earth'? Does it mean they have the lowest infant mortality, the highest level of education or superiority in some other defined manner. No! It means he feels in some way superior to others who happen to be citizens of some nation which has different political boundaries.

I like Australia. It is a great place to live. However, because I like Australia gives me no license to put myself above anybody else in any other country. I do not have the Anzac spirit.