RObert,

There is a lot we could review against modern conditions and expectations, but that is inappropriate and becomes something else apart from commemoration, I believe.

If it was my choice I would never have have made commemoration such a big issue. Bob Hawke did that. Some of it was to keep veterans reassured while restructuring changes were being made to Veterans' Affairs. Some here might be aware of the changes wrought by the Hawke-Keating government, and topical issues (hard fought) for veterans themselves during that time.

Commemoration generally speaking, is a useful tactic for governments - cakes and circuses. Photo opportunities and front pages for politicians.

None of what I have said should be taken as any diminished view of veterans, their dependents and the sacrifices made and lives changed forever.

Whatever comes of the centenary commemoration it will be about politicians. That is not saying anything about the government or the opposition, it is just acknowledging a fact. Lets hope that instead of so many dinners and functions for the big knobs, more money and not just ribbons is handed to those who are entitled to it.

It is also inevitable that activists will be trying to hitch a ride on the occasion to further their own agendas.

However I believe that at this stage of proceedings all is going well, which should be taken as meaning that the focus will be on the veterans and their families as it should be.

Hopefully it will go off as the Royal visit just did: civilised, decent and peaceful. We need some good memories and there is no harm at all in getting that glow from pride in those who made the sacrifices.

I just love replying to Beach.

Little Buddy asks <<So the question is rather should ANZAC Day be kept as it traditionally has been and was on 25 April 2015, or do the posters here believe it should change and if so, how specifically?>>

There could be a problem or two if we kept Anzac Day as it was on 25th April 1915. For starters It would not be a good look if we were to land 4,000 Aussie and Kiwi troops at Anzac Cove in Turkey before dawn on the 25th, guns blazing. The Turks might get a wee bit upset, and start shoot'n back. Then we'd most likely need more than a 84 page report with a couple of references to ethnics to placate those Muslim Turks. however Beach, you could put it to Biggles Abbott it could prove to be the perfect opp for the Mad Monk to try out his $24 billion worth of folly, those new toys for the boys! You never know, Abbotts got some sillier ideas! LOL

<<The Greens delight in dividing the community into identity groups and playing favorites--hence the very PC recommendations of the ANZAC report.>> SPUD can you please point out which of those committee members were Greens? LOL

RObert,
You and I disagree a little.

There is nothing in the sweeping statement of Foxy's that could be taken as racist. It was purely intended to disparage Australia.

Susie,
You certainly have a right to your opinion and any box you put me in is your business. However when you and Foxy make statements that, by misrepresentation and without foundation, denigrate Australia I will strongly object and challenge your view. That is not bullying and I do not gang with or for anyone.

If you will not or, most likely, cannot present argument to support your stated point of view you are to be seen as one who lies in order to denigrate Australia. Who will accept that you speak the truth from hereon?

It is the little lies that lead to bigger ones and misrepresentations, like yours and Foxy's, that lead to nasty rumours getting started.

Typo, it should have been 2014. Meaning continuing the tradition as it has been in this country and as we know it, with the commemoration in 2015 reflecting that tradition. Most would have realised what was intended, however it was good to correct it too.

I did not mention 1915. That was Paul's.

Back to the thread and comments.

Banjo has a distinct and cognitive make-up.
A hostile and attributional bias - a kind
of paranoia. He attributes hostile intention
to others. His problem is he like some others
perceives provocation where it does not exist.
That's to justify his aggressive behaviour.
It takes a special breed of person to try to
cause this sort of slur to others.
However, as he's been told -
by giving documented facts and experiences
that some people have gone through - is not
a denigration of Australia. It's simply an expose of
some attitudes that do exist in this country.
Most Australians do not share those attitudes
and they are the ones that have made this country
so great. As Saltpetre, Suse, myself, and others
have pointed out many times on this forum.

cont'd ...

Just a reminder:

"We are one but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, You are, We are Australian!"