Dear Wooly,

And who exactly was using this tactic?

Old Men?

Dear Wooly,

War occurs as a result of a political decision -
usually a decision by older men that younger men should
fight for what the older men believe to be worth
fighting for. There can be no war unless the leaders of at
least two societies with conflicting interests decide
that they prefer war to any alternative means of
settling their differences. The soldiers themselves go to
war - frequently not knowing what they are fighting for, and
usually terrified of meeting the enemy in battle - because
a legitimate political authority is determined on a course
of action. It cannot be sustained without a strong
political authority that can persuade people to risk their
lives for a purpose beyond themselves.

Many factors may influence the decision to go to war -
the personalities of the leaders; the influence of nationalist,
religious, or other idealogies, the extent of popular
support for war, the anticipated economic gains or loses; the
ambitions or advice of the military; perceptions or
misperceptions of the other side's motives and intentions;
theexpected reaction of the international community; and of course,
expectations about the likely outcome of the conflict.

Foxy, "War occurs as a result of a political decision - usually a decision by older men that younger men should fight for what the older men believe to be worth fighting for."

It was the strong women's vote that kept 'Ming' Menzies in power and sent young men to Vietnam. Youths who were not allowed a vote nor entry to a bar (and most would never have 'known' a woman).

It would be very easy to put a case that it is women who have the greatest interest in war to protect the status quo that women value to make their nest, raise children and have a predictable income to suit. It can be argued that women coldly use men to protect their interests. That men are disposable too.

However there are all manner of wars. Some do not require hardware and can be waged for life. In the microcosm it is women who are so fiercely protective of their territory that they are prone to rejecting 'his' mother, his family and ultimately the father of their children too.

Just saying..

Young women reject the crazy self-defeating mantras and control of feminists, particularly of the radical feminist and so often lesbian leftist persuasion who are crazy enough to bite themselves as the saying goes.

Feminism was on the way out last century. How many irascible, controlling, self-centered, mercenary old sour-sops can young women put up with and why should they anyway?

Besides, young women can now see the full life circle that feminists like Germaine Greer, Julia Whatshername and so on go through and that is not so attractive at all. It will be a very long cold day in Hell before any of those educated, middle class feminists give a hoot about ordinary women. Greer and others despise and put down the very women they claim to represent and have ridden to the top.

otb,

Robert Menzies kept power because he did everything he could
to highten the fear of "Reds under the beds" in this
country. It was an effective way of keeping power.
And of course "The Petrov Affair" helped a great deal.

As for Australia's involvememt in the Vietnam War?
Requests came for Australia's involvement from the US and
the government of South Korea. Australian participation in the war
was gradual - troop numbers built up over a number of years as
Viet Cong insurgencies increased. Australian soldiers has a
lot of experience fighting in the jungle. They distinguished
themselves at the famous battle in Long Tan in 1966. The last
Australian soldier left Vietnam in 1971. A large number of
Australians fighting in Vietnam were National Service
conscripts. Apart from Australia having the American alliance
through ANZUS and SEATO treaties, the fear of communism in
Australia, the geography of the region and the domino theory,
as well as Australia's expertise in jungle warfare -
all played a vital part in Australia's involvement in the
Vietnam war.

cont'd ...

otb,

You are in no position to speak on behalf of either
young, middle-aged, or older women. None of us are.
Because as I stated earlier -
a "One size fits all," approach sinply does not fit.
It doesn't allow for individual differences
and the complexity
of this topic is such that as I keep stating - each
individual has to find their own
meaning and relevance (if any) to
it in their own lives. It's quite rude that you don't even
seem capable of getting our former PM's name correctly.
As a recent add on television tells us -
"Nobody should be treated like crap," because of who they are!"

Foxy,

No weasel words please, just honesty and facts.

Robert Menzies kept power because women voted for him in their hordes.

It was long, long, after the body bags were coming back and well, well after student demonstrations that the women voters got slightly cold feet, but almost to the bitter end they still voted in larger numbers for the side promoting Vietnam commitment and more troops.

I will add that it was women who voted in their hordes for Joh Bjelke Peterson too. Anyone here remember how Joh treated those uni students who obtained a permit for a peaceful walk in Roma street in Brisbane, sat down peacefully and were then brutalised by police, including police cadets and all with numbers removed?

It is also because feminist bullies always had to occupy the moral high ground and trash men (and women too!) that they faded out last century.

If you want the truth, it was men who were opposed to Vietnam.